RUCCI When it gets tough at the PAFC blame the SANFL.

[Apachebulldog]

Good one Rooch when it gets tough at PAFC just deflect from the real issue ie their inept performance inept administration and fickle cupboard supporters and just blame the SANFL.



http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 6114997535

[Jim05]

Give the license back to them, then we can wash our hands of them and Demetriou can pack them off to Hobart.
Its everyone elses fault that they get 2 cats and a Dog to their matches, where is this massive support they promised when they entered the comp?

[Grahaml]

So the SANFL should take over Port. Rucci should be applauding the SANFL for taking long needed action to correct a business that has performed horribly for many years now. Doesn't take a genius to realise the Crows are struggling as well right now, on and off the field with the exact same issues Port have, only the Crows aren't making it worse with poor management. If anything the calm and measured management of the Crows is making sure the bleeding is limited while the stadium and performance issues are being resolved.

[RustyCage]

Lets not let the facts get in the way of a good story

http://www.sanfl.com.au/news/sanfl_news/1540/

SANFL News
15 AUG 2011
SA FOOTBALL COMMISSION STATEMENT
The following is to be attributed to John Olsen, Chairman of the South Australian Football Commission:

In response to a story posted today on Adelaide Now website (‘SANFL plotting another Port Adelaide Football Club coup’, Monday 15th August) I feel it important to explain the governance process that relates to the appointment of directors of both the AFL clubs in accordance with their respective constitutions.

In October of each year, a Nominations Committee sits to discuss vacancies and invite nominations. This committee is made up of the CEO and Chairman of the relevant club and the CEO and Chairman of the Commission.
Then, following the AGM of the club and based on the recommendations of the Nominations Committee, the Commission appoints the most qualified nominees to the available directors’ positions.
It is the responsibility of the boards – and the boards alone - of the two AFL clubs to appoint persons to the positions of CEO and Chairman.
With respect to the club’s brand name, the Commission is not considering removing the name Port Adelaide and it cannot do so without the approval of the club which again is a matter that is contained in the Port Adelaide Constitution.

I trust this clarification will prevent further speculation that can only be harmful to the Port Adelaide brand.

[The Sleeping Giant]

So is Rucci the Andrew Bolt of sports journalism?

[HOORAY PUNT]

[b][b]Lets not let the facts get in the way of a good story[/b][/b]
http://www.sanfl.com.au/news/sanfl_news/1540/

SANFL News
15 AUG 2011
SA FOOTBALL COMMISSION STATEMENT
The following is to be attributed to John Olsen, Chairman of the South Australian Football Commission:

In response to a story posted today on Adelaide Now website (‘SANFL plotting another Port Adelaide Football Club coup’, Monday 15th August) I feel it important to explain the governance process that relates to the appointment of directors of both the AFL clubs in accordance with their respective constitutions.

In October of each year, a Nominations Committee sits to discuss vacancies and invite nominations. This committee is made up of the CEO and Chairman of the relevant club and the CEO and Chairman of the Commission.
Then, following the AGM of the club and based on the recommendations of the Nominations Committee, the Commission appoints the most qualified nominees to the available directors’ positions.
It is the responsibility of the boards – and the boards alone - of the two AFL clubs to appoint persons to the positions of CEO and Chairman.
With respect to the club’s brand name, the Commission is not considering removing the name Port Adelaide and it cannot do so without the approval of the club which again is a matter that is contained in the Port Adelaide Constitution.

I trust this clarification will prevent further speculation that can only be harmful to the Port Adelaide brand.

Someone needs to inform Rucci of that . He has just been given a polite "slap" . Come on Rucci , write a story for a change and not your constant innuendo and hearsay.

[Jimmy]

Why not write a good story about the SANFL for once ya ferret head?

[Sojourner]

Its interesting to read how many people making comments would "tear up their membership" and so on, I do wonder how many of them have actually been to the larger half of Ports home matches this season?

Its a ridiculous poorly written article based around innuendo and willing ignorance of the actual facts of the situation. Few seem to remember that the Port FC made certain promises to the SANFL when they were considered for the licence and the figure of 35 000 at home matches was made by the Port Adelaide FC, not the SANFL. Clearly times have changed and both sides have to take action over it which they are already doing. Rucci is yet again looking for a cheap headline, the good thing is that more and more people are aware of it and simply ignore his articles in the paper or on the net and read better articles elsewhere, eventually when the Craptiser have to sell poorer and poorer readership numbers to their advertisers the penny may actually drop.

[Brucetiki]

I think things are already getting desperate for The Advertiser - free papers are given out after every AFL match and are free with the purchase of a Budget at SANFL games!

[Barto]

Lets not let the facts get in the way of a good story

Rucci never does, although it's a story but not a good one.

Olsen makes a valid point: Rucci is damaging the Port Adelaide brand more than anyone with his pot stirring. It's ticking off the non-Port supporters and stirring up the Port fans to attack the SANFL, who in turn are probably getting bored with copping the complete blame for Port's predicament.

If someone makes up complete and utter bollocks, then there are still going to be people who believe that where there's smoke, there's fire even after the lie is exposed.

[Adelaide Hawk]

Rucci is damaging the Port Adelaide brand more than anyone with his pot stirring. It's ticking off the non-Port supporters and stirring up the Port fans to attack the SANFL, who in turn are probably getting bored with copping the complete blame for Port's predicament.

Yep, that's pretty much how I feel about it. If Port could ever drop this ridiculous "us against them" attitude and start being a little more accepting of others' points of view, it would work wonders for their brand.

[Apachebulldog]

Spot on the ROOCH is nothing but a pot stirrer.

[topsywaldron]

I know the journalist in question and he stopped and wanted to talk to me at the recent Norwood/Port game.

My thoughts went something along the lines of 'if I acknowledge you I'm going to have to tell you you're a tool' and I didn't want to give him any further fuel for the 'ratbags at SANFL games' agenda he's running this year. Instead I stared intently at my budget and blanked him until he'd moved along.

Did I do the right thing? Could I have trusted myself to make the case that he's trying to ruin my club's competition in a calm, unaggressive and meaningful way?

I did the right thing.

[Grahaml]

Rucci is there to sell papers, the more people talk about him and what he writes (good or bad) the more he'll get a pat on the back from the editor as Murdoch counts the money rolling in. Being able to push agendas and always have the final say (any idiot's definition of winning an argument) is just an added bonus for him.

[Jimmy]

I know the journalist in question and he stopped and wanted to talk to me at the recent Norwood/Port game.

My thoughts went something along the lines of 'if I acknowledge you I'm going to have to tell you you're a tool' and I didn't want to give him any further fuel for the 'ratbags at SANFL games' agenda he's running this year. Instead I stared intently at my budget and blanked him until he'd moved along.

Did I do the right thing? Could I have trusted myself to make the case that he's trying to ruin my club's competition in a calm, unaggressive and meaningful way?

I did the right thing.

Could have pushed him into traffic too!

[SimonH]

So is Rucci the Andrew Bolt of sports journalism?

This is the problem for Rucci. He's no Bolt. Bolt, for his endless weaknesses, demands a reaction. Rucci demands only eye-rolling. After maybe 25 years at this game, he's too transparent in his biases and agendas, he's not a good enough writer, and most fatally he presumes that we want to hear about his theories and pontificating about what's happening, rather than doing what a proper journalist would do—cultivating contacts inside the league and the clubs who will give him (and us) the scoop on what's actually happening.

[bulldogproud2]

There are so many untruths in Rucci's article that the SANFL should force him to make a retraction of the story (along with about thirty other stories that he has written this year). When will the Advertiser have the integrity to appoint a Chief Football Writer who actually writes factual articles??

[Gozu]

I think things are already getting desperate for The Advertiser - free papers are given out after every AFL match and are free with the purchase of a Budget at SANFL games!

That's right, if I may over the last 12 months The Advertiser/Sunday Mail have had large drops in readership, hence all the giveaways (or like me seven day subscriptions for $2 a week). Over those 12 months the Monday-Friday paper is down 5.1%, the Saturday Advertiser down 7.8% and the Sunday Mail down a whopping 10.7%. I've noticed The Advertiser/Sunday Mail app that was around $7.50 a month is now free for the next month too.

[HOORAY PUNT]

Rucci is there to sell papers, the more people talk about him and what he writes (good or bad) the more he'll get a pat on the back from the editor as Murdoch counts the money rolling in. Being able to push agendas and always have the final say (any idiot's definition of winning an argument) is just an added bonus for him.

Not very well then, I don't buy the paper anymore.

[Wedgie]

I know the journalist in question and he stopped and wanted to talk to me at the recent Norwood/Port game.

My thoughts went something along the lines of 'if I acknowledge you I'm going to have to tell you you're a tool' and I didn't want to give him any further fuel for the 'ratbags at SANFL games' agenda he's running this year. Instead I stared intently at my budget and blanked him until he'd moved along.

Did I do the right thing? Could I have trusted myself to make the case that he's trying to ruin my club's competition in a calm, unaggressive and meaningful way?

I did the right thing.

Could have pushed him into traffic too!

Only if the trarffic is terrible!