by SANFLnut » Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:32 pm
by Booney » Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:30 am
SANFLnut wrote:Wrong. Port ceased on the fact that West wouldn't guarantee he played in their league midfield all year to move him to Magpies where he ......wait for it..........didn't play in their league midfield all year.
No ongoing issue with how he was managed.
by SANFLnut » Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:58 am
by the observer » Thu Mar 06, 2014 9:02 am
by beenreal » Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:39 pm
SANFLnut wrote:Facts are important on issues like this.
Did Newton play in their league midfield all year?
Did the Magpies play him in the SANFL reserves side last year?
Was one of the motivating factors in moving Power players, like Newton and Young, to try and boost the magpies performance?
Pretty sure you can give accurate answers to 1 and 2.
by whufc » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:09 pm
beenreal wrote:SANFLnut wrote:Facts are important on issues like this.
Did Newton play in their league midfield all year?
Did the Magpies play him in the SANFL reserves side last year?
Was one of the motivating factors in moving Power players, like Newton and Young, to try and boost the magpies performance?
Pretty sure you can give accurate answers to 1 and 2.
1. Answer provided by Booney. Look it up.
2. Answer provided by Beenreal. Look it up.
Bottom line is, only the backward $ANFL Commission could ever have conceived a ludicrous situation that forced footballers to actually play AGAINST the club that was paying them. Finally under the new system a wrong has been righted.
by saintal » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:18 pm
beenreal wrote:Bottom line is, only the backward $ANFL Commission could ever have conceived a ludicrous situation that forced footballers to actually play AGAINST the club that was paying them. Finally under the new system a wrong has been righted.
by topsywaldron » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:32 pm
saintal wrote:So it’s not backward that a player can now be forced to play against the club that developed him in a match for premiership points? The Magpies aren’t the ones paying him, the Power are. Only emphasises the fact that the Magpies are nothing but a hollow reserves team now and this whole comp is a joke.
by SANFLnut » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:54 pm
beenreal wrote:SANFLnut wrote:Facts are important on issues like this.
Did Newton play in their league midfield all year?
Did the Magpies play him in the SANFL reserves side last year?
Was one of the motivating factors in moving Power players, like Newton and Young, to try and boost the magpies performance?
Pretty sure you can give accurate answers to 1 and 2.
1. Answer provided by Booney. Look it up.
2. Answer provided by Beenreal. Look it up.
Bottom line is, only the backward $ANFL Commission could ever have conceived a ludicrous situation that forced footballers to actually play AGAINST the club that was paying them. Finally under the new system a wrong has been righted.
by Big Phil » Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:02 pm
SANFLnut wrote:Have Port announced their SANFL squad to play South yet? Please post here if so.
by beenreal » Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:57 pm
saintal wrote:beenreal wrote:Bottom line is, only the backward $ANFL Commission could ever have conceived a ludicrous situation that forced footballers to actually play AGAINST the club that was paying them. Finally under the new system a wrong has been righted.
So it’s not backward that a player can now be forced to play against the club that developed him in a match for premiership points? The Magpies aren’t the ones paying him, the Power are. Only emphasises the fact that the Magpies are nothing but a hollow reserves team now and this whole set up is a joke.
by SANFLnut » Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:46 pm
by Booney » Fri Mar 07, 2014 8:33 am
saintal wrote:beenreal wrote:Bottom line is, only the backward $ANFL Commission could ever have conceived a ludicrous situation that forced footballers to actually play AGAINST the club that was paying them. Finally under the new system a wrong has been righted.
So it’s not backward that a player can now be forced to play against the club that developed him in a match for premiership points? The Magpies aren’t the ones paying him, the Power are. Only emphasises the fact that the Magpies are nothing but a hollow reserves team now and this whole set up is a joke.
by SANFLnut » Fri Mar 07, 2014 8:13 pm
Booney wrote:saintal wrote:beenreal wrote:Bottom line is, only the backward $ANFL Commission could ever have conceived a ludicrous situation that forced footballers to actually play AGAINST the club that was paying them. Finally under the new system a wrong has been righted.
So it’s not backward that a player can now be forced to play against the club that developed him in a match for premiership points? The Magpies aren’t the ones paying him, the Power are. Only emphasises the fact that the Magpies are nothing but a hollow reserves team now and this whole set up is a joke.
How many of Ports SANFL side (and AFL listed) are from SANFL junior programs?
Jake Neade*
Brendon Ah Chee*
Mason Shaw*
Sam Gray*
Mitch Harvey*
Cameron Hitchcock*
Karl Amon*
Ben Newton*
Kane Mitchell*
Tom Logan*
Sam Colquhoun*
Sam Russell*
by Tech1 » Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:17 pm
kickinit wrote:Tech1 wrote:kickinit wrote:Tech1 wrote:On paper that side should finish top. Don't agree with the Summerton decision to let him play for them this year and surprised clubs haven't kicked up a fuss about this and some of there other signings. Can see the Crows being about middle of the table but with the concessions given to Port i'd be surprised if they're not top 3 at the least. Question, can the "$400 a game", not age limit on signing players and the academy (reserves) team be changed next year or is it locked in for a certain amount of years unlike the Crows deal which can be changed year to year depending on how strong or weak they are?
what are you talking about? The rule is they are allowed 15 top up players , 1 can be a leadership players which has to be over 28. Only the leadership player can be paid over $400 a game. Port asked if Sommerton (25) could be used as there leadership player, to which the SANFL said no. Henry Slattery will be port's leadership player. Port haven't broken any of the rules set out by the SANFL directors, so how can they kick up a fuss?
Really? So Summerton is playing for $400 a game is he ? oh that's right you back ended the contract, yup you didn't break the rules but i still don't think he's just getting 400 a game this year. I suppose Motlop, Krakouer and to a lesser extent Raikiwasa are also going to be paid $400 a game? Give me a break.
yes he is only getting $400 a game once he turns 28 he will be made the leadership player, which will allow him to earn more. Do you actually think after all the hard work to get the deal done port would actually do dodgy deals.
by kickinit » Sat Mar 08, 2014 11:54 pm
Tech1 wrote:Yeah i do, it would be nothing new for clubs to bend the rules if there is a chance they can. IMHO, both clubs should have to sign 15 players like Port are this year for the SANFL league side (none of this borrowing players like the Crows are doing), players can't have played on a state league side for three years, only to be paid $400 a game and no special allowances for a leadership player, this would be even for both the Crows and Power sides and make it impossible to bend the rules. Oh and remove the Reserves/Academy side at Port for 2015 onwards. Never should've been allowed in the first place.
by The Sleeping Giant » Sun Mar 09, 2014 12:02 am
the observer wrote:So what whats the big deal are people that worried about Port magpies and what they are fielding Summerton is getting this and not in budget So what get on with it
by Tech1 » Sun Mar 09, 2014 12:12 am
kickinit wrote:Tech1 wrote:Yeah i do, it would be nothing new for clubs to bend the rules if there is a chance they can. IMHO, both clubs should have to sign 15 players like Port are this year for the SANFL league side (none of this borrowing players like the Crows are doing), players can't have played on a state league side for three years, only to be paid $400 a game and no special allowances for a leadership player, this would be even for both the Crows and Power sides and make it impossible to bend the rules. Oh and remove the Reserves/Academy side at Port for 2015 onwards. Never should've been allowed in the first place.
how would it make it impossible to bend the rules. you think these players are getting more then $400 a game which must mean they are getting money under the table. Doesn't matter what rules you set out they can still hand money under the table. Whats wrong with Port having a reserves/ academy side?
by the observer » Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:53 am
by RustyCage » Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:35 am
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |