UK Fan wrote:Its not NIMBY when one side wants everything and whines when it doesn't.
And hilariously I heard Crows fans moaning about the lack of passion from their reserves team on the radio the other day.
by topsywaldron » Wed Aug 06, 2014 1:46 pm
UK Fan wrote:Its not NIMBY when one side wants everything and whines when it doesn't.
by Booney » Wed Aug 06, 2014 1:51 pm
by UK Fan » Wed Aug 06, 2014 1:59 pm
fester69 wrote: I'm full of "pish and wind" !!You can call me weak !!
MW wrote: Well call me a special asshole!.
Booney wrote: I'm a happy clapper **** stick.
by bennymacca » Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:00 pm
smac wrote:smac wrote:Can you show me where Centrals have benefited from the entry of Crows and Port reserves?
Sorry @bennymacca, you seemed to have been distracted - thought I would ask this one again.
Really simple question that I don't think has an answer.
by RB » Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:03 pm
UK Fan wrote:Never any doubt this would reach the ton.
And if Port win the flag the second century will be even quicker.
by topsywaldron » Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:11 pm
bennymacca wrote:They get a significant amount of money do they not?
What negative impact has there been?
by Dogwatcher » Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:11 pm
bennymacca wrote:smac wrote:smac wrote:Can you show me where Centrals have benefited from the entry of Crows and Port reserves?
Sorry @bennymacca, you seemed to have been distracted - thought I would ask this one again.
Really simple question that I don't think has an answer.
They get a significant amount of money do they not?
What negative impact has there been?
Does every negative thing that happens from now on automatically become the afl teams fault?
Could be a net neutral to the clubs?
by tipper » Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:21 pm
bennymacca wrote:tipper wrote:not saying its automatically worse. but there are many people that have pointed out the negatives. the only positives i see would have still been there if the reserves sides went elsewhere..... why gimp the comp for benefits we would still have gotten if they took their sides to the ammos?? some possible negatives which from the looks of the crows latest plan will come about anyway?? lose lose lose situation the sanfl has put itself into
That's just pushing the problem onto somebody else. Hardly a solution, rather just a nimby situation.
by smac » Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:28 pm
bennymacca wrote:smac wrote:smac wrote:Can you show me where Centrals have benefited from the entry of Crows and Port reserves?
Sorry @bennymacca, you seemed to have been distracted - thought I would ask this one again.
Really simple question that I don't think has an answer.
They get a significant amount of money do they not?
What negative impact has there been?
Does every negative thing that happens from now on automatically become the afl teams fault?
Could be a net neutral to the clubs?
by bennymacca » Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:30 pm
topsywaldron wrote:bennymacca wrote:They get a significant amount of money do they not?
What negative impact has there been?
Proof that you don't read the fact that don't agree with your viewpoint.
Any chance you could go to an AFL forum now, it's where your heart is.
by bennymacca » Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:33 pm
Dogwatcher wrote:bennymacca wrote:smac wrote:smac wrote:Can you show me where Centrals have benefited from the entry of Crows and Port reserves?
Sorry @bennymacca, you seemed to have been distracted - thought I would ask this one again.
Really simple question that I don't think has an answer.
They get a significant amount of money do they not?
What negative impact has there been?
Does every negative thing that happens from now on automatically become the afl teams fault?
Could be a net neutral to the clubs?
You've been asking those who disagree with the proposal for factual responses. Where are yours?
by bennymacca » Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:34 pm
smac wrote:bennymacca wrote:smac wrote:smac wrote:Can you show me where Centrals have benefited from the entry of Crows and Port reserves?
Sorry @bennymacca, you seemed to have been distracted - thought I would ask this one again.
Really simple question that I don't think has an answer.
They get a significant amount of money do they not?
What negative impact has there been?
Does every negative thing that happens from now on automatically become the afl teams fault?
Could be a net neutral to the clubs?
Could be. Do you think it is?
by smac » Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:18 pm
by bennymacca » Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:41 pm
by tipper » Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:53 pm
by PhilH » Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:58 pm
by bennymacca » Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:58 pm
by smac » Wed Aug 06, 2014 4:02 pm
bennymacca wrote:Increased crowds, coverage on commercial tv, general news reporting, bringing afl only people to the sanfl.
You might argue some of those points but just things I can think of off the top of my head
by TimmiesChin » Wed Aug 06, 2014 4:12 pm
smac wrote:For Centrals, I asked.
by Dutchy » Wed Aug 06, 2014 4:23 pm
PhilH wrote:I will share some detailed crowd analysis at years end but home game averages club by club compared with last year
- West will have a drop
- North & Central need some good numbers for last 2 games to avoid a drop
- Norwood need OK turnout last 2 games to avoid a drop
- Eagles, Port & South will have an increase on 2013, they are just short of figures currently
- Sturt and Glenelg have already passed 2013 figure with games still to play
Of the 9 clubs with regular home games I think 6-7 will have an increase 2-3 will have a drop
Last year - only 3 clubs (North Port & West) had a rise, the other 6 had a drop
In 2012 - 8 clubs had a drop, only the Eagles had an increase
I have the league needing another 18,894 to match last years total minor round figure
with 15 games left that is just 1,260 per game.
They will probably just fall short of 2012 figure needing another 42,637 per game
or 2,842 per match.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |