It does indeedIan wrote:morell wrote:None. Nadda. Zilch. Zero. 0.0. NULL
I last went to one in anger in 1998
That makes you well qualified to have a opinion on the SANFL I guess

by morell » Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:46 pm
It does indeedIan wrote:morell wrote:None. Nadda. Zilch. Zero. 0.0. NULL
I last went to one in anger in 1998
That makes you well qualified to have a opinion on the SANFL I guess
by Booney » Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:47 pm
Ian wrote:morell wrote:None. Nadda. Zilch. Zero. 0.0. NULL
I last went to one in anger in 1998
That makes you well qualified to have a opinion on the SANFL I guess
by amber_fluid » Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:49 pm
Booney wrote:Ian wrote:morell wrote:None. Nadda. Zilch. Zero. 0.0. NULL
I last went to one in anger in 1998
That makes you well qualified to have a opinion on the SANFL I guess
Again, morell has made it clear on several occasions that the SANFL is but one league in this state. "Football" in this state reaches far beyond the clubs vying for the Thomas Seymour Hill trophy.
by Booney » Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:49 pm
amber_fluid wrote:Booney wrote:Ian wrote:morell wrote:None. Nadda. Zilch. Zero. 0.0. NULL
I last went to one in anger in 1998
That makes you well qualified to have a opinion on the SANFL I guess
Again, morell has made it clear on several occasions that the SANFL is but one league in this state. "Football" in this state reaches far beyond the clubs vying for the Thomas Seymour Hill trophy.
Eeerrr this is the SANFL thread isn't it?
by morell » Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:50 pm
Booney wrote:Again, morell has made it clear on several occasions that the SANFL is but one league in this state. "Football" in this state reaches far beyond the clubs vying for the Thomas Seymour Hill trophy. It's myopic to think it's not.
by amber_fluid » Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:51 pm
Booney wrote:amber_fluid wrote:Booney wrote:Ian wrote:
That makes you well qualified to have a opinion on the SANFL I guess
Again, morell has made it clear on several occasions that the SANFL is but one league in this state. "Football" in this state reaches far beyond the clubs vying for the Thomas Seymour Hill trophy.
Eeerrr this is the SANFL thread isn't it?
That's spent 300+ pages discussing AFL sides? Yes.
by Ronnie » Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:55 pm
Booney wrote:Ronnie wrote:How many people in SA are actually involved in an AFL club in a personal capacity apart from as a passive spectator??
Contrast that to all the volunteers required at the different levels (including SANFL) that the code relies on??
Who do you think is deserving of recognition? Professional sport generates the media and money (which the AFL spends anyway on it's fancies) but for virtually everyone in footy from player to volunteer who give of their time it ain't in an AFL setting.
Over 120,000 members between the two clubs. That's not passive, is it?
by Wedgie » Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:01 pm
morell wrote:None. Nadda. Zilch. Zero. 0.0. NULL
I last went to one in anger in 1998
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Booney » Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:01 pm
Ronnie wrote:Booney wrote:Ronnie wrote:How many people in SA are actually involved in an AFL club in a personal capacity apart from as a passive spectator??
Contrast that to all the volunteers required at the different levels (including SANFL) that the code relies on??
Who do you think is deserving of recognition? Professional sport generates the media and money (which the AFL spends anyway on it's fancies) but for virtually everyone in footy from player to volunteer who give of their time it ain't in an AFL setting.
Over 120,000 members between the two clubs. That's not passive, is it?
It is if it counts the number of ticket holders the clubs have. The number is impressive I'll give you that (and magically seems to creep up year by year)
but sport means a lot more than a bunch of seat warmers. I mentioned the volunteers that the code actually relies on because they are the people that deserve the recognition.
by Booney » Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:02 pm
Wedgie wrote:morell wrote:None. Nadda. Zilch. Zero. 0.0. NULL
I last went to one in anger in 1998
Well we're not interested in your opinion then, cheers.
by morell » Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:03 pm
Sound logic.Wedgie wrote:morell wrote:None. Nadda. Zilch. Zero. 0.0. NULL
I last went to one in anger in 1998
Well we're not interested in your opinion then, cheers.
by Booney » Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:04 pm
morell wrote:Sound logic.Wedgie wrote:morell wrote:None. Nadda. Zilch. Zero. 0.0. NULL
I last went to one in anger in 1998
Well we're not interested in your opinion then, cheers.![]()
but expected.
by morell » Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:23 pm
Wedgie wrote:Nah, I've never been a fan even when I was a passionate follower and member of a Rugby League club. It stems from the fact in the early 90s the Raiders had about 5 players in each side and I was just hoping for no injuries. I preferred Australia games.
by therisingblues » Thu Jun 01, 2017 6:37 pm
morell wrote:Booney wrote:Again, morell has made it clear on several occasions that the SANFL is but one league in this state. "Football" in this state reaches far beyond the clubs vying for the Thomas Seymour Hill trophy. It's myopic to think it's not.
by goddy11 » Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:23 pm
by daysofourlives » Thu Jun 01, 2017 8:58 pm
goddy11 wrote:Ports Interchange bench for this weekend.
INT: Summerton, Snelling, Toumpas, Ladhams, Krakouer
Guess who will play C grade?
by Pseudo » Thu Jun 01, 2017 9:08 pm
Dutchy wrote:I think its your turn @Pseudo
by mighty_tiger_79 » Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:17 pm
by Dutchy » Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:39 pm
mighty_tiger_79 wrote:SANFL Macca’s League footy fans are important to us, so to make sure we understand what you want from our competition, we are giving you the opportunity to provide feedback. You can complete the short survey here: http://bit.ly/2rSp8i1
by Dutchy » Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:42 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |