by whufc » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:32 am
by D14 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:34 am
Booney wrote:Port Adelaide's heritage jumpers have been based on jumpers worn by the CLUB in the past.
Adelaide's heritage jumpers are a mix and match of anything they feel gives them a noteworthy heritage.
I'm glad you highlighted that.
Why can't Adelaide just accept their heritage is from 1990 with Camry on the back?
by D14 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:35 am
Booney wrote:Port Adelaide's heritage jumpers have been based on jumpers worn by the CLUB in the past.
Adelaide's heritage jumpers are a mix and match of anything they feel gives them a noteworthy heritage.
I'm glad you highlighted that.
Why can't Adelaide just accept their heritage is from 1990 with Camry on the back?
by HH3 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:36 am
D14 wrote:Booney wrote:Port Adelaide's heritage jumpers have been based on jumpers worn by the CLUB in the past.
Adelaide's heritage jumpers are a mix and match of anything they feel gives them a noteworthy heritage.
I'm glad you highlighted that.
Why can't Adelaide just accept their heritage is from 1990 with Camry on the back?
What it shows is that the crows acknowledge the State and SANFL while Port acknowledge Port. Which is why the Crows can wear the jumper and Port can't.
by D14 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:38 am
HH3 wrote:D14 wrote:Booney wrote:Port Adelaide's heritage jumpers have been based on jumpers worn by the CLUB in the past.
Adelaide's heritage jumpers are a mix and match of anything they feel gives them a noteworthy heritage.
I'm glad you highlighted that.
Why can't Adelaide just accept their heritage is from 1990 with Camry on the back?
What it shows is that the crows acknowledge the State and SANFL while Port acknowledge Port. Which is why the Crows can wear the jumper and Port can't.
No it shows they are trying to latch onto the SANFLs history, when really, they are just an expansion team, not unlike GWS.
by areaman » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:39 am
Ecky wrote:This decision is yet another example (that was so obvious during the reserves debate) of the arrogance and narrow-mindedness of the Crows and the SANFL Commission who must really believe that football in SA = the Crows and are unable to see things from the perspective of anyone else.
Rivalries in sport should be built from respect on the field, not from childish games (which is what this really is) which are just designed to antagonise the opponent.
But before Port supporters get on their high horse, the catalyst for this is still the dirty games Port played in 1990 which Whicker and co have never forgiven them for, and hence the petty games just keep continuing. The real loser in it all is football in SA as both sides rarely act in what is the true best interests of SA football.
by whufc » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:39 am
HH3 wrote:D14 wrote:Booney wrote:Port Adelaide's heritage jumpers have been based on jumpers worn by the CLUB in the past.
Adelaide's heritage jumpers are a mix and match of anything they feel gives them a noteworthy heritage.
I'm glad you highlighted that.
Why can't Adelaide just accept their heritage is from 1990 with Camry on the back?
What it shows is that the crows acknowledge the State and SANFL while Port acknowledge Port. Which is why the Crows can wear the jumper and Port can't.
No it shows they are trying to latch onto the SANFLs history, when really, they are just an expansion team, not unlike GWS.
by woodublieve12 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:39 am
by whufc » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:41 am
D14 wrote:HH3 wrote:D14 wrote:Booney wrote:Port Adelaide's heritage jumpers have been based on jumpers worn by the CLUB in the past.
Adelaide's heritage jumpers are a mix and match of anything they feel gives them a noteworthy heritage.
I'm glad you highlighted that.
Why can't Adelaide just accept their heritage is from 1990 with Camry on the back?
What it shows is that the crows acknowledge the State and SANFL while Port acknowledge Port. Which is why the Crows can wear the jumper and Port can't.
No it shows they are trying to latch onto the SANFLs history, when really, they are just an expansion team, not unlike GWS.
Give me a break. They were built from players from all SANFL clubs.
by scoob » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:42 am
by mighty_tiger_79 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:43 am
by whufc » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:45 am
areaman wrote:Ecky wrote:This decision is yet another example (that was so obvious during the reserves debate) of the arrogance and narrow-mindedness of the Crows and the SANFL Commission who must really believe that football in SA = the Crows and are unable to see things from the perspective of anyone else.
Rivalries in sport should be built from respect on the field, not from childish games (which is what this really is) which are just designed to antagonise the opponent.
But before Port supporters get on their high horse, the catalyst for this is still the dirty games Port played in 1990 which Whicker and co have never forgiven them for, and hence the petty games just keep continuing. The real loser in it all is football in SA as both sides rarely act in what is the true best interests of SA football.
Couldn't agree more with this. Both Crows & Port do what is in their own interests and then reverse engineer an argument to try to convince the public they give a toss about the greater good.
Basically the AFL and all it's clubs (don't just single out Crows & Port) are arrogant and lost touch with the average punter years ago.
by Panther Pack » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:49 am
by mal » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:50 am
by superlative steve » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:50 am
by Ecky » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:52 am
whufc wrote:Agree the educated average punter has never been distanced further from the game than the afl presently
John Olsen, June 2012 wrote:"Reserves teams in the SANFL for the two AFL clubs is not negotiable.
We will not compromise the SANFL competition (with AFL reserves teams)."
by Panther Pack » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:55 am
Ecky wrote:whufc wrote:Agree the educated average punter has never been distanced further from the game than the afl presently
I'll just correct that for you whufc
There are unfortunately plenty of idiots out there who can't see through all the propaganda and lap all the garbage up that they dish out (and will go and buy these replica guernseys, justifying their decision), which is why they ultimately don't give a stuff what we think.
by whufc » Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:08 am
by HH3 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:16 am
whufc wrote:Mainly aimed at the Crows fans
But would it be fair to see the majority of south australian football fans don't support the crows, when you take into account power supporters, interstate afl clubs supporters, SANFL ammo country fans who don't follow or support a side in the afl
by Psyber » Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:25 am
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |