Dogwatcher wrote:Reading Twitter and it would seem a couple of Westies players very upset about the recruits the Eagles are picking up. Wondering where the money comes from.

Never mind where the money comes from, they should be more concerned about where the money goes

hereselmo1 wrote:I'm a bit confused?

So now you all want the PAFC to win the SANFL premiership?

Yep.

I'm hanging out for a Crows Reserves v Power Reserves Grand Final.

It will be awesome. The build up will be the greatest in SANFL history.

It's just a jumper.

Personally I think it's a poor choice but who cares.

It is the design or colours causing the angst?

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
Hmm, I don't think this is quite right. I'd guess it's somewhere between 50% - 60% follow the Crows.
They're doing a good job of losing any of their more educated supporters (and there isn't heaps) - including me. No club has a right to wear the state representative geurnsey.
No argument there.

I think a few years ago they had a lot of people who weren't rusted on fans but had a soft spot for the Crows.

They are shedding those sorts of people very fast.

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.

Yeah ideally no bye and a lot more rounds than 18 though, but 18 does have its merits with it being the fairest draw since I was born possibly ever.
The excitement over the end of the bye has me baffled.

I can't work out how having a few split rounds is any different to having a bye due to uneven numbers.

It's still a few weekends without footy just for a different reason.

I'd love someone to enlighten me why a weekend off for a split round is superior to a weekend off due to an uneven number of teams.

Norwood are likely to come out all guns blazing early ......but their fans will end up on Coopers Hill drowning their sorrows !
It is likely to get very ugly ...... :shock:

Will this be the case all season? Should we lock in a Port v Adelaide GF now?
Call me mad but I reckon we should wait for a few matches before deeming the GF sides to be a foregone conclusion.

Crows & Port reserves will have a strong top part of their lists but a few injuries and the depth will really come into play quickly.

Surely the main consideration is that we don't have a clearly injured player being forced to stay on the field to make up 18 players.

Unless we have consistent problems with 3 or more players from one side being unable to take to the field then I say leave it as it is.

When they went to 3 and a sub in the AFL the argument was that if a team had a game ending injury early then it was still 21 v 21. But very quickly teams were saying that using a sub early is a disadvantage.

Let's face it - it doesn't matter how many interchange or subs each team has - having an injured player out for the rest of the game is a disadvanatge. Always has been, always will be.

Play on.

When asked about this at the members night, Kurt Slaven couldn't answer. I thought the board were supposed to be accountable to members...
When this was raised at the Eagles members night Kurt acknowledged it was a challenge but then went on a tangent of how the Crows promotion of the matches in each area would help offset this. Can't say I found it overly convincing.

Basically having the Crows compete in the SANFL wil cannibalise the local club's support long term. Why would a young kid start supporting an SANFL club when their Crows team already compete in the comp?

Wow, already 3 pages on Wednesday morning for an Eagles v South pre game discussion.

Would have been lucky to have 3 posts by now for some of our previous clashes.

Good for the comp that South and their fans are up and about.

Bring on Sunday.

Panther Pack wrote:If I were a Eagles supporter id be disappointed that with 3 extra players fit they only just got over the line.

I'm inconsolable.

I just wish the line up was named the South Australian way - Forward to Backs - not the Victorian way with the Backs listed at the top.

Pedantic I know but.....

Maybe this thread should be renamed the Post Match Dummy Spit.

On behalf of the Eagles I apologise for not being an undisciplined team that gives away copious amounts of free kicks.

Still searching for that rule that says the free kick count must be even.

Five goals in a row in the 3rd quarter proved decisive.

Also great point about centrals having a split supporter base. I don't go to that many centrals games now, used to as a kid, but I did go to the centrals crows game and it was the weirdest football experience of my life, it made me feel like I wasn't comfortable supporting either team. That, imo, is the worst part about all this. Add to that, young supporters won't even bother trying to find an sanfl team to support . That would increase the number of crows going to the game but will be a significant detriment to the rest of the comp
Forget everything else in this debate.

This point is the biggest issue.

Future generations will grow up having no allegiance to any SANFL club.

Is that what is really best for SA football?

Clearly, based on all these figures, there is nothing to worry about & everything is fine.
Fantastic.
Crowds are up, Revenue is Up, Commercial Media Coverage is far better, etc.
Any questions regarding Integrity or Compromise were clearly 'humbug'.
SANFL Footy (since 1991 at least) has never been healthier.
A big thank you to Trigg, Koch, Olsen & the CEOs - you tried to tell us it would be better & we didn't listen.
Well, its all good.
I'm sure the CEOs will be laughing all the way to the bank, come AGM time, patting each other on the back.

Not sure anyone said that was the case. Just seems those predicting the end aren't as right ( or righteous ) as they thought they were going to be.
My view is these crowd numbers fall beautifully in the middle. It means both sides can use the numbers to say they were right, or as is probably closer to the truth, both sides can point to the other mob being wrong.

They aren't big enough to be able to claim that it's had a positive effect on crowds and they aren't small enough to claim it's impacted negatively on the crowds.

Basically they can be massaged to argue any number of points and leave nobody any the wiser.

Booney wrote:The Eagles are the meanest crowd. Always have been.

That's why we get a great ride from the umpires every week.

Seems fair enough. Good response by them I would have thought
I assume you are joking.

I wasn't actually.

I Meant that their position is clearly explained.

Whether or not the members agree is a completely different matter and one I can't comment on because I don't have a specific interest.
It's good PR spin but no substance behind it.

It doesn't properly address the fact that the Eagles heartland has been lost.

My email to the club said the following which sums up how I feel:
At the heart of the matter is that the boundary changes now means the club's name of Woodville-West Torrens is now a historical reference to its past rather than an accurate reflection of the area it will represent. It appears to me that the club could be more accurately called the Port Adelaide Eagles or Woodville-Port Adelaide at best.

Kind of like how Centrals fans would feel if large chunks of Elizabeth were lost to North Adelaide etc.

No disrespect but kindly get stuffed. I have been a centrals support for all of my 29 years. I would definitely describe myself as a crows supporter first and centrals second but that is neither here nor there.

I, for one, am a realist. I understand that there is significant changes, and through this thread I have learned more about the effects of those changes. But I am probably far more optimistic than most and decide to take changes in my stride rather than the conservative approach of it must be bad.

I also think there is a bigger picture. No matter what pure sanfl fans can do, the reality is they are not the biggest game in town. They will be forever slaves to the afl. As sucky as that might be it isn't going to change. May as well try and make lemonade.

Sure, there are things that can be improved. But putting the rose coloured glasses on and reminiscing of times gone by isn't going to change the present realities.
I'm not concerned about the AFL being bigger than the SANFL. Accepted that long ago and more than comfortable with it.

In fact for 23 years I was quite content to follow the Crows in the AFL and Eagles in the SANFL. My club merged in 1990 and I got over that, moved on and embraced the new Eagles.

My issue is the SANFL has tried to market itself as grassroots football. The last few years it's marketing slogan was something like Your Tribe Is Calling. I quite liked that. But it makes it kind of hard to associate with a "tribe" when you have such a large change in zones and move away from your heartland.

These current zone changes aren't just a bit of tinkering at the edges - for some clubs they are massive changes. And after the crap of the reserves situation this year this zone change is almost the final straw for me. We all have a tipping point and this last one is pretty much mine.

And if a zone and having a heartland isn't important why was it one of the alleged 5 principles of the SANFL when doing this redistribution?

Certainly in terms of crowds and interest in the competition, the no AFL in the SANFL argument has collapsed completely.
Interesting.

The people who have been adversely affected by these changes are the sort who support their club beyond just going to games.

They (used to) go to B&F nights, pre match lunches, player auctions and other events as well as selling raffle books etc for the club.

I'm not sure the clubs will be able to replace this sort of support from the casually interested people attending the AFL Reserves matches.

This issue is not just about what is happening this year - the longer term ramifications are still to be seen.

Maybe we'll be wrong and in 5 years memberships remain stable and most fans feel just as connected to the club and comp as they did in 2013 and before.

But if we're not wrong I bet that those who are claiming it's been a success won't be around to help clean up the mess.

As I said, you can't be that "died in the wool" if you chuck a tantrum and leave when something doesn't go your way.
I'd be pretty concerned about anyone who blindly accepts what happens and doesn't question and evaluate what their club does.

Dyed in the wool refers to support for the team and players no matter how poorly they are performing.

Dyed in the wool does not mean blind acceptance of the bad decisions and administration of the club.

Would you still support the Crows if they decided to relocate to Darwin or Hobart?