Three games at Thebarton

[bluestheboy]

not to mention the fact that the Eags play like crap at Woodville Oval....the more Thebby games the better for me...

[stan]

The oval is still good a thebby. But i think it will take alot more to get up to sanfl standard.

[holden78]

all eagles games should be at thebby they will be in a few years when woodville oval is sold off by charles sturt council after 2011 its all ready planned the housing .At least torrens will get some thing

[McAlmanac]

Woodville Oval is barren, lifeless & without soul..... Yes, the club is the Eagles, & their home is Woodville Oval... but where'd the Eagles come from? They were born out of a one night stand between Woodville & West Torrens- whose home ground was Thebarton. You're not going to deny them that heritage surely?

Well, Torrens certainly weren't playing any games at Thebarton in 1990. For all the faults that Woodville had, they had one and only one home ground - and I can assure you that when there was a home victory, Woodville Oval was definitely not lifeless or without soul.

You're not going to deny Woodville - who had the finances - their heritage either? Torrens destroyed theirs when they appointed Dick Jones as coach.

[holden78]

The sanfl destroyed TORRENS when they cut them in half and gave it to woodville history shows it. Woodville have all ways been Torrens B grade. But Torrens got it back better late than never

[spell_check]

The sanfl destroyed TORRENS when they cut them in half and gave it to woodville history shows it. Woodville have all ways been Torrens B grade. But Torrens got it back better late than never

I know that too, but like McAlmanac said, I am not going to deny Woodvilles' history either. I think the 7 games at Woodville and 3 at Thebarton is the right balance for Eagles to play games at.

I think, holden, you should read the Woodville team of the century thread on BigFooty to get an idea on Woodvilles' heritage and realise that it does hold its' place in SANFL history.

[Wedgie]

I thought the "hidden" agenda to bring in Woodville in the early 60s was too cut Ports area in half as they had such a dynasty in the 50s?

[spell_check]

I thought the "hidden" agenda to bring in Woodville in the early 60s was too cut Ports area in half as they had such a dynasty in the 50s?

It worked to an extent - no premierships from 1966 to 1976.

[holden78]

No one said woodville had no history. It affected torrens 100 times more than port thats why port voted to bring woodville in because they knew it would make torrens weaker. 80% of the vplqayers would have played for torrens blight, mcellar etc . TORRENS WOULD HAVE BEEN A LOT STRONGER.

[Wedgie]

I'd be interested to know further reasons why Woodville were brought in, in retrospect it seems absolutely ridicuous to bring in another inner suburbs club from the west in the early 60s, Central was a no brainer and a definate asset to the SANFL.
Would the SANFL be a better comp now if Woodville never existed?

[holden78]

I'd be interested to know further reasons why Woodville were brought in, in retrospect it seems absolutely ridicuous to bring in another inner suburbs club from the west in the early 60s, Central was a no brainer and a definate asset to the SANFL.
Would the SANFL be a better comp now if Woodville never existed?

Yes the sanfl would have been better why would you bring another team in a already over crowded western area

[am Bays]

The Wedge and Spelly are on the money, if my comprehension of the SA Football Story by Bernard Winpress in 1983, Woodville were basically brought in to reduce Port's strength, and it did for 12 years (65 to 77), however all it did really is fatally wound the Port Nativesas they were from 1897 to 1990.

Obviously Big Bob knew what the SANFL were trying to do in the late 50's (I think Woodville entered the magoos in 1960) and fought like buggery to keep as much Port territory as he could to minimise the impact on Port (this confirms what 75% of SANFL supporters have always thought, Port have the SANFL in their pockets!!).

The upshot was the Port got their shit together and with their traditional zone (Salisbury North - I remember reading in SA Footabll World circa 1982 Port kicking up a stink abnout potentially losing this part of their zone) we know the story from 1979 onwards....

[Wedgie]

Thanks guys, if anyone could dig up more info/stories from those days of the early 60s or point me in the right direction I'd be very thankful.
Could be time for one of my visits to the Toss of the Coin to see what Gerry can drag up for me.

[spell_check]

I'd be interested to know further reasons why Woodville were brought in, in retrospect it seems absolutely ridicuous to bring in another inner suburbs club from the west in the early 60s, Central was a no brainer and a definate asset to the SANFL.
Would the SANFL be a better comp now if Woodville never existed?

Yes the sanfl would have been better why would you bring another team in a already over crowded western area

It's funny though how some supporters of other clubs still use the (2 clubs playing against one) and hybrids remarks though, despite these above quotes being widely known.

I dislike the supporters that won't go to see the Eagles play just because they merged. It was the only way that the clubs were going to survive in anyway and these people should get over the issue and support the club. (Which is a reason why our crowds aren't as good as other teams).

It's not as if the current club has extinguished the history of West Torrens and Woodville - yes there has been the argument about the lack of green in the jumpers, but the colours are still there to see, the club trains both at Thebarton - pre season and Woodville - during the season, and now IMO the history has been equally balanced with the 7/3 matches at Woodville and Thebarton. (Given the logo is the Eagle)

[holden78]

West Torrens lost more than port, Torrens lost 80% . Port voted for woodville to come in as did the boss of the sanfl who was port also

[Ecky]

Recently I have been reading some old newspapers from the early 60's (as you do... ) and I remember a couple articles related to this.

One was that Brighton FC made a bid to joing the SANFL at this same time with the idea of getting the Noarlunga area.

At one stage there was a vote on whether Woodville (and Centrals?) should be admitted and it was tied 4-4 among the clubs with the Western suburbs clubs - Port, Torrens, West and Glenelg voting against.

I'll write more once I have time to dig these stories up again.

[McAlmanac]

Strangely enough, I was looking at a 1957 copy of The Advertiser today which reported a general public meeting at the Woodville Town Hall in support of Woodville (at that stage, since World War 2, an A1 Amateur club) entering the SANFL. The SA Housing Trust, no less, was in support of the move and outlined population figures of when teams 7 (Sturt) and 8 (Glenelg) joined the SANFL. When Sturt joined, just after the turn of the century, the population was something of the order of 150,000. When Glenelg joined in the 20's, the population was of the order of 250,000. In 1957, the population had gone over 500,000, with the City of Woodville boasting over 60,000 of this.

It must be remembered that this was a golden point in the SANFL's history. For instance - in the opening round of 1959, each match drew over 11,000 people, with a total over 50,000 for the round.

Oddly, the consortium from Gawler at the time deemed that they wouldn't be ready for SANFL football for another few years.

As for who was weakened by Woodville's entrance - McKellar, Blight and Huppatz all went to Findon High, which I believe would have placed them with West Torrens (Fred Bills went to Findon High). Ditto John Cummins and Eddie Holland. Ralph Sewer and Phil Maylin, from Ferryden Park way, would have been Port players. Definitive "before and after" maps would be the only way of knowing who was shafted most. Suffice to say, a look at the Woodville Colts trophy list from 1966 shows that Woodville produced outstanding juniors (4 or 5 premierships in the 60's, early 70's).

[Wedgie]

I dislike the supporters that won't go to see the Eagles play just because they merged.

That's where we differ, if my side mergerd with someone I wouldn't even contemplate supporting them.
I've always disliked the merger merely because it was seen as an easy way out to me.

If North merged with another side I'd barrack for another club (except for the Eagles obviously) or not follow the SANFL at all.

I can't put down in words what I mean but I have absolutely no respect for the Eages. I know I'm in a minority but I've always said and it I still mean it that I'd rather follow a side that comes bottom every year than have a merger and follow a new side.

Its one of the reasons I don't have any respect for sides like the Crows, Adelaide United, etc. There's probably a few egs of me being hypocritical in this view but its just the way I feel. If your club is down in the doldrums I don't care if you're a player, an official, a board member or a supporter, get off your arse and make them work, don't take the easy way out.

Having said all of that I think merging is a different issues in country leages mainly because of numbers.

End of preach.

[McAlmanac]

Having said all of that I think merging is a different issues in country leages mainly because of numbers.

That was the whole reason for it - crowd numbers translating into $ numbers. If it hadn't been done, I'm sure one would have disappeared altogether. And I reckon it would have been the one running their TAB at a loss and turning over only $40,000 a year in bingo and money tickets - not the one turning over $200,000.

[spell_check]

I dislike the supporters that won't go to see the Eagles play just because they merged.

That's where we differ, if my side mergerd with someone I wouldn't even contemplate supporting them.
I've always disliked the merger merely because it was seen as an easy way out to me.

If North merged with another side I'd barrack for another club (except for the Eagles obviously) or not follow the SANFL at all.

I can't put down in words what I mean but I have absolutely no respect for the Eages. I know I'm in a minority but I've always said and it I still mean it that I'd rather follow a side that comes bottom every year than have a merger and follow a new side.

Its one of the reasons I don't have any respect for sides like the Crows, Adelaide United, etc. There's probably a few egs of me being hypocritical in this view but its just the way I feel. If your club is down in the doldrums I don't care if you're a player, an official, a board member or a supporter, get off your arse and make them work, don't take the easy way out.

Having said all of that I think merging is a different issues in country leages mainly because of numbers.

End of preach.

I suppose I feel this way about the club because I'm 20, not someone who has followed a "single club" for say 20-30 years. But then again, I have always gone to the matches with my Dad - he has supprted them all the way through.