SA Footy

daysofourlives wrote:Cracka, You're a halfwit.
Think that sums up the argument nicely

The fact that you had to resort to that sums you up more. Not allowed to have an opinion unless it is the same as yours eh.

cracka wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:Cracka, You're a halfwit.
Think that sums up the argument nicely

The fact that you had to resort to that sums you up more. Not allowed to have an opinion unless it is the same as yours eh.

Welcome to the world of SANIMBY.NET Cracka. A veritable plethora of football intellect, all represented by the Ostrich.

cracka wrote:I still say you're questions ARE irrelevant to my ORIGINAL POST.

Whatever your point is, you're having almighty difficulties in articulating it. Have another go, we're all listening.

cracka wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:Cracka, You're a halfwit.
Think that sums up the argument nicely

The fact that you had to resort to that sums you up more. Not allowed to have an opinion unless it is the same as yours eh.

Ya think?
Or it might just be that your comments are so far off the mark and any argument put up to the contrary you dismiss as not relevant.
IMO your about as relevant as Beeny
The fact that Beeny likes your posting should tell you your posting rubbish

RB wrote:

cracka wrote:I still say you're questions ARE irrelevant to my ORIGINAL POST.

Whatever your point is, you're having almighty difficulties in articulating it. Have another go, we're all listening.

Read the original post. It's the other posters who are changing the argument.

daysofourlives wrote:

cracka wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:Cracka, You're a halfwit.
Think that sums up the argument nicely

The fact that you had to resort to that sums you up more. Not allowed to have an opinion unless it is the same as yours eh.

Ya think?
Or it might just be that your comments are so far off the mark and any argument put up to the contrary you dismiss as not relevant.
IMO your about as relevant as Beeny
The fact that Beeny likes your posting should tell you your posting rubbish

Sorry can't see where beeny has liked my post. You obviously have a problem with him as well, did he also have a different opinion to you once before.
There are a couple of people who did like my original post so they obviously understood it & agreed with it so my comments were not far off the mark. There was also someone who ended up agreeing that their AFL club is as bad as the crows & power for having reserves sides in their local comps so some people do get it.

cracka wrote:There are a couple of people who did like my original post so they obviously understood it & agreed with it so my comments were not far off the mark.

Lol what? A couple of people agreed with you so your comments are not far off the mark?

cracka wrote:

therisingblues wrote:
BTW, I became a born again Carlton fan after the Crows succeed in their muscle drive into the SANFL. I followed Carlton until the moment the VFL invaded the SANFL, now the Crows have committed the same sin, I cannot follow them any longer.
The AFL is nowhere near as important for me as the SANFL, I wouldn't swap clubs otherwise.

I still say you're questions ARE irrelevant to my ORIGINAL POST.
The AFL reserves sides playing in the SANFL IS an agreed upon deal, it was voted in by 6 of 8 clubs (which was the majority needed). The SANFL may well have had a long resistance to the AFL, but not anymore, again it was them that agreed to letting the crows & power reserves in. They had the chance to say no but didn't.
In my opinion the VFA became the second best comp in Victoria the moment the VFL/AFL pushed it's reserves into the VFA and everyone changed names.
If you don't follow Carlton any longer (your words) then my original post is not aimed at you. The line before that however says you are a born again Carlton follower so you've contradicted yourself a bit.
You also say the crows have committed the same sin as the VFL (which is Carlton included) actually backs up what I've said, the crows & power have done the same as the other now AFL/then VFL clubs.
How about we agree to disagree so this can get back on topic. I say its hypocrisy, you say its not. We are both allowed our opinions.

Yes I think we're going to end up disagreeing. That's fair enough. But I'll give it one more go.
Your original post was about hypocrisy. Some posters have a go at the Crows for doing what their own nominated AFL club does. My points have mainly been describing how the two situations are different (ie. AFL involvement in the VFL vs the Crows' SANFL push). The reason for this is that if the two situations are different, then posters cannot be accused of hypocrisy for treating the two situations differently.
If you follow, and agree with the above then you'll also understand the relevance of my posts to your original argument.

BTW I was using the term "born again Carlton fan" as meaning originally a Carlton fan, and now a Carlton fan again. My stint as a Crows fan signified a period where Victoria (not Carlton on its own, my understanding is that the Vic clubs were against expansion) did all it could to force the SANFL into joining. My beef then was with the AFL hierarchy, personified by everything Victorian, and South Australia being represented by the Crows. I carried a soft spot for Carlton all these years but I never held them responsible for what happened, it was just that a team more relevant to my situation appeared. But that situation no longer exists. I do hold the Crows responsible for this final insult, they're far more culpable than Carlton ever were (as Ian put it so well "they were operating within a system created by the AFL", hence blame lays with them, not the individual clubs, hence difference, hence relevance, hence not hypocrisy).
Anyway, it's all done and dusted now and we will see if it all turns out so bad or not.
P.S. You are a good many rungs of the ladder above Beeny. I don't even bother with him anymore. Everything's about how everyone's picking on Port, or how Port saved the SANFL or he's hanging shit on the entire SANFL comp. Dancing a little jig at our misery.

daysofourlives wrote:

cracka wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:Cracka, You're a halfwit.
Think that sums up the argument nicely

The fact that you had to resort to that sums you up more. Not allowed to have an opinion unless it is the same as yours eh.

Ya think?
Or it might just be that your comments are so far off the mark and any argument put up to the contrary you dismiss as not relevant.
IMO your about as relevant as Beeny
The fact that Beeny likes your posting should tell you your posting rubbish

Never dismissed anyones argument against as irrelevant, I did dismiss some questions put to me as irrelevant.
I still think that Hawthorn (and every AFL club for that matter) are doing exactly what the crows & power are doing with there reserves. They got to this situation differently but are now in exact same situations. Again just my opinion. Again I would also prefer a stand alone AFL reserves comp but can't see it happening.
Funny what you say about beeny as he is very similar to you, that is a passionate one eyed supporter, which I don't have a problem with.
Did you get my PM.

therisingblues wrote:

cracka wrote:

therisingblues wrote:
BTW, I became a born again Carlton fan after the Crows succeed in their muscle drive into the SANFL. I followed Carlton until the moment the VFL invaded the SANFL, now the Crows have committed the same sin, I cannot follow them any longer.
The AFL is nowhere near as important for me as the SANFL, I wouldn't swap clubs otherwise.

I still say you're questions ARE irrelevant to my ORIGINAL POST.
The AFL reserves sides playing in the SANFL IS an agreed upon deal, it was voted in by 6 of 8 clubs (which was the majority needed). The SANFL may well have had a long resistance to the AFL, but not anymore, again it was them that agreed to letting the crows & power reserves in. They had the chance to say no but didn't.
In my opinion the VFA became the second best comp in Victoria the moment the VFL/AFL pushed it's reserves into the VFA and everyone changed names.
If you don't follow Carlton any longer (your words) then my original post is not aimed at you. The line before that however says you are a born again Carlton follower so you've contradicted yourself a bit.
You also say the crows have committed the same sin as the VFL (which is Carlton included) actually backs up what I've said, the crows & power have done the same as the other now AFL/then VFL clubs.
How about we agree to disagree so this can get back on topic. I say its hypocrisy, you say its not. We are both allowed our opinions.

Yes I think we're going to end up disagreeing. That's fair enough. But I'll give it one more go.
Your original post was about hypocrisy. Some posters have a go at the Crows for doing what their own nominated AFL club does. My points have mainly been describing how the two situations are different (ie. AFL involvement in the VFL vs the Crows' SANFL push). The reason for this is that if the two situations are different, then posters cannot be accused of hypocrisy for treating the two situations differently.
If you follow, and agree with the above then you'll also understand the relevance of my posts to your original argument.

BTW I was using the term "born again Carlton fan" as meaning originally a Carlton fan, and now a Carlton fan again. My stint as a Crows fan signified a period where Victoria (not Carlton on its own, my understanding is that the Vic clubs were against expansion) did all it could to force the SANFL into joining. My beef then was with the AFL hierarchy, personified by everything Victorian, and South Australia being represented by the Crows. I carried a soft spot for Carlton all these years but I never held them responsible for what happened, it was just that a team more relevant to my situation appeared. But that situation no longer exists. I do hold the Crows responsible for this final insult, they're far more culpable than Carlton ever were (as Ian put it so well "they were operating within a system created by the AFL", hence blame lays with them, not the individual clubs, hence difference, hence relevance, hence not hypocrisy).
Anyway, it's all done and dusted now and we will see if it all turns out so bad or not.
P.S. You are a good many rungs of the ladder above Beeny. I don't even bother with him anymore. Everything's about how everyone's picking on Port, or how Port saved the SANFL or he's hanging shit on the entire SANFL comp. Dancing a little jig at our misery.

WOW, a 2 -line synopsis on someone you aren't bothering with, now that's my kind of ignore! AWESOME.

Taking out the part about Port Adelaide saving the $ANFL, there is just sooooo much wrong with your hypothesis.

Towards the mid to late '80's the VFL clubs were going broke from overspending and mismanagement (sound familiar?) so were screaming for a solution, ultimately called expansion. Following Brisbane and WC, the VFL made overture after overture to convince the SA "old boys club" to join. Hell they even renamed the comp the AFL as a final olive branch but the answer remained no. This from a football commission that had delivered such insular, well thought out strategies like the Player Retention Scheme, giving a high value Superannuation to a bunch of footballers that were never going to leave anyway.

The SA Football Commission acts in 3 ways; no decision, handballed decision, or cr@p decision. And you wonder why I have ZERO time for them?

therisingblues wrote:P.S. You are a good many rungs of the ladder above Beeny. .

That would have to be the most backhanded compliment ever dealt to anyone on This August Forum

beenreal wrote:Towards the mid to late '80's the VFL clubs were going broke from overspending and mismanagement (sound familiar?) so were screaming for a solution, ultimately called expansion. Following Brisbane and WC, the VFL made overture after overture to convince the SA "old boys club" to join. Hell they even renamed the comp the AFL as a final olive branch but the answer remained no. This from a football commission that had delivered such insular, well thought out strategies like the Player Retention Scheme, giving a high value Superannuation to a bunch of footballers that were never going to leave anyway.

The SA Football Commission acts in 3 ways; no decision, handballed decision, or cr@p decision. And you wonder why I have ZERO time for them?

Pop quiz!

You're in charge of a near-bankrupt state football league looking to expand into other states in a bald-faced attempt to resurrect your league at the expense of the sport in every other corner of the nation. One of the major state leagues is steadfastly refusing your demands, costing you a mountain of advertising revenue as it prevents your "product" (as you now call the game) reaching a national audience. What will you do?

A) relent on the four(?) million dollar "license fee", which was only ever a means to extort further money out of the Croweaters to further bolster your coffers, or

B) drop the "V" from the league name.

Come on beeny, you've got a 50% chance, have a crack...

Wedgie wrote:

Ron Burgundy wrote:As long as it makes the AFC a stronger club overall...

Most other AFL clubs have their seconds team playing together, so it is great that SA is following suit.

It won't, itll just be an expensive exercise in getting rid of one more excuse as to why the Cows and Powder are crap.

Given that the word "expensive" could cover a variety of meanings (not just financial) I'd say that was a pretty neat summary.

Pseudo wrote:

beenreal wrote:Towards the mid to late '80's the VFL clubs were going broke from overspending and mismanagement (sound familiar?) so were screaming for a solution, ultimately called expansion. Following Brisbane and WC, the VFL made overture after overture to convince the SA "old boys club" to join. Hell they even renamed the comp the AFL as a final olive branch but the answer remained no. This from a football commission that had delivered such insular, well thought out strategies like the Player Retention Scheme, giving a high value Superannuation to a bunch of footballers that were never going to leave anyway.

The SA Football Commission acts in 3 ways; no decision, handballed decision, or cr@p decision. And you wonder why I have ZERO time for them?

Pop quiz!

You're in charge of a near-bankrupt state football league looking to expand into other states in a bald-faced attempt to resurrect your league at the expense of the sport in every other corner of the nation. One of the major state leagues is steadfastly refusing your demands, costing you a mountain of advertising revenue as it prevents your "product" (as you now call the game) reaching a national audience. What will you do?

A) relent on the four(?) million dollar "license fee", which was only ever a means to extort further money out of the Croweaters to further bolster your coffers, or

B) drop the "V" from the league name.

Come on beeny, you've got a 50% chance, have a crack...

OR, how about the C)orrect answer. No-one could ever accuse the AFL of being altruistic, so it was drop the "V" and charge the License fee.

But no, the SA "old boys club" wanted to hold out for better conditions that would never be good enough. Remember, they had the "player retention scheme" keeping the world safe from football expansionism.

beenreal wrote:But no, the SA "old boys club" wanted to hold out for better conditions that would never be good enough. Remember, they had the "player retention scheme" keeping the world safe from football expansionism.

You mean football expanded into SA in 1991? Whatever did we do with our Saturday afternoons before that?

RB wrote:

beenreal wrote:But no, the SA "old boys club" wanted to hold out for better conditions that would never be good enough. Remember, they had the "player retention scheme" keeping the world safe from football expansionism.

You mean football expanded into SA in 1991? Whatever did we do with our Saturday afternoons before that?

Seems 1991 was when you started following the game.

Booney wrote:

RB wrote:

beenreal wrote:But no, the SA "old boys club" wanted to hold out for better conditions that would never be good enough. Remember, they had the "player retention scheme" keeping the world safe from football expansionism.

You mean football expanded into SA in 1991? Whatever did we do with our Saturday afternoons before that?

Seems 1991 was when you started following the game.

Not a big one for sarcasm, are you Booney?

Love sarcasm, I work with it regularly.

beenreal wrote:OR, how about the C)orrect answer. No-one could ever accuse the AFL of being altruistic, so it was drop the "V" and charge the License fee.

Actually the C)orrect answer was "divide and conquer: target the weakest link". Which they did.

Pseudo wrote:

beenreal wrote:OR, how about the C)orrect answer. No-one could ever accuse the AFL of being altruistic, so it was drop the "V" and charge the License fee.

Actually the C)orrect answer was "divide and conquer: target the weakest link". Which they did.

What, Norwood?