SA Footy

kickinit wrote:
So you want port and the crows to go out and find you sponsorship deals?

Here you go again starting your comments with the word "So"...
So, I'll return the favour.

So, what I am saying is...
So, the Cows outline (as part of their 'hard sell') that greater sponsorship will be available to Clubs.
So, I assumed that would mean (as a result of Channel 7's TV Coverage) that Club Sponsors would get 'prime' location for their Advertising/Signs.
So, this doesn't appear to have occurred.
So, here is another 'falsehood' pedaled to enhance their 'hard sell' - except for Port of course, because they still play their Home Games @ Alberton.
So, their signage remains where it is

So, the problem I still have with this whole debacle is that the majority of Pros are for the AFL Reserves Teams & the majority of the Cons are for the existing SANFL Teams - which was pointed out continually during 2013 by many on here but dismissed throughout the Media & by those in favour of the proposal.

So, once again, the 7 CEOs were stupid in not considering their position on allowing AFL Reserves Teams into the Competition for longer.
So, in other words, they could've easily waited 12 months to make their decision - so, 'trumping' the Cows & making them field a Team in the Ammos & so, determining if promises such as "increased Crowds, increased revenue & increased exposure" were accurate predictions.

"So what?", I hear you respond.

Play the ball not the man ... stupidity isn't a crime by the way.

dedja wrote:Play the ball not the man ... stupidity isn't a crime by the way.

Yup my bad, apologies.

kickinit wrote:

LPH wrote:At this stage it appears the BIGGEST beneficiary of the AFL Reserves has been "Port Adelaide".

Regardless of the debate about AFL in the SANFL being right or wrong, they (the former Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club) were on the brink of insolvency, debt ridden & non-performing on the ground. Their 'deal' appears to have been most beneficial for them - in fact they are now 2/1 favorite for the Flag.

I agree that Sturt, West & Glenelg too were almost insolvent - in fact I would assume most Clubs were running @ a loss.

The major "Con" for me (& it really is a 'con' in the true sense of the word) is the so called $50K being paid to the Clubs.
Wasn't that money related to added attendances & greater sponsorship exposure?
All I have noticed in the TV coverage is a few 'Erics' around the fences promoting IGA & a couple of others.

So you want port and the crows to go out and find you sponsorship deals?

And there goes another thread.
How about you read the post instead of just flaming. You are another who gripes on but never actually contributes to the thread.
This is the last time I will rise to your trolling and flaming.
I would urge everyone else to ignore your posts too and maybe you will go away.

Sorry Booney, you were right as another thread turns to shit. Bet you weren't expecting it to be one of the Pro Ressie posters to bring it down though

The thread is titled AFL Reserves ? Not sure what your reply means ?

LPH wrote:

kickinit wrote:
So you want port and the crows to go out and find you sponsorship deals?

Here you go again starting your comments with the word "So"...
So, I'll return the favour.

So, what I am saying is...
So, the Cows outline (as part of their 'hard sell') that greater sponsorship will be available to Clubs.
So, I assumed that would mean (as a result of Channel 7's TV Coverage) that Club Sponsors would get 'prime' location for their Advertising/Signs.
So, this doesn't appear to have occurred.
So, here is another 'falsehood' pedaled to enhance their 'hard sell' - except for Port of course, because they still play their Home Games @ Alberton.
So, their signage remains where it is

So, the problem I still have with this whole debacle is that the majority of Pros are for the AFL Reserves Teams & the majority of the Cons are for the existing SANFL Teams - which was pointed out continually during 2013 by many on here but dismissed throughout the Media & by those in favour of the proposal.

So, once again, the 7 CEOs were stupid in not considering their position on allowing AFL Reserves Teams into the Competition for longer.
So, in other words, they could've easily waited 12 months to make their decision - so, 'trumping' the Cows & making them field a Team in the Ammos & so, determining if promises such as "increased Crowds, increased revenue & increased exposure" were accurate predictions.

"So what?", I hear you respond.

First off all in business talk means as much as Apache contributes to this forum, absolutely nothing. If the clubs that voted yes and the sanfl thought the crowd would keep those promises then their just stupid. The crows where only ever going to do what was in their contract and I'm sure the clubs and the sanfl knew this

The Pros - when the SANFL clubs beat them.
The Cons - when the SANFL clubs lose to them.

In all fairness, playing for the Crows reserves instead of North has had a huge impact on Lewis Johnstone's game.

johntheclaret wrote:Sorry Booney, you were right as another thread turns to shit. Bet you weren't expecting it to be one of the Pro Ressie posters to bring it down though

Not just this thread Johnny, the whole SANFL forum has turned to shit. Every thread is filled with anti-Port anti-Adelaide sentiment, FFS, there's even a ladder that doesn't acknowledge the two sides existence! Talk about head-in-the sand denial. Quite laughable that people are that immature.

If all the people who simply threatened to walk away from the competition all together in among the heat of debate last year actually did, it wouldn't bother me one bit. Sure, long standing SANFL fans lost to the competition is not a good thing, but constant pissing and moaning about wanting the good 'ol days back simply won't bring them back.

And nothing, nothing ads more to a game review thread than asking "What scarves were people wearing?"

Spot on booney

pros - 10k crowd on friday night...

woodublieve12 wrote:pros - 10k crowd on friday night...

Cons - half of them didnt pay to get in, if Walker played for Norwood there would have been the same crowd but they would have paid to get in.

Pros - Ive been to 2 SFL and 1 YPFL games this season, saving myself $ on Membership and overpriced beer/food and paying reasonable prices for same at grass roots footy where they appreciate my $, and enjoying footy as much as I ever have. Im sure there are many in my situation that have just dropped back a level to get their footy fix.

Dutchy wrote:Pros - Ive been to 2 SFL and 1 YPFL games this season, saving myself $ on Membership and overpriced beer/food and paying reasonable prices for same at grass roots footy where they appreciate my $, and enjoying footy as much as I ever have. Im sure there are many in my situation that have just dropped back a level to get their footy fix.

At your SFL or SAAFL the food is reasonably priced and if your there with a few mates is a good day out. Not a bad alternative.

Dutchy wrote:

woodublieve12 wrote:pros - 10k crowd on friday night...

Cons - half of them didnt pay to get in, if Walker played for Norwood there would have been the same crowd but they would have paid to get in.

so these people arent going to spend money on overpriced drinks and food? i sure did when i went to elizabeth

stan wrote:

Dutchy wrote:Pros - Ive been to 2 SFL and 1 YPFL games this season, saving myself $ on Membership and overpriced beer/food and paying reasonable prices for same at grass roots footy where they appreciate my $, and enjoying footy as much as I ever have. Im sure there are many in my situation that have just dropped back a level to get their footy fix.

At your SFL or SAAFL the food is reasonably priced and if your there with a few mates is a good day out. Not a bad alternative.

Yep I went and watched Eastern Park when Centrals were away, had a great day and will continue doing that this year

bennymacca wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

woodublieve12 wrote:pros - 10k crowd on friday night...

Cons - half of them didnt pay to get in, if Walker played for Norwood there would have been the same crowd but they would have paid to get in.

so these people arent going to spend money on overpriced drinks and food? i sure did when i went to elizabeth

But so would have the Norwood supporters who also paid $14 to get in

And they would have been wearing Norwood hats and scarves. Very important to remember benny.

whufc wrote:

bennymacca wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

woodublieve12 wrote:pros - 10k crowd on friday night...

Cons - half of them didnt pay to get in, if Walker played for Norwood there would have been the same crowd but they would have paid to get in.

so these people arent going to spend money on overpriced drinks and food? i sure did when i went to elizabeth

But so would have the Norwood supporters who also paid $14 to get in

if any of you were crows or port members, do you think you would want to get into your reserves for free? i sure do, and probably wouldnt have gone the other week to watch centrals and the crows if i didnt get in for nothing.

bennymacca wrote:if any of you were crows or port members, do you think you would want to get into your reserves for free? i sure do, and probably wouldnt have gone the other week to watch centrals and the crows if i didnt get in for nothing.

If I just wanted to go and watch the Norwood reserves should I expect to get in for free? (not trying to buy into the whole debate, just that one)