by csbowes » Sat Oct 10, 2015 7:21 am
by csbowes » Sat Oct 10, 2015 7:22 am
by Reddeer » Sat Nov 21, 2015 11:08 am
by gossipgirl » Sat Nov 21, 2015 3:38 pm
by Reddeer » Sat Nov 21, 2015 4:41 pm
gossipgirl wrote:This thread has 0.0 integrity
by RB » Sat Nov 21, 2015 5:00 pm
gossipgirl wrote:This thread has 0.0 integrity
by Wedgie » Sat Nov 21, 2015 5:19 pm
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Reddeer » Sat Nov 21, 2015 7:23 pm
Wedgie wrote:Its a pity there's not a lengthy thread on this subject already.
by Magellan » Sun Nov 22, 2015 2:54 am
gossipgirl wrote:This thread has 0.0 integrity
by human_torpedo » Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:07 am
by JK » Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:25 am
human_torpedo wrote:When you come up with somewhere for the up to 5 players who could potentially miss out on a game if the cap was in place.. Stopping 5 kids from playing footy, which is ironically their job, purely because the side they play for may be too strong that week is ridiculous..
by human_torpedo » Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:31 am
JK wrote:human_torpedo wrote:When you come up with somewhere for the up to 5 players who could potentially miss out on a game if the cap was in place.. Stopping 5 kids from playing footy, which is ironically their job, purely because the side they play for may be too strong that week is ridiculous..
Rubbish. So we should happily place individuals and their careers above the quality of the competition in its entirety? Hmmmkay ....
by JK » Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:33 am
human_torpedo wrote:JK wrote:human_torpedo wrote:When you come up with somewhere for the up to 5 players who could potentially miss out on a game if the cap was in place.. Stopping 5 kids from playing footy, which is ironically their job, purely because the side they play for may be too strong that week is ridiculous..
Rubbish. So we should happily place individuals and their careers above the quality of the competition in its entirety? Hmmmkay ....
Just let blokes play footy mate. IMO capping players wont add to the integrity of the competition at all.. Plenty of other means to be looked at before we start capping sides on field selections
by Grahaml » Mon Nov 23, 2015 11:46 am
by VALE PARK » Mon Nov 23, 2015 1:30 pm
by Reddeer » Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:49 pm
Grahaml wrote:The AFL sides would simply refuse to agree to that. If the SANFL can't bring themselves to kick them out then they won't bring themselves to introduce conditions that would have the same effect.
by stan » Tue Nov 24, 2015 12:48 pm
Reddeer wrote:Grahaml wrote:The AFL sides would simply refuse to agree to that. If the SANFL can't bring themselves to kick them out then they won't bring themselves to introduce conditions that would have the same effect.
That is the problem they haven't the guts to do anything to protect OUR competition
by JK » Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:06 pm
Reddeer wrote:Grahaml wrote:The AFL sides would simply refuse to agree to that. If the SANFL can't bring themselves to kick them out then they won't bring themselves to introduce conditions that would have the same effect.
That is the problem they haven't the guts to do anything to protect OUR competition
by heater31 » Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:32 pm
VALE PARK wrote:Talk about players not playing reminds me,
4 byes or whatever you call it this year,
when no footy played.
Let's hope the powers to be get it right in 2016.
We need players and supporters at the footy not at home gardening!
by carey » Tue Nov 24, 2015 7:04 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |