by bluestheboy » Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:42 pm
by stan » Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:23 pm
by holden78 » Mon Jan 02, 2006 8:16 pm
by McAlmanac » Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:28 pm
Punk Rooster wrote: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?
by holden78 » Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:31 pm
by spell_check » Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:43 pm
holden78 wrote: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
by Wedgie » Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:06 pm
by spell_check » Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:19 pm
Wedgie wrote: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?
by holden78 » Sun Jan 08, 2006 7:26 pm
by Wedgie » Sun Jan 08, 2006 7:34 pm
by holden78 » Sun Jan 08, 2006 8:02 pm
Yes the sanfl would have been better why would you bring another team in a already over crowded western areaWedgie wrote: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?
by am Bays » Sun Jan 08, 2006 8:07 pm
by Wedgie » Sun Jan 08, 2006 8:11 pm
by spell_check » Sun Jan 08, 2006 8:35 pm
holden78 wrote:Yes the sanfl would have been better why would you bring another team in a already over crowded western areaWedgie wrote: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?
by holden78 » Sun Jan 08, 2006 9:49 pm
by Ecky » Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:16 pm
by McAlmanac » Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:38 pm
by Wedgie » Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:51 pm
spell_check wrote:I dislike the supporters that won't go to see the Eagles play just because they merged.
by McAlmanac » Sun Jan 08, 2006 11:02 pm
Wedgie wrote:Having said all of that I think merging is a different issues in country leages mainly because of numbers.
by spell_check » Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:02 am
Wedgie wrote:spell_check wrote: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.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |