Reddeer wrote:For the life of me I cannot come to terms with such a ludicrous to take away the Eagles heartland of Henley and Grange and give it Salisbury, Pooraka and Burton. This is idiotic. can someone inform me of what dimwits in the SANFL could possible make a decision such as that. Apparently there was a retired judge on the panel, must have retired due to dementia
All eight clubs had an opportunity to comment on the draft zones three months ago, I am aware of some changes made to the proposed zones so basically what you've got now is what the clubs agreed to.
One of the guiding principles was for each club to retain as much of it's heartland as possible. For many Eagles fans we appear to have lost our heartland.
From a West Torrens perspective - absolutely. And there's the point - the merger of the names Woodville - West Torrens is just that now, in name only.
Very sad to see Henley & Grange areas go to another Club. What identity does the West Torrens 1/2 have now? nickname Eagles - that's all. Seems somewhat less than 1/2, doesn't it?
Reddeer wrote:For the life of me I cannot come to terms with such a ludicrous to take away the Eagles heartland of Henley and Grange and give it Salisbury, Pooraka and Burton. This is idiotic. can someone inform me of what dimwits in the SANFL could possible make a decision such as that. Apparently there was a retired judge on the panel, must have retired due to dementia
All eight clubs had an opportunity to comment on the draft zones three months ago, I am aware of some changes made to the proposed zones so basically what you've got now is what the clubs agreed to.
One of the guiding principles was for each club to retain as much of it's heartland as possible. For many Eagles fans we appear to have lost our heartland.
From a West Torrens perspective - absolutely. And there's the point - the merger of the names Woodville - West Torrens is just that now, in name only.
Very sad to see Henley & Grange areas go to another Club. What identity does the West Torrens 1/2 have now? nickname Eagles - that's all. Seems somewhat less than 1/2, doesn't it?
Seem like 2/3 to me Woodville-West Torrens and Eagles
Booney wrote:It might be quite difficult for me to change teams mate, but I'll think about it. I won't just go making a split second decision to go and support another team though, it will take time.
Booney, I was surprised your profile hasn't already changed to show the Eagles as your SANFL team.
Kurt Slaven will be around shortly to give you your membership pack.
Here is the link to the team song if you want to practice it......
So despite many on here being unhappy, it would seem from the article in today's paper that all Clubs are happy, with the exception of my Eagles who knew this was coming.....
From the maps, no one else should be in the slightest bit unhappy.
am Bays wrote:All eight clubs had an opportunity to comment on the draft zones three months ago, I am aware of some changes made to the proposed zones so basically what you've got now is what the clubs agreed to.
One of the guiding principles was for each club to retain as much of it's heartland as possible. For many Eagles fans we appear to have lost our heartland.
From a West Torrens perspective - absolutely. And there's the point - the merger of the names Woodville - West Torrens is just that now, in name only.
Very sad to see Henley & Grange areas go to another Club. What identity does the West Torrens 1/2 have now? nickname Eagles - that's all. Seems somewhat less than 1/2, doesn't it?
Seem like 2/3 to me Woodville-West Torrens and Eagles
So...just out of interest, how SHOULD have the zone boundaries been realigned? Everything seems to have shifted north/west as that's where Port's zones were....what were the alternatives?
Rising Power wrote:So...just out of interest, how SHOULD have the zone boundaries been realigned? Everything seems to have shifted north/west as that's where Port's zones were....what were the alternatives?
An even split in 3 between Eagles, Central and North would have been a start.
Rising Power wrote:So...just out of interest, how SHOULD have the zone boundaries been realigned? Everything seems to have shifted north/west as that's where Port's zones were....what were the alternatives?
Giving clubs their heartland should be a major consideration IMO. Still cant fathom how parts of Salisbury are not Centrals zone. Would make much more sense to give clubs all their surrounding suburbs and then divy up what is left
Considering how major this shift is, I think they've got it about right. Eagles as nearest neighbour and part of a congested western side of town have copped a big change. Could be a major bonus over the next 10 years. Seems like "heartland" is defined as the suburb that your home ground is in.
SANFLnut wrote:Considering how major this shift is, I think they've got it about right. Eagles as nearest neighbour and part of a congested western side of town have copped a big change. Could be a major bonus over the next 10 years. Seems like "heartland" is defined as the suburb that your home ground is in.
Exactly - hence no need for 'West Torrens' in the name anymore. The traditional 'heartland' has been removed - so remove the name. Call them Woodville.
The only other alternative would be for Centrals to take most of Ports zone and give their existing metro zone to North. North could hand 90% of their metro zone to Norwood , who in turn pass the parcel to Sturt and so on and so on. This would suit the Eagles , but no one else. Not really a better solution.
johntheclaret wrote:Why don't they just play Jacks for them. Throw up coloured jacks over a map of Adelaide and where your colour lands, that's your zone
johntheclaret wrote:Why don't they just play Jacks for them. Throw up coloured jacks over a map of Adelaide and where your colour lands, that's your zone
I'm sure thats how they did it anyway. Nobody in their right mind would take away Henley and Grange from the Eagles and give them Pooraka and Salisbury instead. Just Crazy This decision should only have been accepted over the Eagles President and boards dead body. Obviosly have no interest in their own clubs heritage as long as they get money from the AFL intruders and support them and their coporate greed
johntheclaret wrote:Why don't they just play Jacks for them. Throw up coloured jacks over a map of Adelaide and where your colour lands, that's your zone
Reddeer wrote: I'm sure thats how they did it anyway. Nobody in their right mind would take away Henley and Grange from the Eagles and give them Pooraka and Salisbury instead. Just Crazy. This decision should only have been accepted over the Eagles President and boards dead body. Obviosly have no interest in their own clubs heritage as long as they get money from the AFL intruders and support them and their coporate greed
The problem that both WWT and West Adelaide have and to some extent Glenelg is that they are land locked and if clubs on the outer fringes are to retain their own traditional heartland then they have to find a way to expand those western suburbs areas. Giving WWT the bulk of Port Adelaides metro area in close proximity to Woodville Oval seems a reasonable decision. From memory many NAFC people were unhappy about WWT being given Fitzroy for example. Traditionally Port have moved into the Salisbury / Pooraka areas and its difficult to bring CDFC that far back with all the extended growth in Craigmore and Gawler and so forth.
Steamranger, South Australia's best ever Tourist Attraction, Treat Yourself, Let your Money Buy you Happiness!!!
gawler is surely no longer considered a country town. its a suburb, no matter what people living in gawler will tell you. it is considered "metro" by the government at least
however i really dont care what it is considered as for the purposes of sanfl boundaries, i just find it funny when people try to claim it as "country"
get all the presidents and CEOs in a circle....
