therisingblues wrote:That'd have to be the two best grand final records against the Bays.
Port have cashed in on the Bays also, but, Glenelg's first flag was against the Pies. Tat's a tarnished record.
I think Port have them 5-1.
regards,
REB
therisingblues wrote:That'd have to be the two best grand final records against the Bays.
Port have cashed in on the Bays also, but, Glenelg's first flag was against the Pies. Tat's a tarnished record.
Rik E Boy wrote:therisingblues wrote:That'd have to be the two best grand final records against the Bays.
Port have cashed in on the Bays also, but, Glenelg's first flag was against the Pies. Tat's a tarnished record.
I think Port have them 5-1.
regards,
REB
mickey wrote:Rik E Boy wrote:therisingblues wrote:That'd have to be the two best grand final records against the Bays.
Port have cashed in on the Bays also, but, Glenelg's first flag was against the Pies. Tat's a tarnished record.
I think Port have them 5-1.
regards,
REB
Those 5 came in a 15 year span too
therisingblues wrote:mickey wrote:Rik E Boy wrote:therisingblues wrote:That'd have to be the two best grand final records against the Bays.
Port have cashed in on the Bays also, but, Glenelg's first flag was against the Pies. Tat's a tarnished record.
I think Port have them 5-1.
regards,
REB
Those 5 came in a 15 year span too
Hmmm, interesting.
Sturt's plundering of Glenelg happened between 1969 - 1974, a period of 6 years.
I think the Norwood era of pillaging the Bays began the following year, in 1975, then I think Port's 1977 flag came with kind proceeds from Glenelg.
You'd have to say Sturt softened them up for Port and Norwood to continually ransack flags from the Tigers over the following decades.
helicopterking wrote:Flaggies will choke. Always have.
MatteeG wrote:All this talk isn't helping chaps...![]()
Booney wrote:I've thrown in some coin and I quite like the discussion too.
Brodlach wrote:Rory Laird might end up the best IMO, he is an absolute jet. He has been in great form at the Bloods
scott wrote:Clubs and/or SANFL probably don't feel they could attract the additional $$ in sponsorship to cover the additional wages of players and staff, as well as additional costs for umpiring and statistics which definitely add up.
22 games over 23 weeks would be fantastic with a mid-season bye, but can't help but feel the 18 games is here to stay for financial reasons.
Same as why we only get 18 Seven Network games per season when there's far more weeks of footy than that. All about the $$.
Realistically how much income is derived from home games? Given the downward trend of crowds I highly doubt more games is going to boost the bottom line by much.scott wrote:Clubs and/or SANFL probably don't feel they could attract the additional $$ in sponsorship to cover the additional wages of players and staff, as well as additional costs for umpiring and statistics which definitely add up.
22 games over 23 weeks would be fantastic with a mid-season bye, but can't help but feel the 18 games is here to stay for financial reasons.
Same as why we only get 18 Seven Network games per season when there's far more weeks of footy than that. All about the $$.
JK wrote: Also, how'd they manage the Payroll Tax refund?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 301 guests