Port Adelaide 2015

[valleys07]

After careful & concise consideration, I've come to the conclusion that extending Hinkley's contract is a shit decision purely because it's Port Adelaide doing it.

First thing we've got wrong in 2 years! Tough judge.

Brad Scott got awarded a one year extension at the end of 2010 when North missed the finals- Hinkley pushed for 2 under that model

[MW]

Booney IMO it's risk vs reward. Hinkley has had success no doubt, but they have not won the flag under his coaching. He is now locked away for another 4 years. Obviously this could work out famously esp. if they snag a couple of flags in the next few years, but if they don't?
I am not a big believer in extending a contract so far in advance.

I can't agree. Rookie coaches sign 2-3 year contracts, how does your theory work there?
Remember, contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on anymore.

Simple. If the rookie coach is seen to be no good after 2-3 years, they will flick him.
With Hinkley, you've got your initial 4 year contract. 2 years in, all going well. No ultimate success however. What if the next 2 years are crap?

Anyway odds are this is not the case and he will be around for a long time!

[valleys07]

Four n Twenty hops on board as a premier partner:

http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2 ... t-adelaide

[Booney]

I hope people who eat Four'N'Twenty pies ring the complaints department and ask why have they chosen to support Port Adelaide!

@Footy Chick

[Footy Smart]

I hope people who eat Four'N'Twenty pies ring the complaints department and ask why have they chosen to support Port Adelaide!

@Footy Chick

Damn was gonna have a $3 fourntwenty when i go to see adelaide v collingwood in round 2. Cant be seen to support your sponsors

[Booney]

I hope people who eat Four'N'Twenty pies ring the complaints department and ask why have they chosen to support Port Adelaide!

@Footy Chick

Damn was gonna have a $3 fourntwenty when i go to see adelaide v collingwood in round 2. Cant be seen to support your sponsors

I know that's a joke, nowhere sells $3 pies!

[Footy Smart]

I hope people who eat Four'N'Twenty pies ring the complaints department and ask why have they chosen to support Port Adelaide!

@Footy Chick

Damn was gonna have a $3 fourntwenty when i go to see adelaide v collingwood in round 2. Cant be seen to support your sponsors

I know that's a joke, nowhere sells $3 pies!

I read that etihad stadium have changed their pie price..... my waist line will be happy

[alcho-pop]

I hope people who eat Four'N'Twenty pies ring the complaints department and ask why have they chosen to support Port Adelaide!

@Footy Chick

Damn was gonna have a $3 fourntwenty when i go to see adelaide v collingwood in round 2. Cant be seen to support your sponsors

I know that's a joke, nowhere sells $3 pies!

I read that etihad stadium have changed their pie price..... my waist line will be happy

Only for sunday games I believe and I'm pretty sure round 2 is on a saturday. You'll have to wait until round 4 against the Bulldogs to enjoy a $3 pie - then run it/them off with kick and catch after the game.

[Rik E Boy]

I hope people who eat Four'N'Twenty pies ring the complaints department and ask why have they chosen to support Port Adelaide!

@Footy Chick

Time for a Vilis.

regards,

REB

[Booney]

Fair and reasonable I would have thought.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/esse ... mb6wp.html

Port Adelaide will push for compensation should they lose two of their key players to anti-doping suspensions as a result of the Essendon drugs program of 2012.

Club chief Keith Thomas confirmed to Fairfax Media that his club would not simply accept losing the services of both Angus Monfries and Paddy Ryder as the club launches its 2015 campaign.

Stressing he remained hopeful if not confident his players would be cleared by the AFL's anti-doping tribunal on Tuesday, Thomas said the Power would at the very least push for clearance to promote a player from their rookie list.

Advertisement

"We would argue certainly where Angus is concerned that we had no knowledge of what he had potentially been through when we recruited him at the end of 2012," Thomas said. "With Paddy we knew what we were getting and we were prepared to take the risk. But no one had knowledge of the situation two years earlier.

"We will wait for the outcome but in the worse-case scenario we would look at applying to the AFL for compensation by potentially upgrading a rookie."

Monfries and Ryder, who last year rejected suggestions by Port that they seek independent legal representation, have chosen to remain in Adelaide for the findings of the AFL anti-doping tribunal. Although the club offered to fly them to Melbourne to join their former Essendon team-mates, the pair will be together at Port's Alberton headquarters with club football boss Chris Davies.

The Port Adelaide compensation push is expected to raise legal issues of personal liability also related to the trading of players harbouring injuries or illegal drug strikes. It is understood that Collingwood will also look to the AFL to seek a more systematic approach in the wake of future anti-doping suspensions.

Changes to the World Anti-Doping code passed by the AFL Commission last week handed the league more leverage on Monday in managing the Collingwood positive drug tests. That leverage empowered the AFL to reveal the status and timing of the positive drug tests of Lachlan Keefe and Josh Thomas.

However, should the Collingwood players, who like Ryan Crowley have engaged independent lawyers, choose to fight the charges, that could delay the Magpies' move to promote replacement players onto their senior list

[woodublieve12]

Fair and reasonable I would have thought.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/esse ... mb6wp.html

Port Adelaide will push for compensation should they lose two of their key players to anti-doping suspensions as a result of the Essendon drugs program of 2012.

Club chief Keith Thomas confirmed to Fairfax Media that his club would not simply accept losing the services of both Angus Monfries and Paddy Ryder as the club launches its 2015 campaign.

Stressing he remained hopeful if not confident his players would be cleared by the AFL's anti-doping tribunal on Tuesday, Thomas said the Power would at the very least push for clearance to promote a player from their rookie list.

Advertisement

"We would argue certainly where Angus is concerned that we had no knowledge of what he had potentially been through when we recruited him at the end of 2012," Thomas said. "With Paddy we knew what we were getting and we were prepared to take the risk. But no one had knowledge of the situation two years earlier.

"We will wait for the outcome but in the worse-case scenario we would look at applying to the AFL for compensation by potentially upgrading a rookie."

Monfries and Ryder, who last year rejected suggestions by Port that they seek independent legal representation, have chosen to remain in Adelaide for the findings of the AFL anti-doping tribunal. Although the club offered to fly them to Melbourne to join their former Essendon team-mates, the pair will be together at Port's Alberton headquarters with club football boss Chris Davies.

The Port Adelaide compensation push is expected to raise legal issues of personal liability also related to the trading of players harbouring injuries or illegal drug strikes. It is understood that Collingwood will also look to the AFL to seek a more systematic approach in the wake of future anti-doping suspensions.

Changes to the World Anti-Doping code passed by the AFL Commission last week handed the league more leverage on Monday in managing the Collingwood positive drug tests. That leverage empowered the AFL to reveal the status and timing of the positive drug tests of Lachlan Keefe and Josh Thomas.

However, should the Collingwood players, who like Ryan Crowley have engaged independent lawyers, choose to fight the charges, that could delay the Magpies' move to promote replacement players onto their senior list

Absolute rubbish, you blokes picked them up full well this could happen.

[Booney]

When did the drug scandal break?

Essendon "self reported" to the AFL on February 5th 2013.

Monfries left Essendon in October 2012 and signed with Port Adelaide 8th October 2012.

So what is it you said again? Knew full well, full well what?

[woodublieve12]

When did the drug scandal break?

Essendon "self reported" to the AFL on February 5th 2013.

Monfries left Essendon in October 2012 and signed with Port Adelaide 8th October 2012.

So what is it you said again? Knew full well, full well what?

not sure what you are talking about...


i'll see myself out...

[Booney]

Fair and reasonable I would have thought.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/esse ... mb6wp.html

Port Adelaide will push for compensation should they lose two of their key players to anti-doping suspensions as a result of the Essendon drugs program of 2012.

Club chief Keith Thomas confirmed to Fairfax Media that his club would not simply accept losing the services of both Angus Monfries and Paddy Ryder as the club launches its 2015 campaign.

Stressing he remained hopeful if not confident his players would be cleared by the AFL's anti-doping tribunal on Tuesday, Thomas said the Power would at the very least push for clearance to promote a player from their rookie list.

Advertisement

"We would argue certainly where Angus is concerned that we had no knowledge of what he had potentially been through when we recruited him at the end of 2012," Thomas said. "With Paddy we knew what we were getting and we were prepared to take the risk. But no one had knowledge of the situation two years earlier.

"We will wait for the outcome but in the worse-case scenario we would look at applying to the AFL for compensation by potentially upgrading a rookie."

Monfries and Ryder, who last year rejected suggestions by Port that they seek independent legal representation, have chosen to remain in Adelaide for the findings of the AFL anti-doping tribunal. Although the club offered to fly them to Melbourne to join their former Essendon team-mates, the pair will be together at Port's Alberton headquarters with club football boss Chris Davies.

The Port Adelaide compensation push is expected to raise legal issues of personal liability also related to the trading of players harbouring injuries or illegal drug strikes. It is understood that Collingwood will also look to the AFL to seek a more systematic approach in the wake of future anti-doping suspensions.

Changes to the World Anti-Doping code passed by the AFL Commission last week handed the league more leverage on Monday in managing the Collingwood positive drug tests. That leverage empowered the AFL to reveal the status and timing of the positive drug tests of Lachlan Keefe and Josh Thomas.

However, should the Collingwood players, who like Ryan Crowley have engaged independent lawyers, choose to fight the charges, that could delay the Magpies' move to promote replacement players onto their senior list

Absolute rubbish, you blokes picked them up full well this could happen.

Quoted for prosperity.

[Spargo]

When did the drug scandal break?

Essendon "self reported" to the AFL on February 5th 2013.

Monfries left Essendon in October 2012 and signed with Port Adelaide 8th October 2012.

So what is it you said again? Knew full well, full well what?

not sure what you are talking about...


i'll see myself out...

Some of your sharpest work there wubby

[woodublieve12]

Can we have a do over?

[Jim05]

No probs with Gus but lol at wanting one for Ryder considering you actually poached him knowing full well what the outcome could be

[woodublieve12]

No probs with Gus but lol at wanting one for Ryder considering you actually poached him knowing full well what the outcome could be

yeah that's what i meant... Yeah Ryder, no compo for him

[Booney]

No probs with Gus but lol at wanting one for Ryder considering you actually poached him knowing full well what the outcome could be

Read the article, it clearly states it's only Gus and not Ryder.

We would argue certainly where Angus is concerned that we had no knowledge of what he had potentially been through when we recruited him at the end of 2012," Thomas said. "With Paddy we knew what we were getting and we were prepared to take the risk. But no one had knowledge of the situation two years earlier.

Did wub12 just hack Jims account?

[valleys07]