Game Summary: Melbourne v. Essendon [Archive]

Santos L Helper

26 Apr 2001, 05:28

Originally posted by Jars458:
Your grip on the English language is fantastic.

I of course agree the Crows were not a real test as we have been playing very ordinary footy.

I can be realistic about my team... Can you.

Personal abuse is funny as it only serves to reveal you for the person you are.

Geelong will probably win.

Have a nice day, and don't drive angry.

Cheers

Poor old Jars, you want to change the rules half way through the game. You berate me for my personal abuse, but I'm wondering what you expected when from your first post you were abusing and criticising one of our most favourite players? I believe it was you that came to our boards with the agressive attitude (yes I know it wasn't personal) and yet when we come back agressively to stand up for one of our own you tell us we aren't being realistic.
I think it's great that you can be realistic about YOUR team, but how can we consider holding a civilised discussion with you when all you have done so far is criticise our team and players? I find it amusing that suddenly your being all contrite and passing yourself off as a reasonable, civilised person. If you had bothered to make your first post an intelligent criticism, rather than straight abuse, we (I) may have given you the response you seem to now want, and probably deserve. You are the first person I have resorted to that type of abuse with, but I am not the only one who wanted to jump down your throat. Maybe that's an indication that when you make your first post an agressive one, you can expect agression back.
I hope that we may be able to hold an intelligent discussion about our teams at some stage.
ps. Be careful when you abuse someone about their use of the English language, you may wind up eating your words.

------------------
If ya smell what Santos is cooking!!

[This message has been edited by Santos L Helper (edited 25 April 2001).]

Crow54

27 Apr 2001, 05:44

Originally posted by Port Adelaide 1870:
Here it comes AFL....be scared...very scared......

PA1870

Well, it's taken you five years, and a chat with Malcolm Blight (mid-way thru last season) to get there..... http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/smile.gif

Jars458

27 Apr 2001, 06:08

Originally posted by Santos L Helper:
Poor old Jars, you want to change the rules half way through the game. You berate me for my personal abuse, but I'm wondering what you expected when from your first post you were abusing and criticising one of our most favourite players? I believe it was you that came to our boards with the agressive attitude (yes I know it wasn't personal) and yet when we come back agressively to stand up for one of our own you tell us we aren't being realistic.
I think it's great that you can be realistic about YOUR team, but how can we consider holding a civilised discussion with you when all you have done so far is criticise our team and players? I find it amusing that suddenly your being all contrite and passing yourself off as a reasonable, civilised person. If you had bothered to make your first post an intelligent criticism, rather than straight abuse, we (I) may have given you the response you seem to now want, and probably deserve. You are the first person I have resorted to that type of abuse with, but I am not the only one who wanted to jump down your throat. Maybe that's an indication that when you make your first post an agressive one, you can expect agression back.
I hope that we may be able to hold an intelligent discussion about our teams at some stage.
ps. Be careful when you abuse someone about their use of the English language, you may wind up eating your words.

I think being agressive about the opposition team is entirely different to being personally abusive.

I happen to believe Tredrea is overated. I happen to believe that the PAP's have yet to achieve anything.

Clearly they are playing excellent football at the moment, but all their wins have been at home.

It can't be denied that Geelong will be a real test at Shell Stadium, however with Port having an extra days rest and Geelong playing in shocking conditions on Sunday, this will give Port a good chance.

As far as the Enlgish language commment goes, it was clearly directed at your use of insulting language towards me.

Anyway, looking forward to the games this weekend as they will be a big test for both clubs.

------------------
"That'll do, THAT will do...Unbelievable Darren"
Bruce... September 1997

[This message has been edited by Jars458 (edited 26 April 2001).]

ant

27 Apr 2001, 19:55

Yeah well Santos, we'll f*ck off your board when you all f*ck off our board. http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/smile.gif

Blues_Brat

28 Apr 2001, 07:49

Jars, you're an idiot. I'm glad you chose that nick because it proves your stupidity. I knew the Jarmans personally and they are not very well endowed in the IQ stakes.

Its Crows 'supporters' like you that turned me away from being a full on Crows supporter. Sure, I like watching them play and enjoy them winning, but I can be a bit indifferent when they lose.

Did you support an SANFL team before the formation of the Crows or are you a bandwagoner?

I'd much rather talk footy with a knowlegable Port supporter than an idiot Crows supporter.

Defining moment for me: At a Crows game it was McDermott's Lee's and Maynard's 50th AFL game and the banner read accordingly. Some moron stood up and said "LOOK!! ALL BLOODY BAYS PLAYERS!" http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

ant

28 Apr 2001, 12:55

Jars, I reckon you're alright actually, you got off to a bad start on the boards, but you've shown you have football sense. Don't worry about some of these people who bag you cause you may have a different opinion to them, keep it up and may you continue to be a contributor on the boards.

Jars458

28 Apr 2001, 13:27

Originally posted by Blues_Brat:
Jars, you're an idiot. I'm glad you chose that nick because it proves your stupidity. I knew the Jarmans personally and they are not very well endowed in the IQ stakes.

Its Crows 'supporters' like you that turned me away from being a full on Crows supporter. Sure, I like watching them play and enjoy them winning, but I can be a bit indifferent when they lose.

Did you support an SANFL team before the formation of the Crows or are you a bandwagoner?

I'd much rather talk footy with a knowlegable Port supporter than an idiot Crows supporter.

Defining moment for me: At a Crows game it was McDermott's Lee's and Maynard's 50th AFL game and the banner read accordingly. Some moron stood up and said "LOOK!! ALL BLOODY BAYS PLAYERS!" http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

Yes West Torrens and now the Eagles. In Gold and Green and Blue.

There are some people who know little about football at Crows games for sure - but not me.

(Glenelg Central and Norwood by the way)

You don't know me at all, so your comments on my IQ say so much more about you than they do about me.

Stay away from personal abuse, you are not good at it.

You are obviously not a supporter at all if you are indifferent. Never been indifferent about anything in my life personally

Go and talk to your Port supporter friends then and leave me alone, you obviously understand them much better

Don't drive angry!!

------------------
"That'll do, THAT will do...Unbelievable Darren"
Bruce... September 1997

Blues_Brat

28 Apr 2001, 21:30

Originally posted by Jars458:

Go and talk to your Port supporter friends then and leave me alone, you obviously understand them much better

I'll re-iterate the point, I'd rather discuss football with an intelligent Port supporter than a moronic Crows supporter any day.

For the record I despise Port. They have as many morons as anyone. The difference with them is they have no bandwagoners.

As for being indifferent. I am not indifferent when it comes to MY team. Just because that team happens to not be an AFL team does not make me any less passionate than you.

Port Adelaide 1870

30 Apr 2001, 16:29

Originally posted by Crow54:
Well, it's taken you five years, and a chat with Malcolm Blight (mid-way thru last season) to get there..... http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/smile.gif

The Point ?

It took us from 1965 to 1977 to win a premiership
12 years in that stretch, It took us 14 years to win our first from 1870 to 1884, whats the point you are trying to raise?

five years ? what do you mean ?

we've played in two night G.F.'s and one finals series so far in our AFL section of history..

PA1870 http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Dan26

30 Apr 2001, 17:43

The AFL section is the "only" section of your history PA1870.

Port still play in the SANFL and continue the 130 year tradition.

And don't give me any more of this pedantic "Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club" bullshit, either. You know full well, that the only Port that is feared and admired is the one running around in the SANFL.

Just because of some petty spin-doctoring, and legal mumbo-jumbo, which is supposed to state that they are different to the Power, does not make it so in the publics eyes. The Power began in 1997.

It is interesting to hear your point of view. It is interesting to see someone, who is wrong, but legitimately is passionate. It's refreshing. It really doesn't matter if "legally" the two are seprate clubs. Legally, the Power might be the same as the "old" Port in the SANFL, but this is just legal crap, and spin-doctoring. I really don't give a shit, how they answer the phone at the football clubs either. Just because they answer the phone at the PAMFC "Hello, welcome to Port Magpies footall club" doesn't automatically make them a different club in the publics eyes.

Yes, I know the legal aspect, but so what? You know, as well as I do, that the only really successful and feared Port is the one in the SANFL NOW. Always has been. The Power may be feared one day, but it is up to them to forge their own new history and reputation. You can't just feed off the history of another club who is still playing - and winning premeirships - in the SANFL.

Keep supporting the Power. One day they might do well, and win a finals match. They will forge their own history. And stop thrusting the history of Port down everyone's throats in the normal public forum. The Power have a 5 year history. Live with it. It is good to see that you are so passionate, and it is good to teach people like you the way things are. You might be a bit ignorant and arrogant, but that's okay. it's just your personality. Every now and then I come across people like you, who don't really know stuff, and I have to teach them.

Grave Danger

30 Apr 2001, 18:35

I've registered a 'complaint' on the Essendon board about this Dan25 dweeb coming here and posting crap on our board. It's not as if he was responding to something addressed to him or about his team and it's the same dribble he's posted on the main board a hundred times already. So he should keep out of here AND GET A BLOODY LIFE!

Dan26

30 Apr 2001, 19:16

It's not "your" board, you dill. http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/mad.gif You don't own it. If I want to come on here and talk about Port (which i did), then I will do just that.

If you want to go to the Bombers board and talk about Essendon, then do it. Go right ahead, I don't care. I just think that PA1870 needs to take the stick out of his ass, sometimes.

Dan26

30 Apr 2001, 19:25

Grave Danger,

This is what I posted in reply to your idiotic thread on the Essendon board:

Keep this crap on your own board.

I am perfectly entitled to use the other boards, if I am talking about those teams in question. I was talking about Port, so I used the Port board. What do you suggest I do? Post it here?

These boards are for everyone. They are just "catalogued" so that discussion pertaining to the teams in question is kept there. You coming on here, saying that I posted on the Port board is a waste of effort and time on your part.

I wasn't abusive, or anything like that. Are you incapable of having a footy discussion with anyone other than a member of your own team? http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/mad.gif

If you disagree with me, fine. But there is no point going to the Bomber board in order to "tell them" to hate me. That shit doesn't work, and makes you look petulant and sensitive.

I was talking about Port, so I posted on the Port board. Now, what the hell is your problem with that? http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/mad.gif If you keep this sort of stuff up, I will e-mail Bluey to register a complaint with you. This kind of stuff is not on.

[This message has been edited by Dan25 (edited 30 April 2001).]

ptw

30 Apr 2001, 20:00

Dan

In my view you are welcome here so long as you don't get into personal abuse or bag Port mindlessly....which you did not so come on in.

Now...here is why you are wrong.

1. It does not matter a toss what you think. You do not know Port Adelaide...you have heard of them but only through reading or listenning to the news or something. How Port are perceived in your eyes is irrelevant....you are an Essendon supporter.

Whether the PAFC has 130 or 4 years is importaand relevant to me. I am a Port member. If I felt as though Port in the AFL were not "the" Port then I would not be following them....I would still follow the Crows.

Essendon have a history in the VFA and the VFL....your club has history in 2 competitions and so does mine. Essendon have also not been called the "bombers" for all that time....they are still the same club though....so are Port.

So who are the Port magpies ? The Port magpies are a new club....I have no problem with saying they have 2 flags and not 36. In fact I wish they would change the stats to relfect that so as to not undermine the achievements of the SANFL Port Adelaide (now in the AFL).

In the SANFL I do however follow the PAMFC....why ? Well I am a South Australian and have followed the SANFL all my life...I cannot bring myself to follow Norwood. If the PAMFC play (and that includes lose) as the PAFC did then they have my support. To date they have done that so I support them.....I suupose that means I am stuck because I could never drop a club....so long as they play to the Port Creed (look it up).

Before you reply...think.

How is what you are saying any different to what I have been saying about the VFL/AFL thing ? To me (a reltive outsider) the AFL is completely different from the VFL...I know I am legally wrong but I think it anyway. To you the PAFC AFL version is completely different to the PAFC SANFL version. You are legally wrong but you think it anyway. You claim it is all to do with "intents and purposes" or "spin doctoring"....tell me how that is different from the VFL / AFL ?

ptw

Macca19

30 Apr 2001, 20:32

Originally posted by Dan25:
It's not "your" board, you dill. http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/mad.gif You don't own it. If I want to come on here and talk about Port (which i did), then I will do just that.

If you want to go to the Bombers board and talk about Essendon, then do it. Go right ahead, I don't care. I just think that PA1870 needs to take the stick out of his ass, sometimes.

You came on here dan and abused one of our supporters subtlely. You sprouted crap which you know NOTHING about. Port Adelaide Magpies are in the SANFL...it is a different club than the PAFC...which is now in hte AFL. GET OVER IT...DEAL WITH IT. If you dont like it bad luck. Thats how it is. Port Magpies has taken over from where Port Adelaide left off...Port Adelaide is now in a new league, but is the same club that played in the SANFL for 125+ years...deal with it. No spin doctoring. No mumbo jumbo...thats how it is. PAFC has won 34 SANFL premiership, and one AFL Pre Season cup. PAMFC has won 2 premierships. Thats it.

Jars458

1 May 2001, 06:26

Originally posted by Dan25:
[. It is good to see that you are so passionate, and it is good to teach people like you the way things are. You might be a bit ignorant and arrogant, but that's okay. it's just your personality. Every now and then I come across people like you, who don't really know stuff, and I have to teach them.[/B]

How patronising.

It seems you know a lot about ignorance and arrogance. Funny that.

Jars458

1 May 2001, 06:30

Originally posted by Macca19:

You came on here dan and abused one of our supporters subtlely. You sprouted crap which you know NOTHING about. Port Adelaide Magpies are in the SANFL...it is a different club than the PAFC...which is now in hte AFL. GET OVER IT...DEAL WITH IT. If you dont like it bad luck. Thats how it is. Port Magpies has taken over from where Port Adelaide left off...Port Adelaide is now in a new league, but is the same club that played in the SANFL for 125+ years...deal with it. No spin doctoring. No mumbo jumbo...thats how it is. PAFC has won 34 SANFL premiership, and one AFL Pre Season cup. PAMFC has won 2 premierships. Thats it.

What does it really matter either way.

SAFNL tradition means nothing in the AFL really.

Power are an amalgameated side made up of players from all clubs. Dew, Francou etc etc.

The "tradition" is not simply transferred over to these players as they are not PORT players, in the sense that they still go back and play for their own SANFL clubs

Its of no relevance anyway, all that matters are results on the board in the AFL

This year Port look very capable of putting those results on the board. They may have arrived as an AFL force, as much as I hate the thought of it.

------------------
"That'll do, THAT will do...Unbelievable Darren"
Bruce... September 1997

Macca19

1 May 2001, 07:48

Originally posted by Jars458:
What does it really matter either way.

SAFNL tradition means nothing in the AFL really.

Power are an amalgameated side made up of players from all clubs. Dew, Francou etc etc.

The "tradition" is not simply transferred over to these players as they are not PORT players, in the sense that they still go back and play for their own SANFL clubs

Its of no relevance anyway, all that matters are results on the board in the AFL

This year Port look very capable of putting those results on the board. They may have arrived as an AFL force, as much as I hate the thought of it.

Im not saying anything about tradition or anything...all im saying is that PAFC has won 34 premierships and PAMFC 2 premierships. PAFC played in teh sanfl for 125+ years then moved into the AFL...PAMFC was created to play in the SANFL to carry on PAFC's history there.

Dan thinks he knows everything, when in fact he knows jack. He patronises us and expects us to sit here and take it!!! Hes a ********, and if we wrote anything like this in the Essendon board, it would either get deleted, locked or have a pile of abusive thrown at you.

Dan26

1 May 2001, 09:57

Look, I just reckon that it's stupid to have the current SANFL Magpies as a legally different club to the SANFL Magpies in 1996. it makes no sense. That's just my opinion.

If, when, the Power joined the AFL in 1997, the SANFL team stopped completely and there was no Port in the SANFL, then it would make sense. If this was the case, we could all easily see that Port "moved" into the AFL.

The problem is, that there exsits a club in the SANFL which looks like Port, plays like Port, has the same fans as Port......for all intents and purposes it "IS" Port. Not legally, I know. But ostensibly.

I'm not arguing the legal aspect with any of you. I know the "official" standing of it all. I'm just saying it's wrong, that's all.

I mean think about it. We have a club called the Magpies, in the SANFL right now. They wear the same jumper, have the same supporters, the same name, yet everyone is forced to accept some legal mumbo-jumbo which says they are different to the pre-1996 Magpies. What crap that is!

Yes, I know officially they have a slightly different name (i.e PAMFC), and as PA1870 tells us ad nauseum, they have a differnet office (who cares if they have different offices, really?)

But from an OBSERVATIONAL point of view, it's so obvious that the PAMFC are the same "team" that has always been in the SANFL. What sense does it make to say that the AFL Power are the same as ther pre-1996 Port? What sense does that make, when there is a Port currently in the SANFL which bears far more resembalnce (i.e identical) to the pre-1996 version. So, much so that you can't tell the difference.

Surely I don't have to be a Port supporter to point out this perfectly obvious observation. Really, the Power "should" be a separate club. A seperate branch of Port Adelaide that started in 1997, while the SANFL version continues their 130 year old history. That's how it should be.

I'm sure most fans see this as the case now. I'm sure most common fans (i.e 90% of the population) who just turn up to watch the footy, treat the current Magpies as the same old Magpies. Why wouldn't they? It makes perfect sense.

So, once again, I'm not arguing the legal asepct. I'm just saying that I think it is wrong. It makes no sense. As far I as I am concerened (and I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way, Port fans or not), the Power are for all intents and purposes, logically and ostensibly a new club formed in 1997. Just because the Port Adelade football club has cleverly spin-doctored the wordng of some legal documents does not take away from the blatantly obvious from my point of view.

The response I will probably get back from you all is : "You don't barrack for Port. How woulkd you know"[/i]. I don't have to barrack for Port to know their history, and to know the official legal aspect. I am a big fan of common-sense, and common-sense should dictate that the Power are a new club, while the current SANFL Magpies are still the same club that has been going for 130 years. Common-sense and logic.

Ptw,

I remember talking to you in chat one night, and you said that you regard the Magpies as having won 36 premierships. This is exaclty what I am talking about. Most people REGARD the Magpies as the same old Magpies, legally or not. The lack of common-sense astounds me, from those that see the Power as being 130 years old. As far as I'm concerned, they were born in 1997.

Dan26

1 May 2001, 10:12

Originally posted by ptw:
How is what you are saying any different to what I have been saying about the VFL/AFL thing ? To me (a reltive outsider) the AFL is completely different from the VFL...I know I am legally wrong but I think it anyway. To you the PAFC AFL version is completely different to the PAFC SANFL version. You are legally wrong but you think it anyway. You claim it is all to do with "intents and purposes" or "spin doctoring"....tell me how that is different from the VFL / AFL ?

ptw

Ptw,

It is completely differentto the VFL-AFL thing. Firstly, the current SANFL Magpies, look like Port, play like Port, have the fans as port. Logically (not legally) they ARE Port.

The VFL is obviously legally the same as the AFL, but is is logically the same too. Like any competiton, new teams get added as time goes by. Hawthorn, Footscray and North arrived in 1925, Richmond joined in 1908. In 1987, West Coat and Brisbane joined. They joined an already existing competiton. The competiton was now national, but it was still the same competiton. There was no new competiton. You don't just start up a brand new comp every time a new tems joins.

In fact, when the name change to "AFL" took place in 1990, the teams in the competiton were exactly the same as they were in 1989. The competiton is now of a higher standard, but that is irrelevant, because it is still the same "competiton"

The AFL is not only legally the same as the VFL, but is logically the same too. It is blatantly obvious. This argument with Port is different. The Power are legally the same as the 1996 Magpies, but "logically" they are different.

You can't compare the two arguments. They are about different things.

[This message has been edited by Dan25 (edited 30 April 2001).]

Dave

1 May 2001, 12:20

Dan, you're not going to convince them any more than they'll convince you. Time to give this one up mate. All you're doing here is pissing them off.

Jars458

1 May 2001, 12:23

Originally posted by Dan25:

Ptw,

The AFL is not only legally the same as the VFL, but is logically the same too. It is blatantly obvious.
[This message has been edited by Dan25 (edited 30 April 2001).]

Dan

Did the way the VFL was run change at all????

Of course its a different competition, legitimised as National by the entracce of the Crows and then the Power.

The Commission and the CEO now run it for the benefit of all and not just for the benefit of Victoria and that is why Eddie Jack and Joe are always pissed off because they don't get it all their own way.

ptw

1 May 2001, 12:32

Dan

sorry...cannot agree

you have 1 arguement....that the team in the AFL does not look like Port Adelaide of old...and that the team in the SANFL does.

Well....I don't buy it.

What matters is the club...not the team (players) not the jumper, not the logo. Are the Western Bulldogs a different club from the 1980 Footscray Side ? Are Sydney a different club from South Melbourne ? No....they are the same. The Port Adelaide in the AFL are "The" Port Adelaide....they just changed competitions, jumpers and logo's. The proof of this is how they got into the AFL. The Port Adelaide Football Club...whilst playing in the SANFL bid for the right to play in the AFL...it was not some new organisation set up for that purpose it was THE Port Adelaide Football Club (est 1870). Legally (as you have conceded) this is fact. The issue is not the status of the Port Adelaide which plays in the AFL, the issue is the status of the Port Adelaide which plays in the SANFL.

There are 3 possible explainations for that club.....

1. It is a new club. Legally this is so, although they have done everything in their power to make themselves look and feel like the old Port Adelaide. This is not a contradiction and does not impact on the status of Port Adelaide in the AFL, it is simply sensible. Who else would they model themselves on, Sturt ? South (heaven forbid !) ? Under this explaination they have won 2 premierships as the Port Adelaide Magpies.

2. The Port Adelaide Football Club fields a side in 2 competitions. This is not altogether unusual. Under this scenario the PAFC would have won 36 flags in the SANFL and 1 Night Flag in the AFL. This is not so of course, but it would make sense, it is just not how it was done.

3. The PAFC and the PAMFC are 2 seperate entities although they share a common history pre 1997. Look in the Melways. How many Seperation Street's do you see ? Quite a few. These streets were named when the colony of Victoria was established. This is not in 1834 but rather around 1850 when it seperated from NSW (until then they were one colony). You now have 2 states, which share a common history from 1834 to 1850. Victoria's history did not start in 1850 it started in 1834 (or 1802 depending on where you want to begin). Two legally seperate entities who share a common history. Victoria is seen to be 166 years old....NSW is 212....it would appear that part of this period is counted twice, which does not make sense on the surface, but everyone accepts it nonetheless. PAFC and PAMFC share a common history from 1870 to 1996....at which time they became seperate entities through the formation of the PAMFC. If you were to ask the clubs this is how they would describe the situation. Again this leads to the PAFC having won 34 premierships (SANFL) and the PAMFC 36...of course 34 of these are shared.

Now....I would like to think that Port Adelaide has won 36 premierships, although I am comfortable if we want to segregate it as 34+2 in the SANFL and 0 in the AFL, I really don't mind because I do not see what I lose in the equation (it still adds up to 36 !). Regardless, the only debate is around the status of the PAMFC not the PAFC in the AFL. Their status is clear....nothing changed to the club in 1997 apart from the competition in which it played.

Let me ask you a question.....if Essendon actually formed a seperate club to play in the VFL (I assume the club playing their now is the same legal club as the one in the AFL)....surely you could then count in the history of the Essendon Football Club in the VFL premierships won pre 1896 and Post 2002 (or whenever ?). Might actually be a different legal entity but it is the same club. Essendon could of course then win 2 premierships in the same year (1 in the AFL and 1 in the VFL). The Essendon which you know and love would be playing in the AFL though....they are the "club" to which you subscribe.

So...call it 34, 36 or 34+2 it doesn't really matter. The one thing which is clear is the status of the club in the AFL...it is the Port Adelaide Football Club est 1870. There is not 1 piece of evidence to the contrary.

ptw

ptw

1 May 2001, 12:36

Originally posted by Dan25:

Ptw,

It is completely differentto the VFL-AFL thing. Firstly, the current SANFL Magpies, look like Port, play like Port, have the fans as port. Logically (not legally) they ARE Port.

The VFL is obviously legally the same as the AFL, but is is logically the same too. Like any competiton, new teams get added as time goes by. Hawthorn, Footscray and North arrived in 1925, Richmond joined in 1908. In 1987, West Coat and Brisbane joined. They joined an already existing competiton. The competiton was now national, but it was still the same competiton. There was no new competiton. You don't just start up a brand new comp every time a new tems joins.

In fact, when the name change to "AFL" took place in 1990, the teams in the competiton were exactly the same as they were in 1989. The competiton is now of a higher standard, but that is irrelevant, because it is still the same "competiton"

The AFL is not only legally the same as the VFL, but is logically the same too. It is blatantly obvious. This argument with Port is different. The Power are legally the same as the 1996 Magpies, but "logically" they are different.

You can't compare the two arguments. They are about different things.

[This message has been edited by Dan25 (edited 30 April 2001).]

Dan

this is not a debate on the AFL / VFL thingy. I was simply pointing out to you the contradiction in your 2 arguements....

1. PAFC v PAMFC....the legal entity does not matter....it is the look and the feel which matters in determining the status of something.

2. AFL v VFL....they are the same competiton...nothing changed in 1987 except for a few new teams. The competition is continuous and therefore is unaffected by the change. In your view it has the same look and feel, in my view it is completely different from the old suburban VFL competition...to the point where it is almost unrecognisable. Now we are viewing the same thing from different perspectives, so we can of course both be right....however....if you accept that the competition (AFL) LOOKS entirely different TO ME....then by applying your logic re PAFC v PAMFC it must be a seperate compeition.

ptw

Dan26

1 May 2001, 14:50

Originally posted by ptw:
in my view it is completely different from the old suburban VFL competition...to the point where it is almost unrecognisable.

I don't want to turn this to a debate about the AFL in the Port board, but I will comment breifly.

It is totally irrelevant whetehr it looks different to what it did in 1897. The fact is, it is the same comp. So what if it looks different? An 80 year old man looks different to when he was an infant.

It is the same comp, so the 104 year old records continue. This is un-arguable, and is a fact. If some clubs left the VFL and joined a brand new comp, then you would have a point. This didn't happenn, so you are wrong.

New clubs join all the time. Teams from outside Victoria joined an already existing competiton. Those words in bold are the 3 key words. You people really need to understand this blatnatly obvious point. There is no argument, it is a fact. Legally and logically. Like I said, if there some of the teams left the comp to join a bardn new one, you would have a point. It doesn;t matter that it looks different. it is irrelevant. All that matters is that is the same competiton.

The fact that the como, is now of a higher standard is irrelevant too. Everything is relative. Because players are competing against plyers of the same ability, whetehr it be in the AFL or in the amateurs, premeirsjips are just as dificult to win. That is why all the VFL clubs count their history in thayt comp from 1897. Look at the facts. Everything is counted from that date, because that is the date when the current comp began. To think that you can just join an already existing competiton, and then "claim" that it is a brand new one, is the height of arrogance.

ptw

1 May 2001, 15:28

Dan

let me spell it out to you....

Port Adelaide Power look entirely different to the Port Adelaide Magpies in the SANFL.....

"It is totally irrelevant whetehr it looks different to what it did in 1897 (read 1996). The fact is, it is the same comp (club). So what if it looks different? An 80 year old man looks different to when he was an infant."

"It is the same comp (club), so the 104 (130) year old records continue. This is un-arguable, and is a fact. If some clubs left the VFL and joined a brand new comp, then you would have a point. This didn't happenn, so you are wrong.(if the club folded and started again you would have a point....this didn't happen so you are wrong.)

I won't go on....but surely you see your own folly....every argument you put that although the AFL looks and feels different to the VFL but it is still the same thing, I can apply to that Port Adelaide (AFL) looks and feels different to the Port Adelaide (SANFL, pre 1997) but it is still the same thing.

Which arguement do you want to win more Dan, because I think it is time to concede one of them ?!!

Dan26

1 May 2001, 17:33

Ptw,

I'm not arguing the facts with you. I agree that legally, the Power are the same as the pre-1996 Magpies. But from a common-sense and logical point of view, they shouldn't be. It's dumb (my opinion)

As for the VFL-AFL, legally they are the same, and logically they are too. You want an example of a new comp, where records start from scratch? Have a look at "Super League" in Rugby League. Teams joined a completely separate competiton. New reords begin. The AFL is an already existing competiton that was "called" the VFL, but is now called the AFL to reflect that some of the "new" teams that have joined this already existing competiton are from outside Victoria. No new comp. Records continue for that comp, for obvious reasons.

As for Port. If there was NO Magpie team in the SANFL, I think we could all see your (and PA1870's) point. We could see that Port moved into a new comp. But the fact that there is a Port in black and white currently running around in the SANFL makes everythign so illogical and silly. If this teams wasn't part of the equation, it would make things more logical. I'm not debating the facts with you. I just think that, the legal matter of Port Adelaide is far too pedantic and un-common-sensical. Hopefully, they will realsie that 95% of Australians think, and consider that the current SANFL Port is the same olf Port that has been there for 130 years. It may not be "official" or "legal" (I'm not debating that), but try telling that to your average footy fan (Port supporter or not)

Macca19

1 May 2001, 18:26

Dan...you are the only person i know that has a problem with the current situation. Something that shouldnt affect you at all.

The PAFC in 1990 bid for the afl, they failed. In 1994 the PAFC bid for the AFL and won. It was not the PAMFC that bid, it was the PAFC. In 1996 we got told that we couldnt have both, they would have to create a new club that could run like the old magpies.

Now the PAMFC is nowhere near the old PAFC. They are not allowed to train at Alberton, they have no offices at Alberton, they have a different name. They are only allowed to play at alberton there home games.
It is recognised as the same club to stop confusion that you so want to bring up every three weeks.

It is a different club, get over it. I dont see why it hsould bother you anyway

Macca19

1 May 2001, 18:31

Originally posted by Dan25:
It is totally irrelevant whetehr it looks different to what it did in 1897. The fact is, it is the same comp. So what if it looks different? An 80 year old man looks different to when he was an infant.

You know you can say that about PAFC too. It is irrelevant that it looks differen to what it did in 1995, it is the same team. So what if it looks different?

Macca19

1 May 2001, 18:37

Originally posted by Dan25:
Ptw,

I'm not arguing the facts with you. I agree that legally, the Power are the same as the pre-1996 Magpies. But from a common-sense and logical point of view, they shouldn't be. It's dumb (my opinion)

Im not arguing the facts with you. I agree that legally the AFL are the same league as the pre-1990 VFL. But from common-sense and logical point of view, they shouldnt be.

It is the SAME thing dan.

Dan26

2 May 2001, 17:39

Macca,

No, it different. Different arguments.

When the name change to AFL took place in 1990, the teams in the comp were the same as they were in 1989. Nothing changed. No one moved to a new comp. It was the same comp, with new teams added from all over the country.

It would be like my team, Essendon, leaving the AFL and joining the SANFL. It would be like me arguing that the SANFL records should start from scratch and that it is a new comp. There is now a Victorian team in the comp, so all the teams are in a new compettion. So, if Norwood won the flag it wouldn't be their 28th. It would be their first in the new comp.

Now obviously that is stupid. Obviously, the records for that comp would continue. Obviously if Essendon joined and Norwood won the flag, it would be Norwoods 28th flag.

The AFL is the same. it is legally, obviously, and LOGICALLY the same.

The difference with the Port thing, I reckon, is that they are legally different clubs, but LOGICALLY the Magpies are the same. I say this because all the commentators in 1997-98 treated it as their 35th and 36th premierships. Everyone ignored the legal aspect and treated the Magpies as logically the same club as has always been in the SANFL. So, I'm not arguing the legal aspect. I'm just arguing the common-sense of it all. The average supporter treats them as the same old Magpies. It is stupid that they are legally different.

It's totally different to the VFL-AFL which is logically, obviously, and legally the same. You can't start competiton records from scratch as if it were a new comp just because you joined a comp late. If you joined late, then bad luck. Centrlas joined in the 1960s, right? It's not as if the SANFL became a brand new comp when they joined.

ptw

2 May 2001, 19:10

*sigh*

So.....Dan......

are the Port Adelaide now playing in the AFL the same Port Adelaide who were playing in the SANFL pre 1997 ?

ptw

Dan26

2 May 2001, 19:53

Originally posted by ptw:
*sigh*

So.....Dan......

are the Port Adelaide now playing in the AFL the same Port Adelaide who were playing in the SANFL pre 1997 ?

ptw

Yes they are, but I don't think they should be. I think the Power "should" be a separate branch of Port Adelaide, while the Magpies continue to play in the SANFL and "should" be the same as they have always been. For all intents and purposes it's that way now, right? (take not the words for all intents and purposes)

ptw

2 May 2001, 20:02

that could be so Dan, but it is not (as you have stated)

I still cannot reconcile your view on Port in the AFL with your views on the AFL/VFL debate.

On the one side you have Port (AFL). Legally the same club, but with a different look and feel. So although they are the same (nothing happended to them when they changed competitions, as a club that is), you feel as though they should be a new entity and start their history again.

The VFL has changed so that it has a completely new look and feel to the way it was. It is legally the same and nothing magical happened in 1987 or 1991 or whenever but it has a completely different feel and a different reason for being. You will howvever defend to the death that the AFL is actually the VFL and should never have to contemplate a change regardless of how much sense that change makes, simply becasue it is the same competition. Well Port Adelaide are the same club but you seem to think that because they have a different look and feel that they should start afresh ?!

ptw

[This message has been edited by ptw (edited 02 May 2001).]

Blues_Brat

2 May 2001, 20:28

"LOGIC" goes out the window when it comes to footy. Emotional responses are the order of the day.

Port are Port regardless of the legalities.

This argument has gone around in circles as it has been since 1997.

It's almost as futile as being a Glenelg supporter and buying tickets to their premiership celebration dinner in advance http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Port01

2 May 2001, 20:30

Port Adelaide now is the same Port Adelaide I've always supported, I don't really care about the argument or what anyone else thinks, if people don't want to respect our club and it's history, then they do so at their own peril, not mine.

Port Adelaide 1870

3 May 2001, 06:18

WOW !!!!!! a WHEW !!!!

What has to be remebered here is Port supporters have not stopped supporting the PAFC since 1870, regardless of comp, Nickname ,colours or logo.
Their seems to be an argument of
"PUBLIC PERCEPTION" put forward by Dan..i.e
" It is the way I perceive it, so even if you engineered it so , you will believe what I perceive, not what you have made "

'WE' the Port supporters voted Port out of the SANFL into the AFL, however and it is here where you are finding it difficult DAN, The SANFL wanted a Port Clone to be a part of the SANFL so as not to have a drop in crowd numbers greater than what was expected..a Port entity in the SANFL was crucial in the long term survival of the SANFL.

The PAMFC are not the PAFC..all memorabilia , records, honour rolls, stats, cups, trophies, medals, pennants etc, record the winners as The Port Adelaide Football Club the Honour board in the main hall of the club does not miss a beat in its years from 1996 to 1997 where the CEO , President, Coach etc are recorded in line exactly as they were since 1870, the only alteration is finish spot and a a small addendum...Joined AFL 1997.

Ther is also a section on the PAFC honour roll that acknowledges the formation of the PAMFC and lists its CEO, President, Coach, etc...all different people to the corresponding personel at the PAFC from 1996.

It is not about Your percetion, though the Admission of the PAMFC to the SANFL in 1996 was meant to be seamless and without hiccup,

It is not even about the barrackers of the club...who may have a " Perception "

It is about the Supporters, And paid up members of the club that determine where and when it will play.... We as officials, members and supporters determined Port would play in the AFL as of 1997,

If that threw a stick in the mud to OUTSIDERS or Port Barrackers that didnt want it to happen...Well the answer was simple..Join the club as a member and prevent history from occuring.

Dan, one question...

If The Essendon Football club wanted to join the NFL in the USA ( because they were courted for their history and supporter base ) the Club must add a new colour to its guernsey and change its nickname from Bombers to " StrikeForce ", at the AGM all paid up members voted..YES we will leave the AFL and join the NFL so you do, with your current coacj Kevin Sheedy, CCEO,President, training staff etc and remain at Windy Hill, you must recruit new players for the NFL, most of your AFL players are allowed to remain in the AFL and play with the Essendon Bombers Football club under new coach Simmon Madden,however the AFL still want an Essendon presence in the AFL.

what occurs is anew team is registered for the AFL it is called the" Essendon Bombers football club"
it has a new CEO, New Coach, new offices, new training personell, new president, buys coburg oval and sets up training rooms and equipment, trains out of there, but is allowed to play at Windy Hill.. The EFC kindly allow the EBFC to retain their old colours and logo..

This is the position Port Adelaide are in........

Given the above scenario, the Essendon Football club would not be playing AFL anymore, However for all intents and purposes and ostensibly, anyone the runs out in the guernsey the next season would be perceived to be....The Essendon Football Club...the winners are....

The AFL, no drop in crowd numbers...The NFL,because they now Have the real Essendon and the mebers of Essendon because they have moved upward and onward in the development of their club.....

The PAFC no longer play SANFL..we left and joined the AFL..Perception in barrackers eyesultimately is not the issue, the issue are the members of that club.

I belong to a local amatuer league club..say there are hundreds of closet supporters of the club out there in footy land, say we have forty members and one night the members decide to join the SANFL at their invite..we vote and get a majority to leave amatuer and join SANFL....however we cant join as the Tigers, because Glenelg already play...so we add green to our guernsey and change to "the marauders ".. from the South beach F.C.

The Amatuer league see we are going to affect their crowds somewhat and ask for a club to be put in our place for the next season wearing our old colours and logo called the South beach tigers F.C., New president, new ceo, new trainers, New ground, new training facilities, most of our old players can remain with the new club as they cant make the SANFL.

The "closet" barrackers come out next season...none the wiser, one of them happens to be Dan 25....when he finds out what has happenned..he begins the " ostensibly" an for all "intents and purposes" ...argument

But for " all intents and purposes" because he wasnt a member that had a vote, just a life long " Viewer " he had no real say...except for " his " perception and those of the barrackers around him that found their club no longer played SAAFL, but for asll intents and purposes " it " did as he was on the hill watching them in the new season and the South Beach Tigers Football Club were still claiming 18 premierships with th support of his fellow barrackers and the SAAFL.

the South Beach Football Club [ formerly the tigers ) now Marauders est 1904 are now however in the SANFL and carry the history..

The argument of intents and purposes and ostensibly begins...between the club holders and essentially owners..Their members...

and the general public, onlookers, football followers, agrieved, non South beach supporters and SANFL league club supporters...into trying to determine who..this new SANFL club are ? and how they can berate, belittle and change the perception of the club...in its members eyes...

The test in all this Dan..is whether or not the Port Adelaide Football club and 'ITS' members and supporters can hold our line and maintain our dignity, history and tradition in the face of incredible opposition, much like the English at rourkes drift against the Zulus or the starship troopers against the bugs..something our History has taught us is inevitable...something we revel in...For we ...are ...[b]The Port Adelaide Football Club{/b} est. 1870.

PA1870

Macca19

3 May 2001, 07:43

Originally posted by Dan25:
Yes they are, but I don't think they should be. I think the Power "should" be a separate branch of Port Adelaide, while the Magpies continue to play in the SANFL and "should" be the same as they have always been. For all intents and purposes it's that way now, right? (take not the words for all intents and purposes)

Dan, The Port Adelaide Football Club bid for THEMSELVES to be in the AFL, not a seperate branch of the PAFC, but they bid for themselves. Its quite easy to understand and its quite logical if you take an unbias view of things.

The PAFC bid for the right to be in the competition, so that they PAFC could play in the AFL. Not the Port Power Football Club, they hadnt even thought of the name yet dan. THE PAFC did it all, and they are the ones who are in the competition

[This message has been edited by Macca19 (edited 02 May 2001).]

Jars458

3 May 2001, 14:03

Originally posted by Port Adelaide 1870:
WOW !!!!!! a WHEW !!!!

What has to be remebered here is Port supporters have not stopped supporting the PAFC since 1870, regardless of comp, Nickname ,colours or logo.

What about when Port split and the Port Natives were born???

Which is the real Port?????

Dan26

3 May 2001, 14:27

Originally posted by ptw:

The VFL has changed so that it has a completely new look and feel to the way it was.

Rubbish!

11 of the original 12 clubs still remain. The one that doesn;t (Fitzroy), "half" remains, so to speak. The only difference is that some new clubs have been added. But tis happens in all competitons, including the SANFL. It doesn't matter where these clubs come from, or whether they are from Victoria or interstate. It's irrelevant.

By the end of round 7, Essendon will have played 6 matches against teams who they have been playing agaisnt since 1897. Hardly the "feel" of a new comp. it is obviously an old comp with a lot of tradition, given that 11 of the original 12 clubs are still there. Even if they weren't it wouldn't matter. It is legally, thre same comp, but it is logically, and obviously the same too. Its now national, yes.....but it's still the same.

Completely different argument to the Port thing. Port look different. The AFL looks, more or less the same, with the exception of 5 new teams. About 75% of AFL matches have the traditional 11 clubs playing agaisnt each other, because they make up the majority of the comp.

I agree that the comp is now a higher standard, but that is irrelevant when discussing whether it is the same comp or not. Yes, it's now national, but that doesn't automatically make it a separate competiton. No way in hell! it's the same comp.

If someone was in a coma for 30 years and they woke up in 2001 and they saw the AFL, they would instantly be able to see that is the same comp as the VFL. It is obvious to see. Anyone who was in a coma and woke up, could easily see it. It is obviously (and legally) the same comp. Logically. That's why the AFL celebrated it's centenary in 1996.

See?

Dan26

3 May 2001, 14:40

PA1870,

If Essendon legally joined the NFL and "moved" to that comp, and a team in the AFL was formed called the "Essendon Bombers Football club", I would support the AFL team.

The AFL team, even though, legally it would be a new team, wouold still be, to me, Essendon. Who cares about the legalities? Who cares? If they wear red and black and are called Essendon, I will barrack for them.

In that situation, you are suggesting that the "EBFC" would be brand new club. Legally it would, but who cares? It looks the same, had the same players, so "really" it is the same old club, if you take out the legal mumb-jumbo crap. etc etc.

Supporters don't care about all that legal crap. They just want to go to the footy and waych their team. That's why Port fans still go and watch the Magpies. They couldn't give a f*ck if they are officially a separate team. Those fans just want to keep watching their team. The Port Magpies, while not legally, are obviously, "their" team. Their supporters support the Magpies no different to how they did pre 1997.

If the "Essendon Bombers football club" was to win the Grand Final, I would treat it as our 17th AFL-VFL flag. Who cares about the legalities? Especially in this case where the legalities are just a bunch of illogical spin-doctoring.

Everything you have told me I already knew. You keep on telling, me they are separate clubs. For God's sake man,I KNOW. I'm just saying, it is stupid and illogical, that's all.

The crowds that the Port Magpies get prove my point. They still draw huge crowds, because everyone treats them as the same club! If all their fams treated them as a different club, no one would watch the PAMFC, would they? But, that's not the case. Heaps of people go and watch the PAMFC, because they are treated as the same old Port Adelaide (legally or not). Conversely, the Power are 'treated' as a brand new club, which logically (not legally, or officailly) they are.

[This message has been edited by Dan25 (edited 02 May 2001).]

Macca19

3 May 2001, 15:40

Originally posted by Dan25:
Rubbish!

If someone was in a coma for 30 years and they woke up in 2001 and they saw the AFL, they would instantly be able to see that is the same comp as the VFL. It is obvious to see. Anyone who was in a coma and woke up, could easily see it. It is obviously (and legally) the same comp. Logically. That's why the AFL celebrated it's centenary in 1996.

See?

Dan, you really are a ******** you know that. Are you ever wrong about anything??
If someone was in a coma in 1970 and woke up today they would NOT recognise it. There is 5 new teams, a Sydney (which was South Melbourne), and no fitzroy. They dont play at ANY home grounds anymore, there is only Colonial, MCG and Optus Oval. No Moorabin, Punt road, junction oval, arden st, waverly, nothing. There ar einterstate teams. First thing they would say is, "what is this AFL, and why is coburg and frankston in the VFL?"

They wouldnt have a clue whats going on.

ptw

3 May 2001, 16:26

I agree with you Macca

lets look at last week

Essendon v Collingwood - same
WCE v Richmond - who are WCE ?
Geelong v Port - who are Port ?
Fremantle v Brisbane - who are Fremantle, who are Brisbane ?
Western Bulldogs v Hawthorn - who are the Western Bulldogs ?
Adelaide v Kangaroos - who are Adelaide, who are the Kangaroos ?
Carlton v St Kilda -same
Sydney v Melbourne - who are Sydney ?

so...8 games, 6 of which involve an entity which would be completely unknown to someone 30 years ago.

The previous competition was to determine the best team in Melbounre...the AFL is to determine the best team in the country. We have Draft, the salary cap...loss of grounds. Is it any co-incidence Dan that both in this example andin general the team you support has probably been least touched by the AFL ? From your perspective things would be quite similar....from a Fitzroy supporter, or anyone from outside Victoria it is unbelievably different.

6 out of 8 games.....not much really http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

ptw

Port Adelaide 1870

3 May 2001, 18:01

Originally posted by Jars458:
What about when Port split and the Port Natives were born???

Which is the real Port?????

The Port Natives renamed themselves the West Torrens Football club and continued as such until 1990. The members that left to form Port Natives were disgruntled at the direction Port Adelaide were taking and a number of players were not getting the opportunity to play, these disgruntled members and players set off on their own.

Port were to win another premiership in the 1890's, 1897 to be exact..the last as the Magentas as they were affectionally known, 1902 saw Port take on a new logo and change their colours...to the now famous black and white, the last change up until AFL entry when they discarded the Magpie logo in favour of Power and the addition of teal to their uniform.

PA1870

Dan26

3 May 2001, 18:03

Originally posted by Macca19:

Dan, you really are a ******** you know that. Are you ever wrong about anything??
If someone was in a coma in 1970 and woke up today they would NOT recognise it. There is 5 new teams, a Sydney (which was South Melbourne), and no fitzroy. They dont play at ANY home grounds anymore, there is only Colonial, MCG and Optus Oval. No Moorabin, Punt road, junction oval, arden st, waverly, nothing. There ar einterstate teams. First thing they would say is, "what is this AFL, and why is coburg and frankston in the VFL?"

They wouldnt have a clue whats going on.

AAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!

Of course they would recognize it if they woke up from a coma after 30 years. Yes, there are 5 new teams admittedly, and they play at different grounds, but who cares about the grounds? It's the "clubs" that are important. There are 11 teams that are still competing in this comp, and have been since 1925, 8 of them since 1897. 11 of the original 12 still play. There hasn't been any major culling of teams like there has in the Rugby League. Any individual who has some sort of intelligence would be able to see that the AFL and the VFL are the same. We just have 5 new teams added to the remaining 11. It's not rocket science. The act that they lay at diffeent grounds is irrelevant since this started to change in the 1980's, when the VFL was still in vogue.

Are you trying to tell me that if you woke up in 2001 after going into a coma in 1971, that you wouldn't be able to tell that the AFL and the VFL are the same comp? Are you dumb? Whta about the presense of Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, North Melbourne, Hawthorn, Bulldogs, St.Kilda, Melbourne etc etc,etc?

It is not like the NRL, where all the teams have changed, merged, gone extinct etc etc. The AFL "IS" the VFL competiton, that has expanded to become a thriving national competiton which we all love. But if you can't actually tell that it used to be the VFL you must have something wrong with you. Blind Freddy could see it. Just look at the composition of teams (i.e all the original teams are there) to see the obviousness that it's the same comp.

Dan26

3 May 2001, 18:20

ptw,

You're not serious are you?

Firstly, an observer after 30 years would be able to tell it is the same comp. Let's imagine he went into a coma in 1971 and woke up in 2001. He watches each of the 8 games in round 5. Would would be his conclusion?

Coll vs Ess - both familiar.
Gee vs Port - Geelong is familiar. Same club, same ground. They would piece togetehr the puzzle that Port are new to the comp.
WCE vs Rich - Richmond is familiar. They would piece together the puzzle that the Eagles are new.
St.K vs Carl - both familiar. Same ground as well for the Blues.
Melb vs Syd - Melb are familiar. Sydney wear the same guernsey as South Melbourne and have the same nickname. I'm sure it wouldn't requie much intelligence to work out what happened.
Hawthorn vs Western Bulldogs - both are familiar. I'm sure it wouldn't take the fan long to work out that the Bulldogs, who wear the same jumper as Footscary and have the same nickname are the same club. It would probably take him all of 5 seconds to figure out.
Freo vs Bris - both new. The Lion looks familiar. If he is smart he would probably think Fitzroy have relocated. Thats what I would think. He'd be wrong (and I'd be wrong), but it's not far off the mark.
Adelaide vs Kangaroos - Adelaide are new. The Roos have the same jumper as North Melbourne and have the same nickname. Even a monkey could work out that they are the same club. He would work it out in 5 seconds.

Overall, what would be his conclusion after veiwing each of the 8 matches? He would be able to easily indentify that the competiton is the same competion he was used to in 1971 with some obvious additios and a national flavour. He would conclude that a few new teams have been added from interstate and a couple have relocated. 10 of the teams would be instantly recognizeable, while 2 teams (Brisbane and Sydney) look like South Melbourne and Fitzroy. Hed probably assume they relocated. With Sydney he'd be right. It's obviously the same comp, and that is why we celebrated the centenary in 1996.

Port Adelaide 1870

3 May 2001, 18:32

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan25:

Completely different argument to the Port thing. Port look different. T
See?

Collingwood run around in uniforms that resemble Ports old SANFL jumper...They look different.

Hawthorn run around in a different strip...they look different.....

WCE run around in a different strip...they look different...........

Kangaroos..run around in different strips...they look different...

They all wear different strips and look different

changing our guernsey and logo..ala the Gorillas , the Bloods, the redlegs etc is not uncommon amongst football clubs, neither is changing leagues ......
Neither is having sides that play in different leagues...

the 80 year old man runs around with wrinkles and no hair...he looks different.

an interesting aside....at SANFL matches of the 3000- 4000 that turn up each week, you would be suprised to learn that between the Port supporters on this site....most of these fans could be identified
the 3,000 to 4,000 that attend Alberton games
either by face, association, contacts, friends of friends, partying at GF nights, business, community contacts, player association, relatives, school friends etc the Port scene is very close...most Port people know where The Port Adelaide Football club are now playing...

the AFL....

there are those that cannot dissasociate themselves from a picture of a bird and believe the bird picture is the club...but it isnt

The Magpie played an enormous part in Ports history as a football club, God knows we all chanted, MAGPIES,MAGPIES MAGPIES at countless Grand Finals, but that is history, we still support a SANFL entity for old times sake..

There is no way Id have gone to Norwood or Glenelg etc..so the decision to field a club in the SANFL known as the PAMFC was a relief to many Port supporters, that could now enjoy an arvo at the SANFL whilst Portwere out of town in Melbourne or interstate elsewhere.

Dan , you are not privvy to the inner sanctum at PAFC or PAMFC, nor are you privvy to the decisions made in their AFL entry...you have an outsiders point of view, whilst you are entitled to your opinion...
Port are now in the AFL albeit it with teal and silver.. In their predominantly more than 75% Black & White Guernsey

when I watch Port play Collingwood, I see the Port of my youth matching it against a Victorian club,
Club Versus Club, I see the PAFC est 1870 playing the CFC est 1892...

95% of Port supporters do to !!!!!

PA1870

Macca19

3 May 2001, 18:47

Originally posted by Dan25:
AAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!

Of course they would recognize it if they woke up from a coma after 30 years. Yes, there are 5 new teams admittedly, and they play at different grounds, but who cares about the grounds? It's the "clubs" that are important. There are 11 teams that are still competing in this comp, and have been since 1925, 8 of them since 1897. 11 of the original 12 still play. There hasn't been any major culling of teams like there has in the Rugby League. Any individual who has some sort of intelligence would be able to see that the AFL and the VFL are the same. We just have 5 new teams added to the remaining 11. It's not rocket science. The act that they lay at diffeent grounds is irrelevant since this started to change in the 1980's, when the VFL was still in vogue.

Are you trying to tell me that if you woke up in 2001 after going into a coma in 1971, that you wouldn't be able to tell that the AFL and the VFL are the same comp? Are you dumb? Whta about the presense of Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, North Melbourne, Hawthorn, Bulldogs, St.Kilda, Melbourne etc etc,etc?

It is not like the NRL, where all the teams have changed, merged, gone extinct etc etc. The AFL "IS" the VFL competiton, that has expanded to become a thriving national competiton which we all love. But if you can't actually tell that it used to be the VFL you must have something wrong with you. Blind Freddy could see it. Just look at the composition of teams (i.e all the original teams are there) to see the obviousness that it's the same comp.

You have no brain matter at all do you??

What if htis 'person' was a fitzroy fan?
"where the hell is fitzroy"
"they merged with the brisbane bears"
"who the hell is the brisbane bears"

they would think its a national competition. They would think that somewhere along the lines someone decided to create a national competition with most victorian clubs and a few from everywhere else. Then he would look at the VFL and see nothing of what it used to be.
What is colonial stadium??? What is the draft?? Why is this Wayne Carey guy getting 1 million dollars a year...people were getting $20 a game when i slipped into a coma. What happened to Moorabin and Windy Hill and why would someone create a national league with fremantle in it, they are bloody useless.
The competition is completly different, the first thing someone would think is "oh theyve created a national league as interstate clubs are in this one"

Macca19

3 May 2001, 19:00

Originally posted by Dan25:
ptw,

You're not serious are you?

Firstly, an observer after 30 years would be able to tell it is the same comp. Let's imagine he went into a coma in 1971 and woke up in 2001. He watches each of the 8 games in round 5. Would would be his conclusion?

Overall, what would be his conclusion after veiwing each of the 8 matches? He would be able to easily indentify that the competiton is the same competion he was used to in 1971 with some obvious additios and a national flavour. He would conclude that a few new teams have been added from interstate and a couple have relocated. 10 of the teams would be instantly recognizeable, while 2 teams (Brisbane and Sydney) look like South Melbourne and Fitzroy. Hed probably assume they relocated. With Sydney he'd be right. It's obviously the same comp, and that is why we celebrated the centenary in 1996.

No Dan YOU would think that. Firstly, Its not the VFL...they would sya, oh thyve created a new league. He would look in the VFL and see names such as frankston, coburg etc. and think, whats going on here. He would see teams from just about every state in the country. HE would think its a national compeition, not a addon from the VFL with a name change. He would also see teams in melbourne playing at only 3 venues.
this means it isnt a local league anymore...the teams that "migrated" to the AFL would of given up there local grounds to play on bigger better ovals as part of the new league agreement.

Noone in there right mind would think its the vfl with a name change and additions.

Dan26

3 May 2001, 19:33

Macca,

Well you think that our "coma man" wouldn't reconize the comp as being the same. I say he would, okay.

The fact is, it IS the same. There may be slight changes (like in all comps), but it is the same comp. It wasn't as if all the teams left the VFL, and joined into a brand spanking new competiton. This never happened. Your club (Port) as well as the Crows and the Eagles joined an already existing competiton That competiton is now in its 105th season.

Imagine the current comp if Carlton and Essendon were not bragging about who was more successful with their 16 premeirships. Imagine the comp if Collingwood were not striving to add to their 14 flags to reach their two main rivals. Imagine if we were told it was a new comp, and all records must start again. Imagine how much that would suck.

Fortunatley, this will never happen because it's all the same comp that began in 1897. The competiton never folded. It has continued, and because it was the strongest comp, it became a national comp.

I think that the competiton now in 2001 is similar enough to 1971 (apart from the obvious differences) for our "coma" man to see they are the same. Sure there are differences, but look at the similarities! You seem to conveniently ignore the similarities, such as the fact that all the traditional clubs are still there.

Bottom line is, whether you like it or not, the 105 year old records continue. This is great for the game and the comp. It means the traditional rivalries have more meaning, because they are based on events that happened in the same competiton. Part of the Essendon-Carlton rivalry comes from the fact that they've won 16 premeirships in the competiton since 1897. You don't want to lose that rivalry.

I know they would be rivals anyway, even if they "moved" to a new comp, but part of the appeal of all the rivalries, is that they are based on events that took place in the SAME comp.

So, it IS the same comp. It is official. And it is great too. Port don't lose anything out of it, so what do you care? If Essendonmoved to the SANFL we would respect the history of your competiton. You should do the same to ours. I shouldn't say "ours" because it is "your" competition now as well.

And by the way......stop being rude.

Port Adelaide 1870

4 May 2001, 05:59

Coma Man...sung to the tune of Spiderman.

Com aman, Coma man,
Does whatever a Coma can,
Went to sleep in a Ford,
Playing AFL is his reward...

Look out ! here comes the coma man!

Yes Guys, I eventually gave up my promising music writing carreer .!

This takes the cake ...describing the Old defunct VFL and the new National AFL comp using a comatose Victorian as your example!!!

PA1870

Macca19

4 May 2001, 07:49

Dan, you are the rude one. You come onto OUR board and argue with us about something totally irrevelant. You then turn hypocritical and cannot accept when you are wrong. Yes Dan it is the same comp. But someone who has been in a coma for 30 years WOULDNT KNOW THAT.
The thing that would confuse the coma man, and why he would think its a COMPLELTY NEW COMPETITION is this:

- In the "new" competition the AFL there is all the old VFL teams minus Fitzroy.

- In the current VFL competition there is Carlton, Essendon, Richmond, Geelong, St Kilda and Collingwood. Its is quite a fair chance, in fact a good strong chance that he would think that teams moved to the new competition in the same fashion as what happened to the Netball League 5 or 6 years ago. Teams migrated into the new Country wide series, but still stayed in the state league as well. Similar to Port....similar to what coma man would think happened to the VFL AFL.
If there wasnt a VFL then i would agree with you, but the fact that there IS still a VFL which also has 5 or 6 teams of AFL teams names would confuse him immensly. If you think otherwise then you really are an ignorant jerk.

Another thing...get out of our board. If this was in your board, it would of been locked, closed, or deleted already.

ptw

4 May 2001, 10:10

Dan

and if "coma-man" was told on awakenning from his unfortunate predicament that the stats had started again in 1990, do you think he would be suprised ?

I think he would say...oh...fair enough.

you always miss one point, which is that by starting the stats again the old stats do not disappear....Essendon would still have 14 VFL flags....that can never be taken away from them. Just reflect it as 14+2 rather than 16 and all will be solved. You can then say Essendon were almost the most successful side in the VFL....on of 3 in the AFL and almost the most successful overall. You simply want to say they are the most successful overall, which is a nonsense stat as increasingly many of the teams have not even been in the comp !

ptw

ptw

Dan26

4 May 2001, 20:11

ptw,

Yes, I know the stats don't disappear. It just means that a new comp would be started and all clubs would be on ZERO in the new comp.

You seem to have a hard time understanding. You are talking about the history of the CLUBS (which is on going over different comps)

I am talking about the history of the COMPETITION. It is the same comp. Why in the hell I am spending so much time discussing blatantly obvious facts? http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/mad.gif It makes me so friggin mad! It is the same comp. You joined an already existing competiton

Do you understand those three words in bold?

It doesn't matter that the comp looks different. In my opinion, it's similar enough to be obvious that it's the same comp as the VFL. Yes, there are changes. I know there are changes. But there are also similarities. Why don't you tell me the similarities, such as the most important point of 11 of the traditional 12 clubs still being in the comp.

It doesn't matter that the comp changed its name. It doesn't matter that it of a higher standard. And it doesn't matter that there are new teams added:

When an infant eventually becomes an 80 year old man, he look unrecognizeable from when he was an infant. He looks totally different. On his 70th birthday he even could have changed his name from Fred to Bill. This does not make him a different person. He is still the same individual, and you damn well know it. You know it. http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/mad.gif

Essendon has won 16 premierships in the current competiton. The competiton has existed under 2 names, and new teams have been added over the years. But through it all, the competiton has survived, and it is now "named" the AFL. In this comp, which began "named" the VFL, Essendon has won 16 flags, winning the first in 1897, and the last in 2000. it may look different but it is the same comp.

I might add, that although it looks different, in many ways it looks similar too! You always took about the differences, and I talk about the similarities. Obviously you have to come to the middle and meet me on this one. I have mentioned the differences (eg new teams), but you have to acknowledge the similarities. 11.5 of the traditional 12 clubs are still running around. The only difference "club-wise" is the addition of teams from outsode Victoria. This does not makeit a new comp. It just means those teams have been added to an already existing comp

Why is it always South Australians who are so reluctant to accept the facts? You can't have an opinion on this. Not on this one. It is a fact. It is the same comp. Look at it. Even the Brownlow medal gets awrded to the best player IN THAT COMP. For the next 100 years the winner of the best and fairest in this comp which you joined in 1997 (the comp began in 1897), will continue to get the Brownlow medal, just as they have done since 1924 when the Brownlow started.

How bloody hard is it to understand? I am objective. if Essendon "joined" the SANFL, I could see that the SANFL (even if it changed it's name) would still be the same comp. Why are some of you South Australians so reluctant to accept the blatantly obvious facts? It staggers me, and I am getting sick and tired of it.

ptw

4 May 2001, 20:24

Originally posted by Dan25:
ptw,

I might add, that although it looks different, in many ways it looks similar too! You always took about the differences, and I talk about the similarities. Obviously you have to come to the middle and meet me on this one.

HA ! http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

that would of course assume Dan that you are in the middle ! If I went into the middle I might be able to just make you out as a tiny figure on the right horizon !!!!

We have discussed this many imes and you know my position on it. I was mearly pointing out that as you see the Port Magpies thing to be absurd (legally right but absurd), you may now understand (if only a little bit....deep down inside...how I feel about the other issue.

Whatever you think or say, the Port Adelaide Football Club are not going to throw away 130 years of tradition just because a few people think it is silly. The AFL will never do it either.

I will be content if you would actually recognise that there is a valid arguement on my side of the fence. I am not asking to you agree, but you seem to treat the topic as a purely one sided statement of fact....which in very shallow way it is....so is the Port Adelaide debate....but there is a deeper level of debate in both instances and valid points on both sides.

maybe then we could put this one to bed (although I don't know what I would post about then....still there is always PA1870 http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/smile.gif .

ptw

Dan26

4 May 2001, 20:55

PTW,

Just one thing. I would totally agree on the Port thing if it wasn't for one tiny detail.

Let's just suppose that the Magpies left the SANFL in 1996, and joined the AFL under a new name (the Power). Fine. This happened, and I can see it. You left one comp and joined another. If Port left the SANFL leaving "no evidence" of that club, then it would be perfectly obvious as to what happened. i.e they left comp (so they don't compete in that comp anymore in any form) and they joined a new one.

If this was the case, I would totally agree.

The problem lies in the PAMFC currently playing in the SANFL. The fact that they are there running around makes it "seem" as if they are the same old club. The fact that they still draw crowds proves that many thousands of fans treat them as the same old club (and understanably so)

The VFL-AFL thing is different, as you can now see. The AFL havn't invented some new competiton to make it "seem" as though nothing changed like Port have done. That's the difference in the arguments.

I have no problem with Port leaving one comp and joining another. Fine. I have a problem with the PAMFC logically appearing to be the same club as the Magpies pre-1997, which most Port supporters treat it (as the crowds prove)

See my point?

The VFL-AFL is a totally separate thing which is beyond argument. I do understand the facts about Port though. I know the Power are officially 130 years old, and I'm fine with that. But if the Port Magpies continie to play (as they will for the next 100 years), then it would seem that the Power really should have been a brand new club for the sake of logic!