Mega Thread Port Forum 'General AFL Talk' Thread Part 14

[Doctor Feel]

You can't assume that. Not everyone will tick the club support box.

Does it stop you progressing if you don't fill it out??

AFL has about 58,000 members. Only about 49,000 ticket a club support box which sees the AFL pay an amount of the $700 membership fee for every box ticked for an AFL Members Club Support category. They keep the full amount for those 9,000 who don't tick a box.

Its not much of a form if it doesn't have validators.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Its not much of a form if it doesn't have validators.

From whose point of view?

 

[It Just Is]

36 men on the one field is kinda nuts, exacerbated by pretty much everyone being a pathological running machine.

Wasn’t as much of a factor when there were a handful of beep test freaks. Now there’s hundreds.

This. I don’t understand why 16 vs 16 is seen by so many as such a bad thing. There are clearly too many people on the field at any one time. If the improvement to the state of the game is more one on one contests then taking the two worst players off the field seems an obvious part of the solution.

The amount of idiots I’ve heard recently in the media (Gerard Healy chief among them) suggesting making kicks a minimum of 25m and only forward. What do they think that will achieve? You’re limiting where players can send the football to a semi circle 25-50m from the kicker and that space can be plugged by 18 Shane Crawford’s.

 

[Tibbs]

I totally disagree. Of course they're going to talk about the game. But does it take game of the year to talk about the ladder leaders? And they raved about the game but move on pretty quickly. Our players are not household names here and when they are performing well should get the credit they deserve. For the players' financial futures the afl needs to move beyond the expanded VFL concept

Nah, it is obvious you dont watch any of these shows. They are not recaps of who won games ... they are all about newsworthy stories and dramas from the weekend, often off-field. Besides Robbies after-the-siren goal, there was absolutely nothing newsworthy about Ports win. Nothing! It was a nothing effort, marked mainly by missed goals and opportunities in the last 4 minutes. Other than a one liner "Port won," there was nothing worth talking about to their viewers. Any expectation otherwise is just being churlish IMO.

I do agree their content can be weighted to Vic sides, but they are Vic-based media shows, and their largest demograph would be Victorians, so that is understandable. Also they tend to crap on about some useless subjects, and their hosts are often driven by their own egos (hello Eddie). So it depends what mood I am in as to whether I watch or not.

 

[Steve Dore]

You can't assume that. Not everyone will tick the club support box.

Does it stop you progressing if you don't fill it out??

AFL has about 58,000 members. Only about 49,000 ticket a club support box which sees the AFL pay an amount of the $700 membership fee for every box ticked for an AFL Members Club Support category. They keep the full amount for those 9,000 who don't tick a box.

You can't assume everyone will make a selection but it is much more scientific than the guess the SMA currently makes based on who knows what actually data.

If people knew that their $100 extra was going to the club they selected rather than just lining the SMA's pockets they'd be more likely to make a selection.

If you don't make a selection it defaults to the first club in the alphabetical listing.

 

[Steve Dore]

Dangerfield and Pendlebury talking up the merits of 16 v 16...

AFLX here we come.

 

[Holden Hillbilly]

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

You can't assume everyone will make a selection but it is much more scientific than the guess the SMA currently makes based on who knows what actually data.

If people knew that their $100 extra was going to the club they selected rather than just lining the SMA's pockets they'd be more likely to make a selection.

If you don't make a selection it defaults to the first club in the alphabetical listing.

Until you get figures of ticked boxes, ie remove the default ones, nobody really knows the true figure.

The $100 appears to go to the SMA either way after the stadium deal was latest reviewed. The $100 increase split between the 2 clubs was for the 2015-17 deal period. Its probably why they don't give much of a stuff about doing it correctly.

Got this email from Matthew Richardson a couple of months ago. This is why counting AOSMA Football memberships in either clubs totals, is BS. They should be ignored just like MCG members are in Vic club totals.

Just want to confirm, that when people buy an AOSMA Football Membership (22games) – the AFL Clubs receive NO revenue from that

I think there was a comment that the club received $50 per membership, that doesn’t happen

The only $$ the Club’s receive is when people upgrade into a reserved seat in the Western Stand (seasonal or single game) –

But we receive no $$ at all from AOSMA membership

As we keep saying, the best way to support the Club, is to buy membership direct with your Club

Essential Power (11games in the Western Stand) – 100% of that revenue stays with the Club

 

[Andre]

As an AO football member I can confirm that every year when I renew my membership I select PAFC as the AFL team I support. The SMA knows the true split. The fact that they continue to use a figure plucked out of thin air indicates that the true split is not as favourable to the Camry Crows.

What are the options? Only Port and Adelaide? As a minimum it should be Port, Crows, Port and Crows, Other(s), None. Then use those who answered as the basis for the split. So if 50% tick a box, double the numbers for each.

 

[Andre]

Why would GC even want Brad Crouch now anyway he'd just get in the way

I decided to make a rare visit to Adelaide's board and the delusion that Crouch would go for the good of the club, rather than wanting out and wanting more money is hilarious.

 

[Rigs]

No Cookies | The Advertiser

No Cookies

www.adelaidenow.com.au

for those who do not have access - here's there main points.

Adelaide Crows must target Port Adelaide ruckman Peter Ladhams, says Kane Cornes


Port Adelaide’s Peter Ladhams is the man that can solve Adelaide’s ruck issues.
The Crows need to make an aggressive move and table a four-year, $2 million offer to secure his signature in this trade period.

Ladhams can be the player to solve the conundrum and his name has already been discussed among Adelaide’s list management committee.

He should be the No.1 big-man target to add depth to the depleted ruck division at West Lakes. Ladhams is only 22 and fits perfectly inside the demographic of Adelaide’s rebuilding playing group.

The biggest barrier blocking Adelaide from securing Ladhams this off-season is his contract status at Port Adelaide, which sees him committed to the club until the end of 2022.

After also failing to lure Collingwood big man Brodie Grundy home last year, the recruitment of Ladhams would help to ease the pain.

The Crows will welcome an influx of elite talent via this year’s draft that has the potential to fast-track their significant list overhaul.

The draft needs to be supported by an aggressive trading strategy and stealing Ladhams from its cross-town rival would be a major coup.

 

[yepits2020]

Pick 1 and 2 might do it in a compromised draft,,,,, nah......FO

 

[Andre]

No Cookies | The Advertiser

No Cookies

www.adelaidenow.com.au

for those who do not have access - here's there main points.

Adelaide Crows must target Port Adelaide ruckman Peter Ladhams, says Kane Cornes


Port Adelaide’s Peter Ladhams is the man that can solve Adelaide’s ruck issues.
The Crows need to make an aggressive move and table a four-year, $2 million offer to secure his signature in this trade period.

Does no one at Adelaide follow the Bible's teachings? It says not to covet thy neighbours wife. It has nothing specifically against wanting to pillage the one in the next town.

If it was any other club with the picks Adelaide will have, given we have Lycett and Hayes, I'd be tempted for a top 10 pick. Adelaide wouldn't approach with a fair offer though, they'd want to be able to boast immediately to the customers they've screwed us over, as their fans (and most at the club) have never understood trades can be win-win.

 

[JimmyBC]

He's contracted we don't have to do diddley squat with those assholes

 

[RossFC]

No Cookies | The Advertiser

No Cookies

www.adelaidenow.com.au

for those who do not have access - here's there main points.

Adelaide Crows must target Port Adelaide ruckman Peter Ladhams, says Kane Cornes


Port Adelaide’s Peter Ladhams is the man that can solve Adelaide’s ruck issues.
The Crows need to make an aggressive move and table a four-year, $2 million offer to secure his signature in this trade period.

Ladhams can be the player to solve the conundrum and his name has already been discussed among Adelaide’s list management committee.

He should be the No.1 big-man target to add depth to the depleted ruck division at West Lakes. Ladhams is only 22 and fits perfectly inside the demographic of Adelaide’s rebuilding playing group.

The biggest barrier blocking Adelaide from securing Ladhams this off-season is his contract status at Port Adelaide, which sees him committed to the club until the end of 2022.

After also failing to lure Collingwood big man Brodie Grundy home last year, the recruitment of Ladhams would help to ease the pain.

The Crows will welcome an influx of elite talent via this year’s draft that has the potential to fast-track their significant list overhaul.

The draft needs to be supported by an aggressive trading strategy and stealing Ladhams from its cross-town rival would be a major coup.

Kane is really annoying. Maybe go back to having his head up Kens arse instead of trying to get players to leave and strengthen the crows.

 

[OneGreatClub]

 

[RossFC]

Dangerfield is really annoying. Maybe go back to having his head up his own arse instead of trying to ruin the game.

 

[chiwigi]

The problem with changing to 16 is similar to the issue with co-captains.

It may seem like a good idea, but you lose so much if it doesn't work out.

 

[It Just Is]

3rd man up clears congestion around stoppages. I swear some people don’t have functional eyeballs. Only ever deployed when a losing ruckman - or midfielder playing at being a ruckman - needs support nullifying the oppositions taps to keep the ball in close.

*I’m aware Robinson might have been saying that in jest but still wanted to make the point.

 

[OneGreatClub]

Oh **** off

 

[Hardcore]

This. I don’t understand why 16 vs 16 is seen by so many as such a bad thing. There are clearly too many people on the field at any one time. If the improvement to the state of the game is more one on one contests then taking the two worst players off the field seems an obvious part of the solution.

The amount of idiots I’ve heard recently in the media (Gerard Healy chief among them) suggesting making kicks a minimum of 25m and only forward. What do they think that will achieve? You’re limiting where players can send the football to a semi circle 25-50m from the kicker and that space can be plugged by 18 Shane Crawford’s.

You change the numbers on the field you start to change the fabric of the game, definitely don't do it

Sent from my SM-F700F using Tapatalk

 

[It Just Is]

Oh fu** off

Scrap father/son. Proceed to list NGA players. Yet more quality AFL journalism.

 

[RossFC]

Oh fu** off

Keep father-son, remove Academy picks, but still give every club an Academy to boost player development before the draft.

 

[snozulu]

Oh fu** off

Players would probably leave to go home to their club their father played for and it would just piss us supporters off too.

 

[edgie]

Dangerfield is really annoying. Maybe go back to having his head up his own arse instead of trying to ruin the game.

If he tried kicking straighter at goal that might increase scoring.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk