Roast 50/50-Rong Rucci Reckoning - The R-Files

Remove this Banner Ad

Geoffa32 said:
Telasters have no grounds for calling our club "Corporate" anymore.


The China stuff is the most plastic franchise act ever seen in AFL football.
Buying another club's home game for entertainment for an economics/trade expo in a country where the game is barely played.....

Not to mention for most athletes air travel is the enemy to performance. Yes Burgess would know how to best prep players for this, (did Liverpool play in Europe under his tenure there?) but he would also much rather avoid such air travel as much as possible. Port have actively put that strain on its athletes chasing the dollar. A very "corporate" thing to do.

This is after their Chairman called them the Harlem Globetrotters of the AFL.
Click to expand...
Liverpool played in the Europa 1 year of Burgess's but you have to realize a European away leg is not much different on travel than an away game against Freo.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

brucetiki said:
How much was Rucci involved in that 'corporates told to shut up' article that The Advertiser has cowardly put behind a paywall?

They really are a bitter bunch at The Advertiser
Click to expand...
It was certainly Rucci-esque, in that it was purposefully snide and inflammatory. It got the reaction it was after from dumb-as-s**t Port supporters who thought everything that was written was a Fagan quote, and from the hand-wringer Crows supporters who clearly need to learn to distinguish between major and minor issues.
 
Last edited:
footy4ever said:
It was certainly Rucci-esque, in that it was purposefully snide and inflammatory. It got the reaction it was after from dumb-as-s**t Port supporters who thought everything that was written was a Fagan quote, and from the hand-wringer Crows supporters who clearly need to learn to distinguish between major and minor issues.
Click to expand...
Supposedly it was sparked by some drunk Melbourne flog who was swearing around kids. No issue with telling people to pull their heads in in that circumstance. People in that area pay $7k a seat so I can also understand why the club is willing to keep them happy. The letter could've been worded slightly better (mostly just to say 'supporters' rather than 'opposition supporters') but meh, it really is a tiny issue. It's not as though someone is being bashed, vilified or hidden from the police. If those types of things happened surely there would be an intensive inquiry and criticism from the Advertiser? Surely?
 
Talk about a storm in a tea cup. Of course everyone is taking the article word for word as Fagan’s and not the journalist’s self-interested interpretation to sell news:rolleyes:.

All Fagan wants is opposition supporters when they are guests of an exclusive, club-run suite specifically designed for Adelaide supporters who fork out $7,000 to the club to hang out with legends like Modra, to not be antagonistic, obnoxious drunken louts. It’s not an unreasonable request. Go to the hill if you want to do that. We all go to the footy - everyone knows the line between supporting/cheering for your team and being obnoxious - it’s not hard.

As usual it’s the Port supporters piling in. No Port supporter can tell me that if I went as a guest to their equivalent exclusive area where Port fans fork out thousands of dollars for a club-run game experience where they get to meet their own club champions, during a Showdown and carried on like a drunken, antagonistic twat with swear words galore when we are beating them that I wouldn’t be told to GTFO. Of course they would and they would be entitled to as well.
 
Archie87 said:
Talk about a storm in a tea cup. Of course everyone is taking the article word for word as Fagan’s and not the journalist’s self-interested interpretation to sell news:rolleyes:.

All Fagan wants is opposition supporters when they are guests of an exclusive, club-run suite specifically designed for Adelaide supporters who fork out $7,000 to the club to hang out with legends like Modra, to not be antagonistic, obnoxious drunken louts. It’s not an unreasonable request. Go to the hill if you want to do that. We all go to the footy - everyone knows the line between supporting/cheering for your team and being obnoxious - it’s not hard.

As usual it’s the Port supporters piling in. No Port supporter can tell me that if I went as a guest to their equivalent exclusive area where Port fans fork out thousands of dollars for a club-run game experience where they get to meet their own club champions, during a Showdown and carried on like a drunken, antagonistic twat with swear words galore when we are beating them that I wouldn’t be told to GTFO. Of course they would and they would be entitled to as well.
Click to expand...
Must be a slow news day when this makes the front page of the paper today... Plenty of other big stories floating around and they run with this as their main story...
 
relapse said:
Of course he wasn't, Rucci never really mentioned about Port keeping concussed players on the ground even though Port were fined for it.
Click to expand...

He defended it!!! I heard that radio show that morning and he was actually defending it even though Hartlett was walking around and clearly dazed and the AFL fined Port for not following protocol. Basically no matter what Port does he'll find a way of defending them. They've become a club of nothing but spin.
 
jo172 said:
People worried about 5AA praising Port are showing Port fan levels of insecurity.

Newsflash, 5AA is a very low-quality station without particular journalistic principle. Who cares?
Click to expand...

I've started to listen to Sen, but when there's only two stations in this town and they both suck then I care.
 
GameofSloanes said:
The letter could've been worded slightly better (mostly just to say 'supporters' rather than 'opposition supporters')
Click to expand...
I've just read the article and yes, it is a storm in a teacup.

Obviously Fagan isn't going to say "drunken swearing flogs" in a letter to Premiership Club members, but it's pretty obvious - and would be, to recipients of the letter - that it's that sort of behaviour that he's talking about. Especially to those who were there during the Melbourne game.

Re "opposition supporters": what the article says is, and I quote: "Adelaide chief executive officer Andrew Fagan says he understands some guests in their Adelaide Oval Riverbank Stand suite were “vocal supporters of the opposition team” during the Crows’ 41-point loss to Melbourne last Saturday night."

The direct quotes from the letter include:
"'Whilst supporting other teams is expected, the manner in which this occurs should be respectful of the unique nature of this facility, its premium offering and its core membership.'"

Note this: The para that refers to "opposition supporters" is using those words out of context. It is clearly designed to imply that Fagan was targeting opposition supporters because "vocal support" when to any sentient being who reads the entire article, it is nothing of the sort.

Of course the letter is referring to opposition supporters - because they are the ones who were (apparently) behaving inappropriately. It would not be right for Fagan to refer to "supporters" as though to include Crows supporters, because it wasn't Crows supporters who were behaving badly, it was Melbourne supporters.

There is nothing in the letter - as quoted in the article - that refers to simply "supporting the opposing team" - except to say that this is understood and expected. The letter is talking about appropriate behaviour in a premium facility and it is blindingly clear that it's not talking about the mere act of "supporting the opposition".
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

arrowman said:
I've just read the article and yes, it is a storm in a teacup.

Obviously Fagan isn't going to say "drunken swearing flogs" in a letter to Premiership Club members, but it's pretty obvious - and would be, to recipients of the letter - that it's that sort of behaviour that he's talking about. Especially to those who were there during the Melbourne game.

Re "opposition supporters": what the article says is, and I quote: "Adelaide chief executive officer Andrew Fagan says he understands some guests in their Adelaide Oval Riverbank Stand suite were “vocal supporters of the opposition team” during the Crows’ 41-point loss to Melbourne last Saturday night."

The direct quotes from the letter include:
"'Whilst supporting other teams is expected, the manner in which this occurs should be respectful of the unique nature of this facility, its premium offering and its core membership.'"

Note this: The para that refers to "opposition supporters" is using those words out of context. It is clearly designed to imply that Fagan was targeting opposition supporters because "vocal support" when to any sentient being who reads the entire article, it is nothing of the sort.

Of course the letter is referring to opposition supporters - because they are the ones who were (apparently) behaving inappropriately. It would not be right for Fagan to refer to "supporters" as though to include Crows supporters, because it wasn't Crows supporters who were behaving badly, it was Melbourne supporters.

There is nothing in the letter - as quoted in the article - that refers to simply "supporting the opposing team" - except to say that this is understood and expected. The letter is talking about appropriate behaviour in a premium facility and it is blindingly clear that it's not talking about the mere act of "supporting the opposition".
Click to expand...


There must be something wrong with me because I cannot stand it, to the point of wanting to throw my keyboard at the computer screen, that there are people who are so ****ing dumb/tunnel-visioned that they can't work this out on their own.
 
Still looks s**t after we lose.

However, I imagine some of our paid up members were having a whinge, "Is this what I pay my $6000 for?" "What is the club going to do about it?" after they had some of their words throw back at them when the game went south.

So we had to placate those money bags sore loser whingers.
 
I didn't get to hear much of it, but FiveAA interviewed someone who witnessed it all this morning, she said it wouldn't have mattered where she was sitting she would have got the offender thrown out, lots of swearing around kids was mentioned. That is not on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

John Who
  • Poll
Forgotten Fog Files - permanent forward, midfielder or both?
2 3 4 5
Replies
104
Views
5K
skam85
skam85
Scorpus
Player Watch Hugh Bond - Pick 50, 2022 AFL Draft
2 3 4 5
Replies
120
Views
17K
kick it to me_
kick it to me_
1990crow
  • Poll
Preview Changes: R19 vs Dees, Sunday July 23rd 2:50pm ACST @ MCG
38 39 40 41 42
Replies
1K
Views
29K
Mattrox
Mattrox
1970crow
Game Day Crows v Hawks - in melbs, but not the G at 2:50
57 58 59 60 61
Replies
2K
Views
23K
Magma
Magma
Drummond
Roast The Rotten Stench of the AFC
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
161
Views
6K
Harris1991
H
spenze
  • Poll
Review The good, the bad, the shat - vs Fremantle R3 2024
24 25 26 27 28
Replies
690
Views
27K
conVINCEd
C
adelaidecrows
Strategy The season is lost, what should we do with the remaining 19 games?
2
Replies
34
Views
988
adelaidecrows
adelaidecrows

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top