Adelaide Oval Review

[charcolechaddy]

Haven't looked at the Lions one yet, but do you know what the first one is? How about posting the bits from the article that said something like "Collingwood's wretched injury run in recent weeks has translated ..."

EDIT: Just read the second link if yours that said the Lions were equal third youngest with Port Adelaide. Are you debating yourself now?

More than one of yourself in a debate... Must be a mass debate.

 

[*PAF]

Try this one.
Click the footy junkie link that should be up the top.

https://www.google.com.au/search?ie...s+your+club+in+2014+footy+junkie+2014&spell=1

 

[Pdub]

That table is the average age of the sides that took the field in round 22 last week - not the list as a whole.

From the same article
"The Power side that pummelled Carlton by 103 points at Adelaide Oval on Friday night had an average age of 24.7 years, making it the fifth youngest team in the AFL at the weekend."

Was that a mistake or were you deliberately trying to bend the truth ?

Here's another source: http://www.bigfooty.com.au/features/how-experienced-is-your-club-in-2014/

 

[Pdub]

EDIT: Just read the second link if yours that said the Lions were equal third youngest with Port Adelaide. Are you debating yourself now?

The lions one is from 2013

 

[footy4ever]

Take Truck and Porps out of there and Crows average age drops by about 20 years!

 

[redandblack]

Agreed. What else does it say? A group of big entities can usually crush a minnow. Not nice I agree, but if contract talks start becoming a focus then this is an option.

That shows a decided misunderstanding of how the administration of football in Australia relies on goodwill, whether genuine or not.

It also shows a selfish attitude towards hundreds of football teams you'd be happy to see crushed for the good of Port Adelaide getting more money.

Morality and some Port supporters seem opposites.

 

[Pdub]

Try this one.
Click the footy junkie link that should be up the top.

https://www.google.com.au/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-telstra-au&source=android-browser&q=afl tables lists/average/age&gfe_rd=cr&ei=0NmfVPmCG83u8wfBvoDYCQ#q=how experienced is your club in 2014 footy junkie 2014&spell=1

Well his stats for 2013 are wrong according to the article on the lions site

http://www.lions.com.au/news/2013-02-19/lions-third-youngest

 

[Malibu#27]

Ah wonderful you've provided two lists that don't match - one which we have shown is not what it seems.

So in answer to the question did you know you were bending the truth with the first one ?

Do you think john Olsen knew he was bending the truth when he recently suggested the 10 million they paid back to afl was all used to support port ?

 

[Killer Power]

Is it the vibe, or is it Mabo?

Both Reality is that the SANFL will benefit more in the long run with 2 successful teams here generating greater crowds and therefore revenue for them. Ergo the SANFL need the clubs as they are the product and this gives them a degree of power.

 

[Malibu#27]

It also shows a selfish attitude towards hundreds of football teams you'd be happy to see crushed for the good of Port Adelaide getting more money.
.

Hundreds of teams crushed - over exaggerating much ?

I've personally seen four clubs disappear in the past five years and port wasn't at fault in any. The reasons had nothing to do with money - one was my own. Trying to tie this to port is very unfair and untrue.

In fact in at least one I partially blame sanfl and afl regulations for its demise.

 

[Pdub]

Ah wonderful you've provided two lists that don't match - one which we have shown is not what it seems.

So in answer to the question did you know you were bending the truth with the first one ?

Honest mistake, it's the first result that comes up when you search google.

Do you think john Olsen knew he was bending the truth when he recently suggested the 10 million they paid back to afl was all used to support port ?

He said the money they borrowed was to help cover the $16.25 they needed to give to port, You got any proof it wasn't?

 

[footy4ever]

Both Reality is that the SANFL will benefit more in the long run with 2 successful teams here generating greater crowds and therefore revenue for them.

Totally agree, but the fact remains, the contract will have to be altered, and that will only happen if the SANFL agrees to alterations.

 

[Malibu#27]

Honest mistake, it's the first result that comes up when you search google.



He said the money they borrowed was to help cover the $16.25 they needed to give to port, You got any proof it wasn't?

Accept your answer re ages - to be honest it's a funny stat and you will find multiple calculations that all differ the point though is multiple calculations show port third youngest so Koch wasn't lying per se.


Check earlier in this thread. It's all there.

Otherwise .... http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/grants-increase-port-rescue-deal-to-14m-20110630-1gt27.html is the money the SANFL paid back. The other bailout money was not borrowed from afl.

 

[*PAF]

Well his stats for 2013 are wrong according to the article on the lions site

http://www.lions.com.au/news/2013-02-19/lions-third-youngest

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/teams-ranked-by-average-age.1047456/

 

[*PAF]

...
He said the money they borrowed was to help cover the $16.25 they needed to give to port, You got any proof it wasn't?

The details of the $10mil AFL package have already been posted 16.25 million times in this thread alone.

 

[Jello_B]

That shows a decided misunderstanding of how the administration of football in Australia relies on goodwill, whether genuine or not.

It also shows a selfish attitude towards hundreds of football teams you'd be happy to see crushed for the good of Port Adelaide getting more money.

Morality and some Port supporters seem opposites.

Red and Black approach: insert contract clauses at the detriment of everyone else. Insert derogatory comment about someone who responds with a counter. Ignore the fact they want the SANFL to succeed.
I think you are struggling my friend.

 

[Jello_B]

Totally agree, but the fact remains, the contract will have to be altered, and that will only happen if the SANFL agrees to alterations.

Marty approach. But why would they agree? What is in the current contract that would make them reconsider?

 

[Killer Power]

Totally agree, but the fact remains, the contract will have to be altered, and that will only happen if the SANFL agrees to alterations.

Yeah, fair enough. Wouldn't be the first time they have cut off their nose to spite their face.

 

[footy4ever]

Marty approach. But why would they agree? What is in the current contract that would make them reconsider?

Please show me one word of my post that isn't fact.

 

[Pdub]

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/teams-ranked-by-average-age.1047456/

That list has the crows as the oldest list in the comp.

 

[*PAF]

That list has the crows as the oldest list in the comp.

Is it?

 

[Pdub]

Is it?

no

 

[OneGreatClub]

Accept your answer re ages - to be honest it's a funny stat and you will find multiple calculations that all differ the point though is multiple calculations show port third youngest so Koch wasn't lying per se.


Check earlier in this thread. It's all there.

Otherwise .... http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/grants-increase-port-rescue-deal-to-14m-20110630-1gt27.html is the money the SANFL paid back. The other bailout money was not borrowed from afl.

Trust in Kochie I say

 

[*PAF]

no

How about if you read that thread rather than just have a guess?

 

[Valentino]

Your kidding yourself. The SANFL have a financial interest in Port. They own their licence through a contract, which guarentees them rights.
You really need to understand contract law. Just because the AFL has more money doesnt mean they can ignore contract law. Thats what courts are for. The SANFL could and would pay for any legal cost to defend their rights. If it was a simple as you said the AFL would have just taken back the licences but they couldnt and they had to be bought back. Sorry to burst your bubble. And as the SANFL owned Ports arse they would have made them cut costs and reduce spending to bring the loss down to where it wasnt a hit to the SANFL. Infact they should have done so many years ago. The fact that the SANFL allowed PAP to be poorly ran is their own fault.
Dont kid yourself.

This post tells me that you are absolutely familiar with the contract in question and all the sub clauses including those relating to the mis-management of the licenses. You also appear to be confident in the SANFL and their vast reserves in a legal dispute against a minnow like the AFL should push come to shove.
I am confident that your judgement is not being clouded by any hatred for Port and that you would not be shooting from the lip.
Please tell me I'm not kidding myself.