Toast #BringBackTheBars - Our Heritage, Our History, Our Right! Part 1

[bomberclifford]

The cognitive dissonance between believing Port Adelaide in the AFL is different to Port Adelaide in the SANFL, but at the same time having a vendetta against Port Adelaide in the AFL because of the actions of Port Adelaide in the SANFL is so fascinating it should be the subject of a scientific paper.

Even Eddie suffers from it, on one hand throwing down the “you’re traitors to the SANFL“ barb and mere seconds later accusing us of trying to kill off the Port Magpies.

If we’re not the same Port from 1990, how can we be traitors, and why would our initial agreement include directions about no Magpie or b&w stripes.

If we are the same Port from 1990, then ‘killing off the Magpies’ was a directive from the AFL as insisted by Collingwood.

The thought process is deranged.

 

[Grave Danger]

I'd like to see an Eddy McGuire version of this flying over Adelaide Oval when we play Collingwood...

 

[JUSTWORK]

So apparently Eddies biggest problem is us selling and making a profit from the Prison Bar jumper.

We should immediately put 20k new Prison Bar jumpers up for sale.

 

[bomberclifford]

I'd like to see an Eddy McGuire version of this flying over Adelaide Oval when we play Collingwood...


View attachment 1115848

Wearing the bars.

 

[JimmyBC]

Those poor Maggie Diehards against PORT POWER they haven't had a place to hold a meeting since the last phone box was removed on Ocean Steamers Road.

 

[Contested Marx]

I'd like to see an Eddy McGuire version of this flying over Adelaide Oval when we play Collingwood...


View attachment 1115848

That oughta do it

 

[OneGreatClub]

Wait wot?

 

[Enviable Tradition]

I switched on then off when a Port Power is not Port Adelaide type diatribe was going on but long enough to hear a caller they let go to air with the idea of Port Power going to Tasmania & the Port Magpies entering the AFL

2 PAFC teams in the AFL?

Well Red Bull do it in F1 with Torro Rosso.

Do you see where I'm going with this....

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Enviable Tradition]

That oughta do it

View attachment 1115869

Thats amazing!

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Grave Danger]

That oughta do it

View attachment 1115869

Haha - thanks, that may well find its way into the twittersphere today

 

[dirty2]

Get every club to run out and warm up in the prison bars as solidarity to us...

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

That analogy is spot on.

The gay marriage plebiscite was passed in every state by a big majority. Because despite it not affecting the majority of people in a personal sense, the majority of people were affronted by the lack of justice and fair play that they felt was behind the 'NO' campaign.

By the time of the vote, most people actually did give a stuff about it. For something they had never really thought about before or since.

Which is exactly where I think we are getting with the issue of wearing the prison bars against the crows.

People who never gave a stuff before are now getting invested in the debate. Purely because their sense of fair play and justice is being challenged.

Keep hitting people with the facts and the passion of our fans on why this matters.

That is how this battle will be won.

And remember above all. 'Justice' is never decided in the court room!

The other thing is it wasn't a compulsory vote - you know, forcing people to vote on something they don't give a stuff about. I think only 75% of registered voters actually sent in their vote.

In the overwhelming majority cases of those 20%-40% of registered voters forced to turn up who wouldn't turn up if they weren't made to - they usually take the attitude I don't give a stuff, so I'm voting against any change.

Been saying to friends since the Republican vote in 1999, any constitutional change referendum shouldn't be compulsory voting. Why make people vote on it? Its a big part of the reason why the Yes case has only won 8 out of 44 questions - not all of the reasons why, especially when you need a double majority, ie at least 4 of the 6 states, but a big one, eg compulsory voting started around 1923 but there the government compulsory draft was voted no 3 times during WWI, which wasn't affected by people being forced to vote on it.

So if Labor want to change the constitution re the Aboriginal Voice issue, don't make voting for it compulsory and force people to the polling booths.

 

[GremioPower]

The other thing is it wasn't a compulsory vote - you know, forcing people to vote on something they don't give a stuff about. I think only 75% of registered voters actually sent in their vote.

In the overwhelming majority case of those 20%-40% of registered voters forced to turn up who wouldn't turn up if they weren't made to - they usually take the attitude I don't give a stuff, so I'm voting against any change.

Been saying to friends since the Republican vote in 1999, any constitutional change referendum shouldn't be compulsory. Why make people vote on it? Its a big part of the reason why the Yes case has only won 8 out of 44 questions - not all of the reasons why, but a big one, eg compulsory voting started around 1923 and a government compulsory draft was voted no 3 times during WWI.

So if Labor want to change the constitution re the Aboriginal Voice issue, don't make voting for it compulsory and force people to the polling booths.

Voting is a duty. Citizens have an obligation with one another to participate. If you don’t have an opinion, you must go and say: “I don’t have an opinion.” You just cannot do nothing.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Voting is a duty. Citizens have an obligation with one another to participate. If you don’t have an opinion, you must go and say: “I don’t have an opinion.” You just cannot do nothing.

It might be a duty but people have the right to do nothing. If they aren't engaged why force them to pollute the result?

 

[chiwigi]

Adelaide supporters are currently posting the following image all over Facebook and Twitter, insisting that it should be their Showdown guernsey:


View attachment 1115556


Yet again, they want to be just like us! How adorable is that?

I’d totally support them wearing that!

 

[edgie]

It's sad but I have to agree.

Was the Sturt-Norwood merger really a competitor to us in '96?

As for the John James heritage round only piece, we were on our knees but still, you sign nothing forever.

Nah, there was no threat to us in 96.

As one of the doco's showed, the consortium went in with a manilla folder. Sturtwood went in with a briefcase. We went in with four suitcases of presentation.

People hate to admit it, but we didn't bully our way in to anything. We put by far the most work and effort in to our proposals.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[RossFC]

 

[Enviable Tradition]

I love that the media are calling out our board like that.

What are you going to do Kochie?

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[RossFC]

Jason Dunstall weighs in.
https://omny.fm/shows/the-rub/chiefs-slaughterhouse-on-port-adelaide-and-colling

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Jason Dunstall weighs in.
https://omny.fm/shows/the-rub/chiefs-slaughterhouse-on-port-adelaide-and-colling

What is this logic from AFL commentators???

Dunstable seems to hate us so if even he thinks there's no issue, there's no ******* issue.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Festerz]

Was the Sturt-Norwood merger really a competitor to us in '96?

Ahh the Sturt-Norwood merger. Two clubs so proud of their past they were willing to abandon it to grab the spoils of an AFL licence. That's a very interesting bit of history.

Norwood was clear about lodging a stand alone bid to match Port Adelaide at the commencement of the bidding process for the 2nd AFL licence. How did things change?

What is even more intriguing is that 18 months into the bidding process and within sight of bids closing the SANFL 'Future Directions' Committee came up with a plan recommending that the licence be handed to an amalgamation of 2 SANFL clubs, meaning that only one of the three bids (Norwood Sturt) was acceptable. The stand alone bid from Port Adelaide and the cartel (North, West, Eagles and Centrals) would not be acceptable.

Strange coincidence, that

South and Glenelg decided to announce a dual bid after the SANFL recommendation but Glenelg hierarchy were too entrenched in the Crows to ever make that fly and that bid never made it to the table.

Fortunately the AFL and the Victorian clubs were overwhelmingly determined to see Port Adelaide enter as the second SA based AFL team so the SANFL's 'recommendation' was abandoned.

AFL boss Ross Oakley sealed the deal with this statement just prior to bids closing:

'I think football owes Port something'

Not sure what happened to that 'Future Directions' report but weeks later another SANFL report surfaced suggesting that Port get the second licence and Norwood become the home for the Adelaide Crows. No surprises that strategy document was shredded shortly after being printed.

There was a lot of double dealing and treachery being done behind the scenes within the SANFL to stop Port getting that second licence as a stand alone bid under the name of the Port Adelaide Football Club. And we would always have to make sacrifices for our stand alone bid to get up and to secure the AFL support needed to trump the backroom dealing of the SANFL.

Those pointing the finger of blame at past leaders need to understand that history and talk to those involved in preparing the 2nd licence bid to get the real facts of what happened and why.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Ahh the Sturt-Norwood merger. Two clubs so proud of their past they were willing to abandon it to grab the spoils of an AFL licence. That's a very interesting bit of history.

Norwood was clear about lodging a stand alone bid to match Port Adelaide at the commencement of the bidding process for the 2nd AFL licence. How did things change?

What is even more intriguing is that 18 months into the bidding process and within sight of bids closing the SANFL 'Future Directions' Committee came up with a plan recommending that the licence be handed to an amalgamation of 2 SANFL clubs, meaning that only one of the three bids (Norwood Sturt) was acceptable. The stand alone bid from Port Adelaide and the cartel (North, West, Eagles and Centrals) would not be acceptable.

Strange coincidence, that

South and Glenelg decided to announce a dual bid after the SANFL recommendation but Glenelg hierarchy were too entrenched in the Crows to ever make that fly and that bid never made it to the table.

Fortunately the AFL and the Victorian clubs were overwhelmingly determined to see Port Adelaide enter as the second SA based AFL team so the SANFL's 'recommendation' was abandoned.

AFL boss Ross Oakley sealed the deal with this statement just prior to bids closing:

'I think football owes Port something'

Not sure what happened to that 'Future Directions' report but weeks later another SANFL report surfaced suggesting that Port get the second licence and Norwood become the home for the Adelaide Crows. No surprises that strategy document was shredded shortly after being printed.

There was a lot of double dealing and treachery being done behind the scenes within the SANFL to stop Port getting that second licence as a stand alone bid under the name of the Port Adelaide Football Club. And we would always have to make sacrifices for our stand alone bid to get up and to secure the AFL support needed to trump the backroom dealing of the SANFL.

Those pointing the finger of blame at past leaders need to understand that history and talk to those involved in preparing the 2nd licence bid to get the real facts of what happened and why.

Noone is critical of those who did what they had to to get us into the AFL.

Those who signed agreements as we went headlong into Southern Power on the other hand...

On SM-G960F using
BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Festerz]

Noone is critical of those who did what they had to to get us into the AFL.

Those who signed agreements as we went headlong into Southern Power on the other hand...

On SM-G960F using
BigFooty.com mobile app

This post is directly critical of those who got us into the AFL, 'nearly 25 years later'.

Signed some really poor deals. Started way back when when we first joined the league. Nearly 25 years later we are still trying to clean that mess..

That might not be what was intended, it was certainly how it reads to me.

My point being that looking back on history through hindsight always gives you 20/20 vision.

But there are reasons why decisions are made at the time they are made. Even poor decisions should be judged within the context they were made.

 

[Harlott]

They discussed it briefly on ABC from midday and put it to Ramanauskas and Ling. Ling said yes but for home showdown only. No reason given. Came across as he had to give an opinion and pulled it out of his ****. Ramanauskas’s response was “does it clash with the crows?”

 

[Marmozet]

Boom!