And you're correct, 10-years ago we were less than broke and fighting Melbourne for the Spoon. BUT, it's people like you who think this turns around overnight.
So about Melbourne....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And you're correct, 10-years ago we were less than broke and fighting Melbourne for the Spoon. BUT, it's people like you who think this turns around overnight.
Malbun?So about Melbourne....
that is incredible lol. who does he think just won the flag? South Melbourne?
gibberish
Melbourne won the 2021 flag mate, they didn't fall
If this is what sustained success looks like, then I want to die.Speaking of the whingers! Next you'll be trotting out the old "settling for mediocrity" bullshit.
Yep, good on the Dee's for taking their opportunity.
You learn from your losses, so I'll back our club's plan for sustained success over some meteoric rise, then some "Malbun-style" fall.
If this is what sustained success looks like, then I want to die.
We will have the last laugh when Gray and Boak are retired and Melbourne still have all their star players.Sustained Success™ = Losing two consecutive Home Preliminary Finals.
MalbunStyleFall.com = Winning the Premiership
We will have the last laugh when Gray and Boak are retired and Melbourne still have all their star players.
I see the powers that be have no shame in directing their mouthpieces (Rucci and K Cornes) to push the prison bars agenda on the back of Russell’s funeral.
I am in favour of the prisons bars but using someone’s death as a springboard for the discussion of a guernsey is so wrong and deplorable. It just reinforces how far from Port Adelaide we now are.
You may say calm down Mr Plow, there’s a reason to raise the discussion now given we’ve farewelled a club great who wore the prison bars with honour. Well, I can acknowledge but disagree. At the very least the timing of the media agenda is wrong.
I see the powers that be have no shame in directing their mouthpieces (Rucci and K Cornes) to push the prison bars agenda on the back of Russell’s funeral.
I am in favour of the prisons bars but using someone’s death as a springboard for the discussion of a guernsey is so wrong and deplorable. It just reinforces how far from Port Adelaide we now are.
You may say calm down Mr Plow, there’s a reason to raise the discussion now given we’ve farewelled a club great who wore the prison bars with honour. Well, I can acknowledge but disagree. At the very least the timing of the media agenda is wrong.
Further to this, given Russell's lifelong dedication to the PAFC, whilst obviously no one can know how he'd have felt about his death helping bring back the bars to be worn when we see fit, from everything known about him, I'd say the odds are greatly that he'd have been humbled, but supportive.I get where you're coming from, but I think it's actually ok for Russell's passing to be a catalyst for our next push to wear the guernsey.
His contribution to the club is a huge reason that we are even in the AFL. The Ebert name symbolises the link between our past and our present. To me it is only fitting that he becomes a symbol of our right to wear it and our fight to attain that right.
Yesterday was everything you'd want in a funeral service for a much loved club identity. It hammered home where our heartland is and why the club is now battling for premierships on the national stage.
Unless we continue the fight to wear the guernsey when we see fit, then Russell's legacy is kept segregated from our AFL era.
The timing is right.
Well said (typed)People want to wear the Prison Bars because of Russell Ebert. That was true when he was playing and it's true now.
His passing just further clarifies this undeniable truth.
People seem to be worried that pushing even harder for the bars somehow cheapens Russell's memory, as if we're using grief to score cheap political points. Far from it. We want to wear the bars because Russell was a shining example of everything we want to be and what we want our club to be.
Koch talks about "winning premierships and making our community proud". Russell was the absolute embodiment of that and proved that the two weren't mutually exclusive as the current administration makes it seem.
The guernsey worn by a footy club is so, so important. It's absolute horseshit that we've been forced into ultimately meaningless alternatives for 25 years. At a time where we've just lost the greatest living connection to our great history, it could not be clearer how important that great history is and how important it is to honour it. Just let us wear our f***ing guernsey like every other sports team in the world gets to FFS.
Serious question: Port Adelaide Power supporters claim they are a continuation of the Port Adelaide Magpies and not a separate entity (correct me if I am wrong please).
If this is the case why is the Port Father and Son selections:
"(iv) The Port Adelaide Football Club may include a person on its Primary List if that person’s father played 200 or more Senior Matches (being either home and away or finals series matches) at one of the following clubs prior to, but not including, 1997:
(A) Port Magpies Football Club;
(B) Woodville Football Club;
(C) West Torrens Football Club;
(D) North Adelaide Football Club;
(E) Central Districts Football Club; or
(F) West Adelaide Football Club."
https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...2.1555135146.1637184699-1358790420.1595486153
Why hasn't this been amended to just be 100 or more Senior Matches Port Magpies Football Club?
Complete *.wits running the AFL are to blame for this stupidity.Serious question: Port Adelaide Power supporters claim they are a continuation of the Port Adelaide Magpies and not a separate entity (correct me if I am wrong please).
If this is the case why is the Port Father and Son selections:
"(iv) The Port Adelaide Football Club may include a person on its Primary List if that person’s father played 200 or more Senior Matches (being either home and away or finals series matches) at one of the following clubs prior to, but not including, 1997:
(A) Port Magpies Football Club;
(B) Woodville Football Club;
(C) West Torrens Football Club;
(D) North Adelaide Football Club;
(E) Central Districts Football Club; or
(F) West Adelaide Football Club."
https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...2.1555135146.1637184699-1358790420.1595486153
Why hasn't this been amended to just be 100 or more Senior Matches Port Magpies Football Club?
The smoking gun. RIP PortsSerious question: Port Adelaide Power supporters claim they are a continuation of the Port Adelaide Magpies and not a separate entity (correct me if I am wrong please).
If this is the case why is the Port Father and Son selections:
"(iv) The Port Adelaide Football Club may include a person on its Primary List if that person’s father played 200 or more Senior Matches (being either home and away or finals series matches) at one of the following clubs prior to, but not including, 1997:
(A) Port Magpies Football Club;
(B) Woodville Football Club;
(C) West Torrens Football Club;
(D) North Adelaide Football Club;
(E) Central Districts Football Club; or
(F) West Adelaide Football Club."
https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...2.1555135146.1637184699-1358790420.1595486153
Why hasn't this been amended to just be 100 or more Senior Matches Port Magpies Football Club?
I think the AFL wanted to split the SANFL clubs in half and give to Port and crows for that rule. But I agree it should have been 100 games for Port.
That rule may be finished though, I think it’s just 100 AFL games for Port and crows now.