Roast Club Propaganda & Media Censoring

[TeeKray]

Sack the head cucumber.

 

[Us against the rest]

Head cucumber
Cucumber head
Head of said Cucumber

 

[Doctor Feel]

He bloody well looks like a shriveled cucumber

 

[Us against the rest]

He bloody well looks like a shriveled cucumber

I was thinking of something else but Yeah that will do.

 

[simba_]

he looks like the deflated molested M&Ms mascot from that classic footy show ep

 

[PA88]

You focus on the the female president point, and miss the entire issue. The rot starts at the top, and the top equals the BOD, including the president male or female. The Port BOD clearly has major issues, from the self-serving President, the dyslexic mix of members that the actual club has limited voice in choosing. Extrapolate that to the BOD's decision to cave in to Hinkley in the Gold Coast-threat sage, and his subsequent contract extensions, and you can see why we will be incapable of ultimate success with our current situation.

We need a fresh broom, fresh perspective, and a IMO a removal of the chummy, boys club, testosteron-driven, mentality that prevails. This involves a huge change at the top, and that might, or might not, include a quality female President. Just saying.

No, I haven't missed the point/s. One of your points of the matter is needing a change in presidency and the board members, yep agree, especially when you are not achieving success after lengthy stints in the position but another point of yours is having a female president, just because coincidentally two premiers have them. It won't matter what gender is leading the club if they still back the same course, such as Vanstone who publicly made it clear to stay the course. If she was still around and taken presidency, then there's likely no change at all. So this "testosterone-driven" comment is unnecessary. The next person sitting in the president's chair needs to be a true shrewd Port Adelaide person and if it is female then so be it but I'd be wondering if we're just doing another 'Sydney co-captain' or 'stay the course Richmond Hardwick' copycat.

 

[Footy Time]

Far out, I wish I hadn't seen this bump. Just went and read it and all the rage that had subsided has grown again.

The only thing that brought a smile to my face was seeing the comments on the article on FB. Lots of people calling out the propaganda for what it is.

Those comments on the club's facebook post of Rucci's article were absolutely scathing! Great to see.

Hinkley is sorely mistaken if he thinks only 10% doubt him. * the fraud off already.

 

[GremioPower]

PA88 and Tibbs, this debate of yours is something!

There was no need for Tibbs to throw stones while posting in AGREEMENT; and 88 should simply have asked Tibbs to tone down, because you both AGREE with EACH OTHER, instead of throwing the stones back at him.

You both want Koch out. You both think that the Board is holding us back. You both use the same reasoning. Your disagreement is absolutely accidental. Yet, you both managed to get into a strife.

—

David Cucumber. PAFC President.

He prefers pronouncing “Cushumber,” please.

 

[Tibbs]

PA88 and Tibbs, this debate of yours is something!

There was no need for Tibbs to throw stones while posting in AGREEMENT; and 88 should simply have asked Tibbs to tone down, because you both AGREE with EACH OTHER, instead of throwing the stones back at him.

You both want Koch out. You both think that the Board is holding us back. You both use the same reasoning. Your disagreement is absolutely accidental. Yet, you both managed to get into a strife.

—

He prefers pronouncing “Cushumber,” please.

Nah mate ... there was no debate. He made a comment, I made a comment, he made a comment. A lot of it was just semantics. As for "throwing stones" ... If that is throwing stones, then lookout for the "boulders" being thrown about daily by other posters here!

 

[GremioPower]

A lot of it was just semantics.

 

[PA88]

Nah mate ... there was no debate. He made a comment, I made a comment, he made a comment. A lot of it was just semantics. As for "throwing stones" ... If that is throwing stones, then lookout for the "boulders" being thrown about daily by other posters here!

Yep. Nothing in it. Play on.

 

[RossFC]

On SEN Rucci copped a big spray via a text.

"You can't possibly review Port Adelaide games with Rucci. He's a paid propaganda piece for Port. The way he shields Ken Hinkley in the pressers is unfair to the supporters and it's unfair to the SEN listeners either to have a paid employee of Port providing biased opinions."

Rucci just responds "Congratulations (insert person who sent text here)." And just started harping on about clubs that were 0-2 in the past and ended up making finals.

 

[StrappingTape]

On SEN Rucci copped a big spray via a text.

"You can't possibly review Port Adelaide games with Rucci. He's a paid propaganda piece for Port. The way he shields Ken Hinkley in the pressers is unfair to the supporters and it's unfair to the SEN listeners either to have a paid employee of Port providing biased opinions."

Rucci just responds "Congratulations (insert person who sent text here)." And just started harping on about clubs that were 0-2 in the past and ended up making finals.

With the 24/7 football you can consume now, why does anyone really care what a guy on a station with a tiny listener base thinks? You can just see it for yourself these days or anyone who cares can watch the replay and see how s**t we are. Rucci lost most relevance about 20 years ago, as soon as you could watch all 8 games a weekend from home, then once instant replays started and on demand it exposes these previous "experts" as actual duds. The only problem still is that they talk like they have some sort of magical football knowledge because they work in media still like their opinion is more valid based on.. nothing more than their own value of their opinion.

So my point is, yes he's conflicted and shouldn't be asking questions but * who cares if he does, anyone and everyone can go on their phone and watch the highlights to see all the issues regardless of how it's framed by one tiny media person.

 

[MrMeaner]

With the 24/7 football you can consume now, why does anyone really care what a guy on a station with a tiny listener base thinks? You can just see it for yourself these days or anyone who cares can watch the replay and see how s**t we are. Rucci lost most relevance about 20 years ago, as soon as you could watch all 8 games a weekend from home, then once instant replays started and on demand it exposes these previous "experts" as actual duds. The only problem still is that they talk like they have some sort of magical football knowledge because they work in media still like their opinion is more valid based on.. nothing more than their own value of their opinion.

So my point is, yes he's conflicted and shouldn't be asking questions but fu** who cares if he does, anyone and everyone can go on their phone and watch the highlights to see all the issues regardless of how it's framed by one tiny media person.

The reason to care about it is because of the influence he has in setting the agenda for the broader media and thus the club and the AFL. It is part of the reason we are all feeling so helpless at the moment. There is absolutely nothing we can do about the malaise we see the club in when there is no institutional pressure for the club to make any changes.

We are irrelevant to any with any power East of Bordertown. Much of the state media is focused on the Crows. So, we have to be able to address the small vestiges of port focus in SA that boost Hinkley. Particualrly when one of them is literally on club payroll to manufature consent.

 

[simba_]

On SEN Rucci copped a big spray via a text.

"You can't possibly review Port Adelaide games with Rucci. He's a paid propaganda piece for Port. The way he shields Ken Hinkley in the pressers is unfair to the supporters and it's unfair to the SEN listeners either to have a paid employee of Port providing biased opinions."

Rucci just responds "Congratulations (insert person who sent text here)." And just started harping on about clubs that were 0-2 in the past and ended up making finals.

I did update Rucci's wiki a few weeks ago to include that new role, pleased it wasn't taken down immediately Romping Wins style, somebody should flesh it out

 

[StrappingTape]

The reason to care about it is because of the influence he has in setting the agenda for the broader media and thus the club and the AFL. It is part of the reason we are all feeling so helpless at the moment. There is absolutely nothing we can do about the malaise we see the club in when there is no institutional pressure for the club to make any changes.

We are irrelevant to any with any power East of Bordertown. Much of the state media is focused on the Crows. So, we have to be able to address the small vestiges of port focus in SA that boost Hinkley. Particualrly when one of them is literally on club payroll to manufature consent.

Good points, I'm blinded by my loathing of certain media types!

 

[MrMeaner]

Good points, I'm blinded by my loathing of certain media types!

I share that loathing.

 

[dirty2]

This s**t doesn't work... Well... It does on the happy clapper type... But what I would call a real supporter
(like alot of us on bf) it's just stupid and embarrassing.

 

[Rexie J]

Good points, I'm blinded by my loathing of certain media types!

A thought from a long gone era: "if only we could these days"

In the days of The News, the afternoon only tabloid, Lawrie Jervis was the chief football scribbler and not a fan of Port Adelaide.

The story goes (allegedly of course) one night after training Marx Kretschmer chucked a fully clothed Jervis under the showers.

If only...................

 

[Lefti93]

pissant mentality destroying the club.

 

[tribey]

 

[Duck Farmer]

The stability one grinds my gears the most. Clubs are stable because they are successful, not successful because they are stable. We've charted our course using arse-backwards logic.

 

[tribey]

The stability one grinds my gears the most. Clubs are stable because they are successful, not successful because they are stable. We've chartered our course using arse-backwards logic.

Rucci repeatedly trying to paint Melbourne in the same vein as the usual Geelong and Richmond false equivalence was so far beyond the realms of reality, I found myself in an existential vacuum and my p¡ss literally boiled.

 

[bacharach]

The stability one grinds my gears the most. Clubs are stable because they are successful, not successful because they are stable. We've chartered our course using arse-backwards logic.

This. You just know lines like this would be said on the daily.

"Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water"
"Let's stand firm and back our selves in"
"Now's not the time to make rash decisions"
"We're nearly there, stick with the plan and go the distance"

10 yrs later 0&2, shitting the bed and bottom of the ladder

 

[Duck Farmer]

This. You just know lines like this would be said on the daily.

"Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water"
"Let's stand firm and back our selves in"
"Now's not the time to make rash decisions"
"We're nearly there, stick with the plan and go the distance"

10 yrs later 0&2, shitting the bed and bottom of the ladder

I'd have no problem with Hinkley as a 10 year coach if he had a few premierships under his belt. Zero premierships, not so much.