SMA/SANFL Protest at PAFC game

[Portology]

I honestly can't believe they are pushing the 'we are worried about people chugging cheap drinks' line.

It's a complete lie that doesn't pass even the smallest amount of critical thought.

I'm going to make it a challenge to not spend a cent inside AO this year.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

It's even less than a lie, its a completely nonsensical statement.

(Yes I know it's BS and it's all about extracting money from us, we who have shown we are prepared to pay, but... go with me for a moment)

NO one has agreed that "people chugging cheap drinks" is actually happening. Let's start there.

Firstly drinks at GDV are supplied at a normal market rate. They are not "cheap" as in happy hour encouraging drinking cheap. I reject that cheap attempt at false framing of the issue. So let's pull apart the possible real issues. Use the test of "if X was true, would we want to (ethical) or have to (legal) do something about it?". If after all that, methyl Ethyl and feral Beryl are still worried about people possibly doing something bad after any drinking at all, the issue here is not other people's drinking but their excessive propensity to worry, which is a proven health risk for the elderly and infirm of mind, and ironically the best solution for them in that case is to stay at home and sip sherry on their nice safe plush couches.

Now if bad behavior is happening - if people are being served drinks, somewhere, near the AO precinct, against RSA rules - I agree completely this would be a serious issue. How could such a thing happen? Where is something like that most - VERY - likely to be happening? I have reports of - I am deeply concerned by the irresponsibly strong drinks made available in unlimited quantities, for free, at Crows "tailgate parties", by persons untrained in the responsible service of alcohol, who are themselves consuming vast quantities of alcohol while serving others. I know that at these "parties", significant quantities of known carcinogens are prepared, with the use of deadly knives and explosive devices, and distributed in a barely sanitary manner. But we are not here to debate the merits of sharing cheap BBQ sausages and a few smokes. None of that contravenes any law or regulations yet passed.

What matters is that a small number of people sitting on their tailgate, chugging 50-50 mixes of rum and coke out of huge soft drink bottles, are far more likely to do Bad Things than a thousand respectable patrons being responsibly served - queue-ing up and patiently waiting for drinks no less - at GDV.

So I say, no GDV --> no tailgate parties. But the opposite is not true: Tennis SA and Port Adelaide have gone down the path of RSA and using a properly licensed area - instead of encouraging an irresponsible culture of uncontrolled tailgate "parties" - for a very good reason.

OK enough channeling Cleaver Greene, kids I am a bloody tl;dr poster at the best of times.

What people actually do after chugging ANY NUMBER of drinks is a POTENTIAL issue. There is no issue if people don't do anything.

People who do Bad Things after drinking at GDV are an issue - we seek better ways of spotting them earlier. If incidents are traced back to GDV drinking, I expect part of RSA is a venue must review service practices. Common sense, ethical, business as usual. On its own no reason to can a license though.

People who do Bad Things at a higher rate than Crows crowds drinking outside and at the Oval itself after drinking at GDV, that ought to be a serious issue for our license, if it can be demonstrated credibly. Yet no stats support such a claim AFAIK. We drink more in total and per head, and by all casual accounts, by the SMA reports* and the SAPOL** reports I don't believe we hear of any more nonsense per head at our games than at theirs.

* possibly slightly conflicted reporting

** you expect no deliberate bias of course, but to what extent are SAPOL reports derivative of or dependent on SMA reports? As in, security calls in the cops to help, and SAPOL take down most/some details from the security/SMA guys. How all these stats are produced matters.

 

[Steve Dore]

..... you expect no deliberate bias of course, but to what extent are SAPOL reports derivative of or dependent on SMA reports? As in, security calls in the cops to help, and SAPOL take down most/some details from the security/SMA guys. ......

The Crows have a SAPOL Assistant Commissioner on their board, just saying.

 

[Portology]

The Crows have a SAPOL Assistant Commissioner on their board, just saying.

She was appointed September 2015, looks to have taken over "professional standards and integrity" committee from outgoing Andrew Payze.

You can well understand why that place needed someone new in, and well qualified in, that capacity.

 

[Steve Dore]

She was appointed September 2015, looks to have taken over "professional standards and integrity" committee from outgoing Andrew Payze.

You can well understand why that place needed someone new in, and well qualified in, that capacity.

Yes, before being promoted to Assistant Commisioner she was Officer in Charge Ethical & Professional Standards Branch. Will have her work cut out for her at the AFC.

 

[Portology]

Yes, before being promoted to Assistant Commisioner she was Officer in Charge Ethical & Professional Standards Branch. Will have her work cut out for her at the AFC.

Oh yes.

Payze previously had the gig along with sitting in on "list management" under Roo (now there's a mental image I can't un-see). Gee I wonder which one got more of his time, effort and attention?

 

[raptalia]

Stock standard, PR company negative spin, bullshit, lie tactics which cant be 100% refuted.

Just like in October 2001 then Immigration minister Phil Ruddock says children were thrown overboard by asylum seekers, the next day the writs are called for the federal election so government goes into caretaker mode, but defence minister Peter Reith who isnt running for re-election, gets photos of refugees and their kids in the water, so he comes up with the comment that its proof the children were thrown overboard into the water by their parents as a tactics to get asylum. No one could deny it because there was no footage, just photos, the military aren't allowed to talk to the media to confirm it one way or the other, plus they are out there in the middle of ocean when the debate is raging, and Reith deliberately doesn't pursue the matter, but just repeats the allegation over and over. One of Reith's senior advisers takes several weeks to look at the issue and waits until a couple of days before the election to tell Howard the claims might be untrue. But the adviser keeps that he notified Howard private until just before the 2004 elections are called. It then takes the Senate another 11 months straight after the 2001 election re the claims by Ruddock and Reith to do an investigation and conclude it wasnt true.

So if they throw lies about the GDV out there, then we as a supporter group have to find every dirty, filthy, lying, cheating tactic we can come up with and throw it back in their face and into the public arena. Use deception in such a way that Sun Tzu would give us an A+ grade.

Surely REH you are not suggesting that a politician might lie?

I am even more cynical re the John Howard tactic of telling his Ministers, 'Do not give me the details because if I am not told, I will not have to lie'. Some will call that shrewd politics and a far cry from the Adelaide Oval and the Game Day Village but we do have an ex pollie running the SANFL so maybe these same principles apply to the SMA?