News Swans Talk in the Media 2019

[The King!]

also we had 7 million in assets in 2017 didnt we, and 2018 hasnt been made public yet?

 

[Kapanis]

The reason we never question things like the trade ban is because we, the swans are part of a bigger picture, the AFL structure. People want Horse gone, let's say it happens. His next gig is at another AFL club. Why would he question anything the AFL has done to the swans if at some stage he would want to coach at another club in the AFL? It's a big boys club where everyone in it knows the boundaries, including the board members etc. And we are paying their salaries as fans.

 

[Mick Oxlong]

kelly should of been on the ball

He actually did play 50/50 (having to watch Barry Mitchell would have been a good lesson learned) but I agree that he should’ve been named on the ball.

 

[Mick Oxlong]

eddeleton didnt own the swans in 92 though?
you can't stay if the club makes no offer

No money, no contract. We were pretty much ****ed!

 

[Mick Oxlong]

Young man, I cant speak about "little girls" but I have certainly found young women to be unrelentingly disrespectful and offensive towards my good self for about the last 30 years.

You sly old dog...what’s your secret?

 

[Mick Oxlong]

Yeah he used to love punching forwards in the back of the head didn't he Connolly. Much worse acts than anything Dane Rampe has ever done. But you know, lets hold Toohey in high esteem.

Aahh...real footy, when men were men and little girls weren’t even part of the conversation!

 

[RW]

also we had 7 million in assets in 2017 didnt we, and 2018 hasnt been made public yet?

About $7.7m in assets in 2017, but $5.5m in liabilities.

Net assets = assets - liabilities.

GotTheGoodes please card him for his lack of accounting knowledge.

I'm going off the 2017 annual report I got from Wookie's thread on the Footy Industry board. He hasn't posted the link to the 2018 annual report as far as I'm aware.

 

[The King!]

About $7.7m in assets in 2017, but $5.5m in liabilities.

Net assets = assets - liabilities.

GotTheGoodes please card him for his lack of accounting knowledge.

I'm going off the 2017 annual report I got from Wookie's thread on the Footy Industry board. He hasn't posted the link to the 2018 annual report as far as I'm aware.

i didnt read it this year

just trying to remember

 

[The King!]

About $7.7m in assets in 2017, but $5.5m in liabilities.

Net assets = assets - liabilities.

GotTheGoodes please card him for his lack of accounting knowledge.

I'm going off the 2017 annual report I got from Wookie's thread on the Footy Industry board. He hasn't posted the link to the 2018 annual report as far as I'm aware.

found it, knew i got 7 from somewhere

geez spent a lot on academies

 

[RW]

geez spent a lot on academies

Those "600 father-sons" we've gotten from the academy cost money you know!

 

[The King!]

Those "600 father-sons" we've gotten from the academy cost money you know!

a lot on the footy department too, horse isnt cheap

 

[The King!]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...dge-climbing-on-goalpost-20190514-p51n92.html


i can see why we crack down on the rampe type sledges

but is he more of a victim of the coverage

how many times do players say similar that goes unheard? maybe it doesnt matter

i think the whole post/rampe comment is the AFL at its worst

too gutless to say it got the post call wrong, but can't let it go completely so goes this arse about way to try to prove a point, keep people happy

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

10k fine WTF what absolute lunacy Australia has come to.

 

[bedford]

10k fine WTF what absolute lunacy Australia has come to.

PC wins again

 

[Kirkswan]

10k fine WTF what absolute lunacy Australia has come to.

PC wins again

I don't know if 10K (with $5K suspended) is too much or not, but I truly think that the AFL had to do something.

We screamed that they did nothing about the racism directed at Goodes, and when they finally did, it was too little too late.

If the comment had been you talk like a 'NTTAWWTter' (or something along those lines) there would have been no doubt about it being derogatory, and the fine would have been much, much bigger and the outcry horrendous!

I like Rampe's comments and mostly they are funny as, but he's aware of the mikes, aware that the game is televised nationally, and has first hand seen what vilification can do to someone. He overstepped the mark. The AFL needed to stand up and do something, and they have. Good on them.

 

[caesar88]

I don't know if 10K (with $5K suspended) is too much or not, but I truly think that the AFL had to do something.

We screamed that they did nothing about the racism directed at Goodes, and when they finally did, it was too little too late.

If the comment had been you talk like a 'NTTAWWTter' (or something along those lines) there would have been no doubt about it being derogatory, and the fine would have been much, much bigger and the outcry horrendous!

I like Rampe's comments and mostly they are funny as, but he's aware of the mikes, aware that the game is televised nationally, and has first hand seen what vilification can do to someone. He overstepped the mark. The AFL needed to stand up and do something, and they have. Good on them.

Then why was Ablett not given a fine for endorsing Folau’s disgusting post on social media? If we’re in the business of expecting our athletes to be exemplary citizens and then punishing them if they’re not, how the **** does Ablett go unpunished for liking that post? Unlike Sir Dane’s faux pas in the heat of the moment in a competitive environment, Ablett read Folau’s post word for word, and willingly chose to like it. IDGAF what his justifications were, you shouldn’t be liking any post that condemns innocent parties to Hell. It was a significantly more offensive and disgraceful thing for a player to do, yet he came out unscathed while the AFL dropped a proverbial tonne of bricks on Sir Dane for an offense that was significantly more in the gray area.

The AFL can get ****** as far as I’m concerned.

 

[bedford]

Then why was Ablett not given a fine for endorsing Folau’s disgusting post on social media? If we’re in the business of expecting our athletes to be exemplary citizens and then punishing them if they’re not, how the **** does Ablett go unpunished for liking that post? Unlike Sir Dane’s faux pas in the heat of the moment in a competitive environment, Ablett read Folau’s post word for word, and willingly chose to like it. IDGAF what his justifications were, you shouldn’t be liking any post that condemns innocent parties to Hell. It was a significantly more offensive and disgraceful thing for a player to do, yet he came out unscathed while the AFL dropped a proverbial tonne of bricks on Sir Dane for an offense that was significantly more in the gray area.

The AFL can get ****** as far as I’m concerned.

There is no law against what Folau's said , I don't agree , but he's allowed his views , so get off your PC high horse !

 

[caesar88]

There is no law against what Folau's said , I don't agree , but he's allowed his views , so get off your PC high horse !

He’s allowed his views, exactly. So is Sir Dane. His views that the umpire sounded like a little girl is a far easier view to handle than Ablett’s view that alcoholics and homosexuals and aetheists should go to hell!

 

[bedford]

He’s allowed his views, exactly. So is Sir Dane. His views that the umpire sounded like a little girl is a far easier view to handle than Ablett’s view that alcoholics and homosexuals and aetheists should go to hell!

Stop changing on the run ! I give up. Anyhow this is the media thread .

 

[caesar88]

Stop changing on the run ! I give up. Anyhow this is the media thread .

What are you on about, it’s very comparable. Sir Dane’s not allowed to make a moderately offensive remark, but Ablett is allowed to have an inherently offensive view and endorse it publicly. Complete double standard and if you can’t see that then all I have to give you is a WTFDWFT

 

[bedford]

What are you on about, it’s very comparable. Sir Dane’s not allowed to make a moderately offensive remark, but Ablett is allowed to have an inherently offensive view and endorse it publicly. Complete double standard and if you can’t see that then all I have to give you is a WTFDWFT

Listen Ablett didn't say it on the field to an umpire SYLC

 

[bedford]

Tom Harley about to be on SEN with Whaterley

 

[caesar88]

Listen Ablett didn't say it on the field to an umpire SYLC

So??

I agree it’s PC overload but if the AFL was gonna be PC about anything it should’ve been their precious Ablett and came down hard on him.

 

[bedford]

So , it's different to Ablett , has nothing to do with it .

 

[caesar88]

So , it's different to Ablett , has nothing to do with it . WTF are you studying , god help us .

Has everything to do with it. Do the AFL care about their players having a moral code or not?