Unique Crows Record

[El_Scorcho]

Oh I agree, but we've given the rights to honouring PAFC SANFL premiership anniversaries to the PAMFC.

Now, we probably could just take them back, if we wanted, and start having events to celebrate these kinds of thing. But it's a slap in the face to the PAMFC.

REH puts it best. The PAFC and the PAMFC are like east and west Germany. They were artificially seperated and Port supporters hope reunification happens in our lifetime.

 

[PowerForGood]

Straw clutching at it's finest, this year is the 5th year since Port's flag. Knowing that Tredrea, Lade, P Burgoyne, Brogan, Chad all will be retiring in the next 1-3 years wont be long and the 10 year celebration of your one and only solitary flag will be happening down at Alberton.

Careful, sekaj will get a hold of you for trying to predict the future....

 

[PowerForGood]

The "ten years of nothing" comments are going to bite some people in the ass around 2014...

Careful, sekaj will get a hold of you for trying to predict the future...

 

[Geoffa32]

Careful, sekaj will get a hold of you for trying to predict the future...

haha

 

[aneale]

Because there was never supposed to be a new club and an old club. It was supposed to be one club, demerged because the SANFL wouldn't let us be linked.

The whole "we're the real Port Adelaide" and the wishes that the PAMFC had never been formed have only come around since we've consistently copped crap about who we are and where we come from in the last 5 or 6 years.

The clubs were supposed to share the history. So at the time it was perfectly logical. Both clubs date back to 1870, and both clubs have the rights to the history. It's only the constant attacks on our heritage which have led some Port supporters to reaffirm that the real Port Adelaide FC is the one playing in the AFL, which is correct.

Yet which club has had 61 captains again? History isn't just the past, you're are living it now it's just not historical yet. So in 2043 and we talk about the PAFC II and PAMFC and we say PAMFC has the right to the history all the way back to 1870, how much of that is true, when does the SANFL captain get honoured with being in the holy number of club captains?

 

[tribey]

Yet which club has had 61 captains again? History isn't just the past, you're are living it now it's just not historical yet. So in 2043 and we talk about the PAFC II and PAMFC and we say PAMFC has the right to the history all the way back to 1870, how much of that is true, when does the SANFL captain get honoured with being in the holy number of club captains?

It's why the whole situation is a clusterfolk that no-one foresaw at the time.

The rationale at the time was, sweet we've won the AFL licence the club and its board members staked their livelihoods and the club's entire existence on getting (and the members clearly voted for), so what we'll do is, move the club into the AFL with the necessary mascot/guernsey changes as per Collingwood's demands - while retaining a Magpie presence in the SANFL. Bruce Abernethy mentions in 'From Port to a Power' that the rationale was that one day the exiled Magpies arm could be an automatic reserves/junior set-up for the Power if as was floated at the time, the Crows eventually entered their own reserves side in the SANFL.

At absolutely no point did anyone involved with the bid, marketing errors ('PORT POWER' branding) aside, believe that within years confusion and necessary business semantics would deem the Power some whizzbang new entity with no claim or right to its 130+ year history, while the Magpies, which were retained/created as an afterthought, would be seen as the genuine Port because they got to stay in the prisonbar and SANFL by default.

Had all this been known ahead of time there is no doubt that a clearer business position would've been put forward or the Magpies would've been abolished (had the SANFL allowed it, despite claiming tenders for the AFL licence would be given preference if their bid reduced the SANFL to 8 teams) or rebranded completely.

Bottom line, the whole 'shared history' agreement is just a disaster, but back in 1995-6 no-one saw the harm in it.

 

[El_Scorcho]

In an ideal world people would accept that both clubs have equal rights to the history pre 1997. Think of it as a reverse merger. So there were 34 premierships won at the time of the demerger, the PAMFC have since won 2 more, taking their total to 36 state level premierships, and the PAFC have since won 1 more, taking their total to 34 state level premierships and one AFL premiership.

The history pre 1997 belongs to both clubs. Everything since 1997 belongs to the club that won it.

That is, in an ideal world.

In the real world, the PAFC, a club that has been around since 1870 constantly cops crap about being a new club, and having no rights to the history. That is a farce, so if a line has to be drawn, the true PAFC, the club that lived it's dream and moved from the SANFL to the AFL in 1997 is the true holder of the history.

Ofcourse, if we didn't get crap about it constantly from opposition supporters who seek to downplay our history, both clubs would be happy to say the history is shared.

Edit: DT put it pretty well.

 

[aneale]

True. The original business proposal was naive and obviously slap dash, blind freddy saw this coming.

You know what should have happened, The SANFL players and admins should have 'merged' with Port Districts, the SANFL should have then admitted them to the league if they wanted a "Port" and saw that as a bigger issue than having a more acceptable 8 team comp.

 

[Geoffa32]

In an ideal world people would accept that both clubs have equal rights to the history pre 1997. Think of it as a reverse merger. So there were 34 premierships won at the time of the demerger, the PAMFC have since won 2 more, taking their total to 36 state level premierships, and the PAFC have since won 1 more, taking their total to 34 state level premierships and one AFL premiership.

The history pre 1997 belongs to both clubs. Everything since 1997 belongs to the club that won it.

That is, in an ideal world.

In the real world, the PAFC, a club that has been around since 1870 constantly cops crap about being a new club, and having no rights to the history. That is a farce, so if a line has to be drawn, the true PAFC, the club that lived it's dream and moved from the SANFL to the AFL in 1997 is the true holder of the history.

Ofcourse, if we didn't get crap about it constantly from opposition supporters who seek to downplay our history, both clubs would be happy to say the history is shared.

Edit: DT put it pretty well.

Actually in an ideal world the SANFL would not of had the monoply on the second licence and Port would not of become a puppet of the SANFL that cant even embrace its own history and identity wholeheartedly. Possibly in hindsight the ruling that the SANFL have first rights on the second licence should of been contested. With two separateclubs, ie the Crows (SANFL) and PAFC (on its own) the SANFL would not have a monoply on Footy in this state and perhaps a CBD stadium would be viable.

But that is all just speculation.

 

[kirky]

So, geoffa,
- getting a home final against a team that finished 2nd H&A is NOT fortunate, given that the AFL have changed the finals system to stop that anomaly happening again?
- finishing 5th and losing your first final and getting a second chance is NOT fortunate, given that the AFL have changed the finals system to stop that anomaly happening again?

The Crows played excellent finals campaigns, no doubt, but on both occasions they received the benefit of anomalies in the draw that have since been corrected.

Actually, the AFL changed the system because of what happened in 1999 (when Carlton got belted and yet got a home final the next week) not what happened in 1998 given the Crows played away each week therefore they did it on their own merits. All teams knew the rules and yet only West Coast and Adelaide have ever been denied a home final after winning the previous week (Brisbane were also ripped off in 2004 and Port were the beneficiaries - just think it thru).

You go on about how Crows were undeserving in both years and yet which club had the best % and best defence in both years? Thats got to mean something, doesn't it?

By the way, you have played the Roos in both of your recent finals campaigns and who have been woeful in finals since Carey left. Any comment?

 

[kirky]

Hmm, this has been done before. Brisbane decided they would take the risk of carrying a few injuries, the Kangaroos had 21 scoring shots to 7 at half time, kicking 2.11 in the second quarter. How's that for a weak opponent? the Kangaroos were a very good team, but they weren't considered one of the greatest of all time. Port Adelaide had been missing their best ruckman, best midfielder, Roger James couldn't run out an entire game anymore, and Michael Wilson couldn't lift his arms above his head. But no, Brisbane were the only team with problems . . .

What planet are you from?

Lets just have a look at their record over 8 years -

1993 - Finished 5th
1994 - Finished 3rd (Preliminary finalist - lost by less than a kick)
1995 - Finished 3rd (Prelininary finalist - lost to eventual premier that lost 2 games for the year)
1996 - Premiers (enough said)
1997 - Finished 4th (Preliminary finalist)
1998 - lost Grand Final (to you know who)
1999 - Premiers again
2000 - Finished 4th (Preliminary finalist)

Thats two grand final wins, a grand final loss and 4 preliminary finals in 8 years. A fairly dominant performance for 8 years in a national competition.

What a flog you are!

 

[tribey]

1997 - Finished 4th (Preliminary finalist)

A tale of two shoulders.

If Carey didn't do his early in round 1 and Corey his early on in the Prelim there wasn't much stopping them that year.

Duck's especially is why the season opened right up in the first place.

 

[kirky]

A tale of two shoulders.

If Carey didn't do his early in round 1 and Corey his early on in the Prelim there wasn't much stopping them that year.

Duck's especially is why the season opened right up in the first place.

Thats a classic ifs, could have beens, maybes. Will we never know - it may have been their year, it might not have been.

We could disect each year and come up with scenarios like these. As someone said - "shit happens"

 

[jimmysmith]

South Australians are all inbred flogs

 

[portfan36]

You Port supporters are so boring to play with. I hope you are again succesfull, one day. All I get from you guys these days is exactly what you wrote above. And the dont call Chad gay, leave sexuality out of football. So you have to go through football stats dating back two centuries to give us shit but if we mention any of your obvious failings its, as mentioned above!

DR C, you remind me of a real ugly kid with a big wart on the end of your nose. After giving shit to a normal looking kid, who then says 'nice wart on your face DR C', your reply is " WOw thanks for the contribution Fred seriously good stuff not tired, or old, or irrelevant or unoriginal"

Your club is that ugly kid. It will always have that 119 point wart on its nose. This wart will never go away. Even if you win a flag, the wart will be the first thing people see when they look at your face. Its what your club is known for.

Freddy, face it you are a jea;ous and bitter man. Why? Because your favourite player Nathan Bassett slaved for the last 10 years for a club that got nowhere. Maybe D_One can provide us some stats on how many players have played over 200 games for a club and finished his career with nothing to show for it. Two players from memory spring to mind, Harvey and Roos, great players individually, its just a shame they had to play for mediocre run of the mill teams, a sentiment that can be shared with Bassett.

Dont get me wrong, Im not having a go at Bassett, I thinks he was a great player, Im having a go at the club and caoch he played for who prevented him achieving his goals.

 

[portfan36]

You Port supporters are so boring to play with. I hope you are again succesfull, one day. All I get from you guys these days is exactly what you wrote above. And the dont call Chad gay, leave sexuality out of football. So you have to go through football stats dating back two centuries to give us shit but if we mention any of your obvious failings its, as mentioned above!

DR C, you remind me of a real ugly kid with a big wart on the end of your nose. After giving shit to a normal looking kid, who then says 'nice wart on your face DR C', your reply is " WOw thanks for the contribution Fred seriously good stuff not tired, or old, or irrelevant or unoriginal"

Your club is that ugly kid. It will always have that 119 point wart on its nose. This wart will never go away. Even if you win a flag, the wart will be the first thing people see when they look at your face. Its what your club is known for.

WTF? Is this what we are to expect from a Crows supporter? Cmon, surely you can do a little better than that. But then again a mediocre performance is what is now expected from a Crows supporter and their team

 

[xamol]

Thought it was pretty mild actually.

 

[icrow32]

Geoffa, i'll echo PowerKat's thoughts here. The way you make this argument has been sekajesque. You've been told time and time again, yet you ignore the responses and post the same crap again.

We clearly want to honour our legends from the SANFL days. Our theme this year is to "Live the Creed", the Creed being written by the father of our club, you'd be well aware of him. We've fought to wear the Prison bars in heritage round, we've put 1870 on our guernseys, and we've done all we can to honour our past.

As the two clubs are basically the result of a demerger, the magpies were given the role of handling these sorts of events. It would be silly for both clubs to have events to celebrate the same thing.

How can the "father" of your not exist until 90 years after your supposed birth?

 

[Geoffa32]

Geoffa, i'll echo PowerKat's thoughts here. The way you make this argument has been sekajesque. You've been told time and time again, yet you ignore the responses and post the same crap again.

We clearly want to honour our legends from the SANFL days. Our theme this year is to "Live the Creed", the Creed being written by the father of our club, you'd be well aware of him. We've fought to wear the Prison bars in heritage round, we've put 1870 on our guernseys, and we've done all we can to honour our past.

As the two clubs are basically the result of a demerger, the magpies were given the role of handling these sorts of events. It would be silly for both clubs to have events to celebrate the same thing.

I re-read this post and have a few more thoughts.

Yes the marketing slogan is Live the Creed. But in 2008, Chaplin came out and said that the supporters would be happy with losing games if they beat the Crows. Chad commented that an easier draw will lead to wins. Choco proclaimed to the supporters not to expect wins (ie chance of making finals over) after round 13. There were 8 games to go. Living the Creed would mean you give your all to those last 8 games. To their credit the players did in the last few games.

Prison bar jumper is a non issue. Port have played in other colours prior to 1901. As you have seen in otehr threads I am one that believes Port should be allowed to wear that jumper at home, ie like in English soccer and have a real clash jumper when Collingwood come over here.

1870 is an attempt to claim the lineage. A stronger message would be to undermine the PAMFC attempts in taking over the history. As I have said 2009 is a milestone year in PAFC history in regard to Premiership anniversarys. Would tie in nicely with the direction the Power are taking, and make the message stronger. But there is the fear of allienating supporters of other SANFL clubs who are Power fans, so a soft apporach has been taken. "Proud of the Past, Confident of the Future", well half of that ageless motto is true.

 

[portfan36]

I suggest to all Port supporters - dont fall for the dribble that comes from disenchanted Crows supporters that Port have less history than them, its just their way of justifying their short existence.

Port atre the same club that existed back in 1870. Different teams but same club. To say anything else is like saying the Glenelg Football League Team belongs to a different club than the Glenelg Reserves Team.

We all know this isnt the case - Glenelg League team AND the Glenelg Reserves team belong to the Glenelg Football Club - this cannot be argued.

Just as Port AFL team and the Port SANFL team belong to the PAFC. I know people will say they are now the PAMFC but this is silly legalities that are brought about most probably because of taxation purposes - i.e. you need to have separate entities to separate their income streams.

If any Cows supporter wants to argue legalities then show me your Bachelor of Law - then you could argue that you shouldnt be practicing if you are spending your working hours on the BigFooty website.

 

[icrow32]

I re-read this post and have a few more thoughts.

Yes the marketing slogan is Live the Creed. But in 2008, Chaplin came out and said that the supporters would be happy with losing games if they beat the Crows. Chad commented that an easier draw will lead to wins. Choco proclaimed to the supporters not to expect wins (ie chance of making finals over) after round 13. There were 8 games to go. Living the Creed would mean you give your all to those last 8 games. To their credit the players did in the last few games.

Prison bar jumper is a non issue. Port have played in other colours prior to 1901. As you have seen in otehr threads I am one that believes Port should be allowed to wear that jumper at home, ie like in English soccer and have a real clash jumper when Collingwood come over here.

1870 is an attempt to claim the lineage. A stronger message would be to undermine the PAMFC attempts in taking over the history. As I have said 2009 is a milestone year in PAFC history in regard to Premiership anniversarys. Would tie in nicely with the direction the Power are taking, and make the message stronger. But there is the fear of allienating supporters of other SANFL clubs who are Power fans, so a soft apporach has been taken. "Proud of the Past, Confident of the Future", well half of that ageless motto is true.

This only happened when a few players 2009 contracts were in question, a few of them pulled their finger out in the last 2 games (P Burgoyne for 1). It shows what the players really play for and its definitely not the "Creed"

 

[PowerKat]

I re-read this post and have a few more thoughts.

Yes the marketing slogan is Live the Creed. But in 2008, Chaplin came out and said that the supporters would be happy with losing games if they beat the Crows. Chad commented that an easier draw will lead to wins. Choco proclaimed to the supporters not to expect wins (ie chance of making finals over) after round 13. There were 8 games to go. Living the Creed would mean you give your all to those last 8 games. To their credit the players did in the last few games.

regardless of individual games, seasons, players - the creed is more than a marketing slogan. The culture of the club is more than the creed. Pulling out these little incidents is absurd and another pathetic attempt by you to denigrate what the club stands for.

Newsflash: The game today (including the system that runs it and all of the impacts of that) is not what it was 10 years ago, let alone 20, 30, 50 years ago.

Prison bar jumper is a non issue. Port have played in other colours prior to 1901. As you have seen in otehr threads I am one that believes Port should be allowed to wear that jumper at home, ie like in English soccer and have a real clash jumper when Collingwood come over here.

good on you

1870 is an attempt to claim the lineage.

Bullshit. It's a recognition of actual lineage - not an 'attempt' to 'claim' it

A stronger message would be to undermine the PAMFC attempts in taking over the history. As I have said 2009 is a milestone year in PAFC history in regard to Premiership anniversarys. Would tie in nicely with the direction the Power are taking, and make the message stronger. But there is the fear of allienating supporters of other SANFL clubs who are Power fans, so a soft apporach has been taken. "Proud of the Past, Confident of the Future", well half of that ageless motto is true.

Absurd suggestions. All speculation and shit-stirring.

 

[Valentino Dmitri]

This thread's not so funny when the shoe's on the other foot, is it Port Supporters!

Seems you don't like the taste of your own medicine so much!

I hope you've all learned your lesson and we can all get along nicely from now on. You should thank good old Geoffa for helping you see the error of your ways

 

[Damp Squarie]

I suggest to all Port supporters - dont fall for the dribble that comes from disenchanted Crows supporters that Port have less history than them, its just their way of justifying their short existence.

Nice the way you leave Power and Magpies out of your strawman arguement. Port Powers birth "began" in 1997..you could nearly link it as afterbirth of the Port Magpies but whats the point.

Port atre the same club that existed back in 1870. Different teams but same club. To say anything else is like saying the Glenelg Football League Team belongs to a different club than the Glenelg Reserves Team.

Nice deflection club v team, 1997 v 1870,sky blue to teal to silver back v black n white creed v crud...I cant keep up

We all know this isnt the case - Glenelg League team AND the Glenelg Reserves team belong to the Glenelg Football Club - this cannot be argued.

...and they both play in the SANFL...your siamese twins play in different leagues

Just as Port AFL team and the Port SANFL team belong to the PAFC. I know people will say they are now the PAMFC but this is silly legalities that are brought about most probably because of taxation purposes - i.e. you need to have separate entities to separate their income streams.

Silly legalities 'll do that so will smoke n mirrors.

If any Crows supporter wants to argue legalities then show me your Bachelor of Law - then you could argue that you shouldnt be practicing if you are spending your working hours on the BigFooty website.

You almost had me believing that dribble.

 

[portfan36]

Nice the way you leave Power and Magpies out of your strawman arguement. Port Powers birth "began" in 1997..you could nearly link it as afterbirth of the Port Magpies but whats the point.



Nice deflection club v team, 1997 v 1870,sky blue to teal to silver back v black n white creed v crud...I cant keep up




...and they both play in the SANFL...your siamese twins play in different leagues



Silly legalities 'll do that so will smoke n mirrors.



You almost had me believing that dribble.

Pissweak effort flog. So tell me where Im wrong instead of providing "smoke and mirror" one line answers. You are the true definition of a disenchanted Crow supporting flog.

Let me remind you again - Port Magpies and Port Adelaide Powere are from the same club, different teams playing in different leagues but the same club.

Im open for ridicule, so show me where Im wrong TopJars. Otherwise, spend your energy on your own team, they sure as hell need it