Unique Crows Record

[malph]

Not one of them was designed by a kid. Unlike Port who twice have allowed the home jumper to be used as a competiton prize. Some here have pointed at slight variations on jumpers being a problem. They are not my issue. Both clubs have had the same design since AFL inclusion. But its a bit hypcritical for a club to bleat on about being traditional then have a kiddies competition to design one off jumpers in the hope of getting a few extra people to a game.

I don't think so. Jumpers change. They always have, they always will. Nobody ever questioned the "tradition" of the PAFC before 1997, despite playing in very, very varied guernseys throughout the previous 127 years. Some people don't like the heritage argument, so it only now becomes an issue.

Like the AFL are picky about 'sanctioning' anything - they barely look at it. All examples of what the AFL have 'sanctioned' that were howled down by a great number of people including a great deal of Port supporters.

yet another display of the AFL's diligent santioning policy

No arguments from me regarding the NAB cup match. The club wants to get exposure for its new clash strip, but do you think it will happen during the proper season?

Touche re. the 'sanctioning.'. using state jumpers (not the SANFL symbol) is pretty poor form. The AFL can be lax there . . .

But again, if you're going to argue the est. 1870, it's been done to death on the Port Adelaide boards, many, many times over. Have a read.

 

[aneale]

I don't think so. Jumpers change. They always have, they always will. Nobody ever questioned the "tradition" of the PAFC before 1997, despite playing in very, very varied guernseys throughout the previous 127 years. Some people don't like the heritage argument, so it only now becomes an issue.

No arguments from me regarding the NAB cup match. The club wants to get exposure for its new clash strip, but do you think it will happen during the proper season?

Are we sure it's a 'clash' strip entirely, or now an 'away' strip? In 2007 when you beat Geelong in Geelong with Cass' goal in the dying seconds you wore your silver/black/teal 'clash' strip, what makes you think if you played down there again you won't wear your clash guernsey again? Obviously your home guernsey has been deemed unsuitable for such games.

 

[Geoffa32]

I don't think so. Jumpers change. They always have, they always will. Nobody ever questioned the "tradition" of the PAFC before 1997, despite playing in very, very varied guernseys throughout the previous 127 years. Some people don't like the heritage argument, so it only now becomes an issue.

No arguments from me regarding the NAB cup match. The club wants to get exposure for its new clash strip, but do you think it will happen during the proper season?

Are we sure it's a 'clash' strip entirely, or now an 'away' strip? In 2007 when you beat Geelong in Geelong with Cass' goal in the dying seconds you wore your silver/black/teal 'clash' strip, what makes you think if you played down there again you won't wear your clash guernsey again? Obviously your home guernsey has been deemed unsuitable for such games.

The clash arguement is a joke. When we go over to play the Tigers or Bombers we wear the "Dreaded Red" Yet when they come over here the AFL deem there is no clash and they wear their home jumper. What is the difference. Is the air denser over there (or people).......

So Port could well wear the Home jumper at Kardinia. Sunday's game was as much as clash as any of the supposed clashes in the AFL.

 

[subaru]

You would have thought wrong. How many times must we reference the 32 years?
But again, do you consider Melbourne's guernsey traditional? Or Collingwood's? If a minute change to the colour all of a sudden represents a tearing at the fabric of a club's identity, what does it say about others who have done the same? You haven't said diddly about them.

FFS ..when a Melbourne supporter or a Collingwood supporter rams tradition down my throat, I will do the same.

The home guernsey hasn't changed but for a different shade of blue. Since you won't harp on about the Melbourne Football Club in the same way, why does that take tradition away from Port Adelaide? The one-offs were indeed promotions for young fans. Since when haven't any of us admitted that? The club is trying to be proactive, and would get criticised for not engaging supporters if it did nothing

.

Mate, you club has had shitloads of guernseys ... so what ...I don't care, but don't rant about tradition, 1870's and Creeds. One offs do what exactly.

In any case, Port Adelaide doesn't just "INSIST" on its heritage. It has been confirmed by the SANFL and the AFL.

Yeah yeah yeah ..the AFL is always right, aren't they.

I was going to go over and add to the "elite players" thread on the Crows board, by joining in with some of the Crows fans who are bagging the direction of the club. But then, I realised that it would be a dumb way of going about it.

How about you follow the lead of the few Crowsies who at least attempt a reasonable discussion there, and don't get carded? You are a fool who is capable of stirring shit, and only of stirring shit. You can't argue reasonably, which is why you get carded, while others are allowed to prosper.

I have attempted serious conversations .....in fact , once I paraphrased a Port supporter's comments just to see what would happen .....and got carded! It was ages ago and cannot be bothered any more. It's one big mutual admiration society on that board.

I think the team performance had more to do with the bums on seats and thus the operating loss than the kiddie designs.
It wasn't to make money, it was to engage the younger members. Better than allowing manufacturers to f*** with our jumper

.


And yet, you have reverted to traditional stuff, Creeds, 1870'setc to get back supporters that did not feel included by the direction the Power were going. Yes, let a ten year old f*** with your jumper instead.

Why should I leave that out - because it's not convenient for you? Wise on your part to discount that, because then we can go through the different strips of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool et cetera. Then we can take a trip across the Atlantic, and see how blue "Big Blue" has always been. Or, what kind of green has Gang Green been through its post-Titans history? Speaking of which, is that the same team?

Is "tradition" the sole domain of Australian Rules Football? Okay, let's get back to Melbourne or Collingwood or the Bulldogs. For something even hairier for you, how about North Melbourne/Kangaroos/North Melbourne?

What you are saying is that you can't get your head around the fact that a club can be old, can play in two different competitions, and can win flags in each of those two different competitions.



Ah, now we're back to the original topic. Some teams are just out there to see how well they go after 22 rounds, and forget about what they're supposed to do for the next month.

As I said ...I only care about the 1870 crap coz you lot throw in 7642 premierships along with it. If North Melbourne began claiming flags from the Under 18 comp I'd be shitted off too. I have said before, I think tradition and history is over-rated. I care about this week, next weeek and the week after. I also don't care about soccer - they can do what they like. I don't care that players are not restricted to white for Wimbledon, either.
Times change - wear what you like, but you can't have it both ways ...Tradition and then pop on 67 different jumpers.

And as for your last comment , Crows were a super September side in 97/98 but you call those flags Bradburys. Port were dominant in 2002/2003 and we call you chokers. Exist to win premierships applies to everyone. As I said, no-one goes out there for a kick and a catch.

 

[malph]

FFS ..when a Melbourne supporter or a Collingwood supporter rams tradition down my throat, I will do the same . . .

As I said ...I only care about the 1870 crap coz you lot throw in 7642 premierships along with it. If North Melbourne began claiming flags from the Under 18 comp I'd be shitted off too. I have said before, I think tradition and history is over-rated. I care about this week, next weeek and the week after. I also don't care about soccer - they can do what they like. I don't care that players are not restricted to white for Wimbledon, either.
Times change - wear what you like, but you can't have it both ways ...Tradition and then pop on 67 different jumpers.

So, what you are essentially saying is not that we're wrong, but that we're the loudest?

Actually, this isn't making sense to me anymore. What do we mean by "traditional". What is the threshold of "traditional"? Why does "traditional" apply differently to soccer, or any other sport? Do they use different dictionaries?

I guess the crux of my point, is, how does playing in different guernseys prove 'PAFC est. 1870' wrong? It never did before.

I have attempted serious conversations .....in fact , once I paraphrased a Port supporter's comments just to see what would happen .....and got carded! It was ages ago and cannot be bothered any more. It's one big mutual admiration society on that board.

In fairness I have only recieved a yellow card at the Port board. Considering the topic/tone of my post it was a pretty minor infringement and in hidsight could of copped worse.

It helps if you are not a f***wit.

And yet, you have reverted to traditional stuff, Creeds, 1870'setc to get back supporters that did not feel included by the direction the Power were going. Yes, let a ten year old f*** with your jumper instead.

I certainly haven't liked everything that has emerged from Alberton over the last few years, but the idea of going back to the roots started this year. We're yet to see a kids' competition promotional jumper worn at home in conjunction with 'Live the Creed'. We'll see, I suppose . . .

And as for your last comment , Crows were a super September side in 97/98 but you call those flags Bradburys. Port were dominant in 2002/2003 and we call you chokers. Exist to win premierships applies to everyone. As I said, no-one goes out there for a kick and a catch.

You know that's not true. Third to sixth paragraphs:

http://afc.com.au/tabid/4417/default.aspx?newsid=67453

But it never actually ends. Talk about how everyone under-rates you, then make the eight, lose nearly every final you play, say you over-achieved, then do the same next year. For ten years now. It's time to learn a new tune.

 

[Niximus]

Here is our last 12 years with my expectations prior to that year. I invite Port Fans to do the same including 2009. What are you expecting from your team?

1997
Expected - 6-10
Result - Premier
Verdict - Fantastic year

1998
Expected - 1-4
Result - Premier
Verdict - Fantastic year

1999
Expected - 1-4
Result - 13th
Verdict - Terrible year

2000
Expected 10-12
Result - 11th
Verdict - About right

2001
Expected 4-8
Result - 8th
Verdict - About right

2002
Expected 4-5
Result - 3rd
Verdict - Good result

2003
Expected 1-2
Result - 6th
Verdict - Terrible

2004
Expected 3-6
Result - 12th
Verdict - Terrible year

2005
Expected 9-12
Result - 4th
Verdict - Good Result

2006
Expected 1-2
Result - 3rd
Verdict - Choke

2007
Expected 1-4
Result - 8th
Verdict - Bad year

2008
Expected 7-10
Result - 7th
Verdict - About right

2009
Expected 6-9

 

[aneale]

But again, if you're going to argue the est. 1870, it's been done to death on the Port Adelaide boards, many, many times over. Have a read.

I've posted on those threads and others, to me you can never sell the 1870 argument for a few reasons.

a) I have a legal background, so I look at footy clubs like any other business (cos thats what they are), and that being a legal entity. Hence why I refer to them as PAFCII because the Power are not the same legal entity as the 1870 club, that is what we now call PAMFC (who legally hold the sub-lease from the SANFL given it was awarded to the original PAFC), they just added the 'M' in. Irrespective of some on the Port thread boards opinion that footy clubs should be held to different rules than other businesses, that's not my opinion.

b) This was confirmed when the Club was registered with one of the many Govt. Departments one must talk to when registering a new business as to which one formed in 1996 and which one wasn't, and

c) why are there so many disenfranchised Port supporters, what happened to all those dyed in the wool Maggies supporters? why do some follow the Crows or no AFL at all? Why since the 'Creed' and 'est 1870' has the membership sunk to 8000 less than last year at the same time?

I don't mind if you want to say you were est 1870, if thats how your club wishes to view it, my question is..... what is with the massive inferiority complex style of plastering it over anything and everything?? since when do Port show that side of them? Melbourne don't have 1859 on their guernsey, Collingwood don't have 1892 on theirs - why do Port feel the need to now ram it down everyone's throat, like anyone cares one way or the other. You only get a response because you brought it up. Who are they trying to convince or impress? It's not designed to convince me, or maybe it is, maybe it is in an attempt to appease all the old Maggies supporters who haven't taken up Power membership to convince its still 'really us'. Maybe the Club is concerned that one day they will be left with very few core Port members beyond those who have got season tickets whilst on the Crows waiting list because they are Roosters, Legs etc supporters.

If 34,185 members in 2008 translated to an average crowd of 22,126

what will say, 25,000 members in 2009 translate to?

You want to be traditional be traditional, but don't flip flop as to what you are doing all that happens is it confuses the base. Are you attracting new fans with design a jumper comp or are you going for the 30 year Port supporter with a duffle coat with Bomber Clifford's no. on it, hanging in the closet somewhere? You can't do both effectively.

 

[subaru]

[malph;13800733]Actually, this isn't making sense to me anymore. What do we mean by "traditional". What is the threshold of "traditional"? Why does "traditional" apply differently to soccer, or any other sport? Do they use different dictionaries?

I guess the crux of my point, is, how does playing in different guernseys prove 'PAFC est. 1870' wrong? It never did before.

That doesn' surprise me.

So here you go...slowly this time...I don't care what you or any other club wears. My gripe is that you want to come off all traditional and 1870 etc but have no problem whipping up a new guernsey every time your marketing department wants an opportunity to make a few bucks.Tradition - bang - out the window then.
My 1870 issue is the premierships that your club wants to lay claim. to...and they do. So, as in my other example, if North Melbourne start claiming U18 flags, and Melbourne turn around and bring out a creed from the sixties and then go all 2009 with flash jumpers, I will lay shit on them too.
As in the past ten years, you want it both ways....it's one or the other. It's really quite simple.
Aneale's last post says it all.

 

[malph]

I've posted on those threads and others, to me you can never sell the 1870 argument for a few reasons.

a) I have a legal background, so I look at footy clubs like any other business (cos thats what they are), and that being a legal entity. Hence why I refer to them as PAFCII because the Power are not the same legal entity as the 1870 club, that is what we now call PAMFC (who legally hold the sub-lease from the SANFL given it was awarded to the original PAFC), they just added the 'M' in. Irrespective of some on the Port thread boards opinion that footy clubs should be held to different rules than other businesses, that's not my opinion.

And I have an academic background in political science, so feel free to break down that nonsensical paragraph into very specific legalese. I assure you that I can understand it. I know that lawyers are not well-regarded for mixing clarity with brevity, so please, explain how one organisation can operate in a competition on a sub-licence awarded to a different legal entity.

Whose tender was accepted in 1994?

b) This was confirmed when the Club was registered with one of the many Govt. Departments one must talk to when registering a new business as to which one formed in 1996 and which one wasn't . . .

'Date registered' is a furphy when we're talking about clubs of the AFL.

21/05/1986;
31/10/1983;
21/06/1979;
19/06/1978;
23/12/1975;
19/07/1974;
21/02/1951 . . .

et cetera . . .

c) why are there so many disenfranchised Port supporters, what happened to all those dyed in the wool Maggies supporters? why do some follow the Crows or no AFL at all? Why since the 'Creed' and 'est 1870' has the membership sunk to 8000 less than last year at the same time?

If I knew I would probably apply to work at the club. I don't possess the same information they do. As for the disenfranchised Port supporters, I knew of some who didn't like the idea of not raping the competition anymore. Some who didn't care to acknowledge Port Adelaide's history pre-Fos Williams think the club is nothing without black and white prison bars. Even when Port Adelaide chose black and white, they didn't always have prison bars.
They're idiots.

I don't mind if you want to say you were est 1870, if thats how your club wishes to view it, my question is..... what is with the massive inferiority complex style of plastering it over anything and everything?? since when do Port show that side of them? Melbourne don't have 1859 on their guernsey, Collingwood don't have 1892 on theirs - why do Port feel the need to now ram it down everyone's throat, like anyone cares one way or the other. You only get a response because you brought it up. Who are they trying to convince or impress? It's not designed to convince me, or maybe it is, maybe it is in an attempt to appease all the old Maggies supporters who haven't taken up Power membership to convince its still 'really us'. Maybe the Club is concerned that one day they will be left with very few core Port members beyond those who have got season tickets whilst on the Crows waiting list because they are Roosters, Legs etc supporters.

First of all, plenty seem to care, and don't pretend that your responses are all because we "brought it up". I don't see a ton of threads out there titled: "In case you didn't know: est. 1870" . . .

Others bring it up, we bring it up. It's a popular topic. It's not very easy to believe how much you guys "don't care," when you keep replying so often to tell us why we're wrong.

Early marketing was a mistake. I won't pretend any different. The club didn't gain enough traction by aiming for the neutral-and-God-knows-what-else route, so they're moving back to what makes the club different - the very basis for its long-time desire to join the biggest league. About time, too.

If 34,185 members in 2008 translated to an average crowd of 22,126

what will say, 25,000 members in 2009 translate to?

You want to be traditional be traditional, but don't flip flop as to what you are doing all that happens is it confuses the base. Are you attracting new fans with design a jumper comp or are you going for the 30 year Port supporter with a duffle coat with Bomber Clifford's no. on it, hanging in the closet somewhere? You can't do both effectively.

You think we will only get another 3,000 members before June? In any case, what did a similar membership number equal in crowds in 2007? Or any year when the membership has hovered around that mark? Unless you hadn't noticed, your crowds have been slowly and steadily slipping for years now. Does AAMI stadium have anything to do with that? Do short television delays have anything to do with that? Did Port Adelaide's form have anything to do with that? If Port Adelaide's form improves, and thus crowds, do we get to say that it was all due to "Live the Creed"? It's a great deal more nuanced than that.

 

[KingsCrow]

2006
Expected 1-2
Result - 3rd
Verdict - Choke

I dont understand why you consider it a choke. We had always struggled against West Coast. We still do.

It was just frustrating that we did so well only to meet the one team we really struggle with the game before the GF.

 

[aneale]

You think we will only get another 3,000 members before June? In any case, what did a similar membership number equal in crowds in 2007?

2007: Members - 34,073. Avg Crowd - 27,870

 

[El_Scorcho]

The 'inferiority complex' as you put it, is a response to being constantly told that we "aren't the real Port Adelaide".

You'll notice that when we joined the AFL, we didn't tie up legal loose ends, we didn't think it would matter too much that we had to change our colours, etc, etc, etc. We just assumed that everyone would respect who we were and our history and tradition. Who cares about technicalities? For all intents and purposes, the PAFC that exists in the AFL now is the same PAFC that has existed for 139 years.

The PAFC heirarchy really didn't think people would ever question our heritage, that's obvious. No one questions Collingwood or Essendon's heritage, and we are no different apart from the fact that we moved leagues.

What's happened in reality is that people have tried to claim that we are not the real Port Adelaide because they hate the club. Magpies supporters who stuck with their AFL team when the PAFC joined the AFL wanted to claim their club as the "real Port Adelaide", so claimed the heritage. Our club, comfortable with it's heritage, tried to branch out to attract more members, and we were slammed again, with people claiming that we were turning our back on our history and therefore, weren't the real PAFC.

So we've copped it for about 10 years because we didn't tie up a few legal technicalities. It would have been fairly simple to keep the club the same legal entity or whatever, but it was much, much easier and quicker to do it they way we did it. And why wouldn't we do it the easy way? There was no indication in 1996 that we were going to be constantly defending our history 10 years later. All the talk was about the historic, successful, traditional Port Adelaide Football Club joining the AFL.


Because we've copped it for 10 years, the supporters have gotten mightily fed up with the whole issue, and demanded the club take a stance, get the AFL and the SANFL to recognise and affirm our history, and put this whole "you're not the real Port Adelaide because of legal technicalities" business behind us. That's why we're going crazy with the "Live the Creed" and "34 SANFL premierships + 1 AFL premierships" stuff. It's a reaction to being constantly told that don't have the rights to our history.

Capiche? The legal stuff didn't matter in 1996 and it doesn't matter now. It only matters to those who would use it against us in an attempt to hurt the club. It's clear what the intentions of the club were in 1996, and it's clear that the legal mumbo jumbo was done the way it was for ease. If they had any idea in 1996 that we would cop this kind of crap about being established in 1996, we would have made sure all the loose ends were tied up. As i've illustrated, we didn't think it would be an issue, and it really shouldn't be.

 

[aneale]

all of which I agree with, however, as I pointed out with a few examples. The AFL allowing Port to plonk 1870 on it's back doesn't really 'affirm' anything given its the same organisation that sanctioned us and the West Coast to trot out a State jumper in heritage round. Sanctioning didn't make it right.

But everything else, granted.

According to Cornesy, Port may have bigger issues at the moment. Surely that can't happen.

 

[El_Scorcho]

No, i'd imagine it wont. Good on Tassie for looking at all their options, but we aren't one of them. We'd remerge with the PAMFC and play SANFL before we moved.

The 1870 on the guernsey is part of the reaction from the club after the members demanded the club take a stance. That's all. It's proof to the members that the club is serious on the heritage issue. It links in with what I said in the above post about the members wanting the club to take a stand.

 

[Geoffa32]

No, i'd imagine it wont. Good on Tassie for looking at all their options, but we aren't one of them. We'd remerge with the PAMFC and play SANFL before we moved.

The 1870 on the guernsey is part of the reaction from the club after the members demanded the club take a stance. That's all. It's proof to the members that the club is serious on the heritage issue. It links in with what I said in the above post about the members wanting the club to take a stand.

Heysman is saying that it wont happen and that today is the first it has happend. But could all this 1870 PAFC stuff be an attempt to consolidate the clubs position in SA, and not Tassie. Surely someone somewhere in the club had a clue. There are leaks in politics all the time and some are Port supporters.

 

[aneale]

Heysman is saying that it wont happen and that today is the first it has happend. But could all this 1870 PAFC stuff be an attempt to consolidate the clubs position in SA, and not Tassie. Surely someone somewhere in the club had a clue. There are leaks in politics all the time and some are Port supporters.

Yeah but then he said 'never say never' when asked about incentives. That wasa mistake.

 

[subaru]

ThunderPower_14;13801884] No one questions Collingwood or Essendon's heritage, and we are no different apart from the fact that we moved leagues.

That's why we're going crazy with the "Live the Creed" and "34 SANFL premierships + 1 AFL premierships" stuff.

Thunder, you know I respect your opinion... you are one of the few Port posters who don't get their hair in the air when your club is criticised and you again have made two really good points.

Different leagues / 34 SANFL premierships. I would be more than happy to concede a fair bit of ground if other Port supporters chose to acknowledge both those points. It would be great if these factors were taken into account when some flogs get on here with all those premierships listed as their sig.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Toots has PAFC senior premierships listed, and he does it purely to wind people like you up subaru. While our history is being questioned, he will always do it i'd imagine.

If you asked him about the PAFC's premierships, I reckon he'd tell you 34 SANFL + 1 AFL just like me. No one is under any illusion that the SANFL premierships are as important as the AFL. If they are, then I disagree with them completely.

 

[Geoffa32]

Yeah but then he said 'never say never' when asked about incentives. That wasa mistake.

hehehe did hear that

It is not in his hands anyway. The SANFL decides where our clubs play not the Clubs. Neither PAFC or AFC have a say. If they did Port would be playing at Adelaide Oval, as it would be better financially for them according to John James.

 

[aneale]

hehehe did hear that

It is not in his hands anyway. The SANFL decides where our clubs play not the Clubs. Neither PAFC or AFC have a say. If they did Port would be playing at Adelaide Oval, as it would be better financially for them according to John James.

Exactly right, and that's why I think Port was mentioned. Our license's are unique in that they are not Club owned, we all saw how much North dug in about going to GC. Tas don't want to get into another GC or WS bung fight with the likes of NM and WB, they want an easy route, go to the source and do a Minneapolis Lakers = LA Lakers style of deal.

SANFL say.... ooooh looky shiny object *hand over license* Port gets shafted down the two-headed river. SANFL waits for one of the pov Vic clubs to go under or relocate and puts their hand up to get another license to make it 18 clubs and the Central Districts Bulldogs come in after WB become WS Dowhatsits.

 

[Geoffa32]

Exactly right, and that's why I think Port was mentioned. Our license's are unique in that they are not Club owned, we all saw how much North dug in about going to GC. Tas don't want to get into another GC or WS bung fight with the likes of NM and WB, they want an easy route, go to the source and do a Minneapolis Lakers = LA Lakers style of deal.

SANFL say.... ooooh looky shiny object *hand over license* Port gets shafted down the two-headed river. SANFL waits for one of the pov Vic clubs to go under or relocate and puts their hand up to get another license to make it 18 clubs and the Central Districts Bulldogs come in after WB become WS Dowhatsits.

And the AFL owns the PAFC name and all associated trademarks, ie any slogan or image that has ever been on an official AFL product.

 

[Niximus]

I dont understand why you consider it a choke. We had always struggled against West Coast. We still do.

It was just frustrating that we did so well only to meet the one team we really struggle with the game before the GF.

2006 was a choke imo, we were WCE's bunnies but we went out a round earlier than we should have.

We had also never met the Eagles at the MCG and had that happened who knows what the result may have been.

 

[subaru]

Toots has PAFC senior premierships listed, and he does it purely to wind people like you up subaru. While our history is being questioned, he will always do it i'd imagine.

If you asked him about the PAFC's premierships, I reckon he'd tell you 34 SANFL + 1 AFL just like me. No one is under any illusion that the SANFL premierships are as important as the AFL. If they are, then I disagree with them completely.

I realise that ...and it still shits me to tears.
Howver, he does not do your cause any good in the long run...people just get anti for getting anti's sake coz he puts the ammo out there.

 

[subaru]

Exactly right, and that's why I think Port was mentioned. Our license's are unique in that they are not Club owned, we all saw how much North dug in about going to GC. Tas don't want to get into another GC or WS bung fight with the likes of NM and WB, they want an easy route, go to the source and do a Minneapolis Lakers = LA Lakers style of deal.

SANFL say.... ooooh looky shiny object *hand over license* Port gets shafted down the two-headed river. SANFL waits for one of the pov Vic clubs to go under or relocate and puts their hand up to get another license to make it 18 clubs and the Central Districts Bulldogs come in after WB become WS Dowhatsits.

Dowhatsits.......has a ring to it.

 

[KingsCrow]

2006 was a choke imo, we were WCE's bunnies but we went out a round earlier than we should have.

We had also never met the Eagles at the MCG and had that happened who knows what the result may have been.

that makes no sense what so ever.

We were West Coasts bunnies yet we choked?

2006 we were just extremely unlucky that Sydney beat West Coast at Subi for the QF.

From memory we went into the PF as underdogs. We had always struggled against West Coast.

2006 was very disappointing, but hardly a choke.