Wil You Stay..????

[NRLCrap1]

If either Brisbane or St Kilda were a basketcase, Wookie, the AFL would be bending over backwards to help them - or kick them out! NEITHER ARE HAPPENING!! So your definition doesn't apply. And the United Eagles do fit that description, because it was against other non professional clubs! And they are gone now by the way!!

Brisbane and St Kilda are in some bother yeah, but they are nowhere near the dire straits that fits that definition you underlined!

[King-Eliagh]

Can you pair of dikk knobs (cwacker and cwap1) quit while your behind? The entire nrl membership along with several AFL members can see ur desperate attempts at justifying ur woefully biased decisions. Yas look pretty lamo and it's gettin worse each time you post on second thoughts.... Carry on

[AFLcrap1]

If either Brisbane or St Kilda were a basketcase, Wookie, the AFL would be bending over backwards to help them - or kick them out! NEITHER ARE HAPPENING!! So your definition doesn't apply. And the United Eagles do fit that description, because it was against other non professional clubs! And they are gone now by the way!!

Brisbane and St Kilda are in some bother yeah, but they are nowhere near the dire straits that fits that definition you underlined!

If you think being permanently on an AFL assistance wagon is a good thing then no, with AFL executives parachuted in to look after the clubs (as happened in Melbourne and St Kilda) these clubs arent basketcases. Tell me how far back do we go before we find a Brisbane loss that wasnt in the millions of dollars? For that matter St Kilda? Or even Port Adelaide? Because even with AFL funding and loan guarantees thats exactly what is happening, its a perennial cycle of loss. On field fortunes only exacerbate the issue.

And if its ok to compare some random local footy club to a professional AFL club in terms of operation, then you cant ignore the rugby league clubs in Adelaide and SA in the "NRL is dead in SA" thread, and it should be closed under the same provisions.

Im an AFL guy through and through, but Im tired of bias, and wont be here much longer.

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
Well said Wookie.

[Cracker]

The problem here now is that the DICTATORS take on or meaning of things is gospel.

Jesus H Fuck.
We are not allowed an opinion if it doesn't fit under what the dictator thinks is right.

If that was true I would be deleting comments on this thread, and I haven't. I'm quite happy to allow debate on the definition on a basketcase. It's good for the forum. It's not about "There are no basketcases" as an opinion. It's about putting it over as a fact, and it's not.

The Wookie, because of the revenue that comes in against the spending of the clubs in their football departments - an issue that the AFL has recognised and will be doing something about - there are bound to be clubs that operate at a loss and a substantive one. However the revenue is enough, when managed correctly, to eliminate those losses in the long term. It only becomes a potential basketcase when there is no chance of that happening. This is why the example of the United Eagles is valid. The issue of professional v non professional is not relevant, even though I have no clue what was happening off the field with this club and I'm not going to guess either. But we can say that after that year I linked, United Eagles folded.

Melbourne are on their way back. Port Adelaide are definitely back and will play finals. Brisbane can resolve their off field issues and fight back. They do not have any hold backs. Neither do St Kilda.

Now I ask you this, The Wookie. If you disagree, let's see figures that clearly can't be managed. All of them without exception. Revenue, spending, the whole box and dice. And I would add as NRLCrap1 rightly pointed out, if it was truly unmanageable the AFL would either step in and help or they will kick them out. In the case of Brisbane I think they'll help. In the case of St Kilda I think they'll tell them to move, likely to Tasmania.

[TLPG]

Just a minute, Wookie. I'll stick my oar in here and question that asset level of Brisbane's because it doesn't equate with the revenue they made that you quoted on the other thread. Revenue is an asset if I remember my accounting studies at school correctly, and more importantly it covers the liabilities by nearly 200 percent (if I have my maths right on that). So they aren't in big trouble like you think. Yes they have their problems, but it hasn't crossed the line into emergency status. Should the revenue be unable to cover the liabilities, that would be another kettle of fish.

Cracker also mentioned the lopsided nature of the football departments, and I think once that's resolved it'll help not just Brisbane but any other club in the red as well.

Just on Port Adelaide, the AFL will get that money back when the SANFL sell the prime land at West Lakes. In spades. The Power, the Crows and the SANFL are going to have a lot left over as well and I hope they use that to not only balance any imbalance in the AFL club books they'll also use it to help out any SANFL club in bother and put a slab of dough into the grass roots as well.

[King-Eliagh]

Are they as bad as this?

http://www.foxsportspulse.com/comp_info ... 6621-0-0-0

That is the true definition of a basketcase at the foot of that ladder.

Thats the stupidest comparison ive seen on this board. Not to mention that the link you post isnt a professional club and not comparable to an AFL side. Please refer to the definition of "basketcase"

basket case
noun
informal
noun: basket case; plural noun: basket cases; noun: basketcase; plural noun: basketcases

[*] a person or thing regarded as useless or unable to cope. ie."do that for a couple of days and you become a blithering basket case"
[*] a country or organization that is in severe financial or economic difficulties, especially one that is unable to pay its debts.

Wookie thank you my man. I stand completely corrected. Cwacker is right I have been terribly in factual in my approach Cwacker, if I rephrase the title to:

The 2014 official Blithering Basketcase League then alls good right?

[Cracker]

Just on Port Adelaide - the AFL isnt getting the money back - the AFL is in fact paying more over the course of the next 15 years in grants. The SANFLs funds from the sale of land at west lakes will go towards the SANFL, not the AFL clubs and the AFL, since the SANFL no longer have any ownership of the AFL clubs in Adelaide.

I believe that proof of the claim that the SANFL don't own the two Adelaide base AFL clubs is required here. When I last checked, the SANFL owned both licenses.

The description given for the demise of the United Eagles reads like a takeover, not a merger. So at present I believe the folding statement holds firm.

The answer to King Eliagh's obviously sarcastic question is a firm "No".

[Beaussie]

Im an AFL guy through and through, but Im tired of bias

Calls of bias from the RL fans in here have been non stop since this site was established. I'm tired too.

Don't suppose you would like to join Cracker and MarkZZZ as a TFC mod to address any perceptions of bias? I doubt any member here could say you demonstrate any bias towards any particular code. It's refreshing to see you always back your posts up with solid facts/figures/links/tables etc. With that in mind, how about it... you as a TFC mod?

Or piesman, you keen to have another go and join Cracker and MarkZZZ in here?

Tough gig and big ask I know.

[Cracker]

Just on Port Adelaide - the AFL isnt getting the money back - the AFL is in fact paying more over the course of the next 15 years in grants. The SANFLs funds from the sale of land at west lakes will go towards the SANFL, not the AFL clubs and the AFL, since the SANFL no longer have any ownership of the AFL clubs in Adelaide.

I believe that proof of the claim that the SANFL don't own the two Adelaide base AFL clubs is required here. When I last checked, the SANFL owned both licenses.

The description given for the demise of the United Eagles reads like a takeover, not a merger. So at present I believe the folding statement holds firm.

The answer to King Eliagh's obviously sarcastic question is a firm "No".

And this is where your demand for proof is fundamentally flawed. You are the one disagreeing with a statement, the onus is on you to prove otherwise just as much as it is on me to back up my statement.

The SANFL hasnt owned the Port and Adelaide licences since March. You've had three months to get your head around it - it was reported in all manner of national media before the round 2, Showdown in Adelaide.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/AFL/adelai ... 6865668014
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-27/c ... es/5349978
http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2 ... es-licence

Re: United Eagles - Your "belief" is not good enough in light of the proof you demand of others. Follow your own standard or shut up. The club is officially known as Bridgewater-Callington Raiders, and play at both Callington and Bridgewater grounds - see: Fixture (due in part to Bridgewater getting flooded a fair bit).

It's not fundamentally flawed at all. You made a statement that went against what I knew. You provided proof on request. That's what I want to see here because it helps The Fight Club. Besides, you made the claim in the first instance and I chose (as is my right, and it also applies to other members) to ask for proof. You never asked me for proof that the SANFL still owned the Power and the Crows.

Do not tell a moderator to "shut up". If the Bridgewater club ground has flooding issues, they would use any ground available. If Callington is the only one available then it gets used. You're putting over the link as proof only as far as your opinion, to which you are entitled. The club name on the fixture is Bridgewater, not Bridgewater/Callington or even Bridgewater Eagles. It's still Bridgewater Raiders. It's a practical piece of proof that at best clouds the real club identity.

[AFLcrap1]

When an AFL fan thinks there is bias & the moderation is at best ordinary .then that says plenty.
When a MOD can claim to be neutral ,yet deletes anti AFL threads & leaves anti RL threads ,then neutrality is a joke.

Good work wookie,but as you can see the dictatorship is beyond a joke.
I suspect that Cwackheads rampant bias ,stupidity & ignorance will drive you away from here.

[Beaussie]

When an AFL fan thinks there is bias & the moderation is at best ordinary .then that says plenty.
When a MOD can claim to be neutral ,yet deletes anti AFL threads & leaves anti RL threads ,then neutrality is a joke.

Good work wookie,but as you can see the dictatorship is beyond a joke.
I suspect that Cwackheads rampant bias ,stupidity & ignorance will drive you away from here.

Give Cracker a chance. I've asked him to back off on the requirement of proof or posts/threads are deleted. I didn't like that idea to start with tbh, however in saying that, it's nice to see members like The Wookie who do their research and post links/facts/figures/tables etc that prove beyond doubt what they are posting should be taken seriously and claims of others to contrary should be considered rubbish.

TFC is getting all a bit too serious and over moderated for my liking and I gather many others. How about we just go back to trolling away with moderators only editing/locking those posts/threads that either contain extreme personal abuse or stray way off topic and are considered no longer football related.

Can we all just chill a bit and get back to the code wars people? Much more fun that way wouldn't you agree?

[AFLcrap1]

Suits me ..but im not the one you have to take the power away from.
I expect a huge dummy spit if you do.

[Cracker]

There is no need for any power removal. I shall take that comment from Beaussie as an instruction, in spite of the fact that is goes against the poll from awhile back that introduced the rule.

The Wookie, it is not a requirement to make a statement. The league in charge of the competition hasn't listed them as Bridgewater-Callington in the fixture so the issue is still clouded. All the both of us are going on is what is in front of us, and we are interpreting that in two different ways. Surely you can admit at least that the situation is not 100 percent cast iron? We can argue opinions until doomsday and it won't change anything.

[Cracker]

And the defence states that;

The club is a part of the Hills Football League, and the league in it's 2013 and 2014 fixtures;
http://www.foxsportspulse.com/rpt_fixtu ... 5-0&pool=1
http://www.foxsportspulse.com/rpt_fixtu ... 5-0&pool=1

refers to the club as the Bridgewater. It does not recognise the name Bridgewater-Callington.

It is also the case that the SANFL does not recognise the name Bridgewater-Callington either, referring to it as Bridgewater only in it's 2013 directory on page 22;
http://www.sacommunityfootball.com.au/f ... ug2013.pdf

The HFL and the SANFL are controlling bodies that would note the change, and have not.

The matter remains clouded. The defence rests.

[King-Eliagh]

So ahh then seeing as beaussies laid down the law re cwackers woeful start as (over) moderator...then...where tha fuck is my basketcase league thread and can it be brought back?

If not I want, no demand, a public Apology thread posted in fight club and forum issues, from cwacker, to me personally and out membership in general.