Is It North Melbourne or The Kangaroos

[Plugg3r]

Either way it doesn't matter to me, I just dont like cheap shots thrown that ain't factual.

Ones that I didn't even know about until I read another persons post.
Like **** I like the Power, but when a supporter tries to throw that BS around then say there team has more cups even though they haven't been in the AFL until the late 90's then **** im gunna stick my tail up.

Thats just me.

[g.g.]

This is off-topic to the thread title, but I wanted to add this in...

This is in no way a dig at the Swans, but I wanted to look at things a little differently.

The Sydney Swans in many ways are LESS South Melbourne than the Port Adelaide Power are less the former Port Adelaide Magpies.

Firstly, Sth Melb relocated....to another city, another state. Secondly, Port Adelaide still plays out of SA, out of Alberton Oval. They still have the same head office etc.

Whenever there's a relocation as such, it doesn't take long before they get swallowed up by their adopted city. And, it's a prerequisite because in order for fans/sponsors/etc to truly embrace this team, they have to divorce their former city. Sure, they ARE the same team, they ARE still loved and followed in Melbourne. This is also why the AFL itself will from now on ensure any new teams are actually relocated Vic clubs...to ensure there's a Melbourne fanbase still when the team travels to Melbourne as an away team.

This is what will happen to the Kangaroos if they let the AFL relocate them to Gold Coast. They are a 100+year Melbourne-based football club. The minute they relocate to Gold Coast they are officially dead IMO, unfortunately.

Put it this way...if the NMFC actually went broke and was bought out by Southport/GC conglomerates, or if NMFC just deceased, and a new Southport team entered.....however the AFL decided to give the brand/license to Southport, who would now wear blue-white stripes and be called Kangaroos, tho having no affiliation with the now defunct NMFC....in that hypothetical, no Melbourne-based fan or Nth Melb supporter would even be supporting this Gold Coast Kangaroos team. IMO, it is the exact same as if the Kangaroos relocated on their own terms to the Gold Coast.

If Port Adelaide Power relocated to Darwin, I would find it impossible to support this Darwin Power team. They'd probably also change the colors to representing their region more too. The AFL tries to hoodwink Melbourne-based fans into believing that a relocated ex-VFL team is still the same team relocated. While this may be so theoritically, realistically the club would be swallowed up by the new location and have practically no sense of attachment to its former existence. Sticking a NMFC or PAFC or SMFC or FFC on the back of a guernsey is no salvage. Look at how Fitzroy as part of the merger, there was a regulation that no less than 7 games would always be played in Melbourne. However, in about a decade's time, that's been broken and only going to get less. The AFL would hope and naturally it would happen anyway, that the new city to adopt a relocated club would require the club to emphasize and continue to grow its attachment to the new city/state.

[Plugg3r]

GG G.G, I agreed with everything you said.
But then again the point that SMFC were a VFL team.
Port Adelaide Magpies have never been.

[g.g.]

Originally Posted by Plugg3r

GG G.G, I agreed with everything you said.
But then again the point that SMFC were a VFL team.
Port Adelaide Magpies have never been.

Just remember...I'm not having a dig at or troll at the Swans!

All I meant was, that people who go out of their way to mock Port Adelaide for being 'fake' etc, are wrong. Port Adelaide FC being from the SANFL originally has nothing to do with it, nothing to do with the comment 'But they're not from the vfl".

The point is, as a club, it is over 120 years old, was founded in SA, and played in the SANFL. Ok, cool. But them getting an AFL license and effectively leaving the SANFL (in some form) to play in the AFL is less of a change compared to the Swans for instance. A team founded in Melbourne over a hundred years ago, and THEN relocated (effectively completely) to Sydney and another state.

No one, not me anyway, is arguing that the Swans are NOT born of the Sth Melb Swans, that it has no history in the VFL, etc. All I'm saying is that if you compare those two clubs Port Adelaide Magpies in the SANFL getting 'promoted' to the AFL hasn't altered who they are in any way. The colors and nickname might have changed (only to service Cwood), but they're still an SA team, still THE same Alberton team. Whereas Sth Melb ceased becoming a Melbourne-based team, a Melbourne team, and has now become (in effect) attached far more to their new city/state....as is a required. In order for the Swans to make it in Sydney/NSW, they have to in many ways detach from Sth Melb and Melb. Sydney/NSW people have to support a Sydney/NSW team, so the team has to represent and attach to the new location far more otherwise it won't succeed.

It's like the Kangaroos relocating to the Gold Coast, but retaining the name Nth Melb Kangaroos. That team would be a lie unto itself and to the Gold Coast. Therefore it wouldn't succeed. So, a relocation is actually worse than changing leagues. Even if the Kangaroos do go to GC, there's a strong chance still that people wont accept them because they're a relocated Vic team, not a true GC team. Sydney is different because they were never an Aust Football city. They just needed to be broken down decade by decade until they accepted the game. But in places like WA, SA, TAS, NT, maybe even GC, wherever there's a sense of proud Aust Football history already there, a relocated Vic team is not going to work, and if the GC is going to work it would require the total abandonment of Melbourne for the total embracement of the GC. In that sense, it is far worse to me. E.g., it just wouldn't work at all if Fitzroy relocated to SA and became the Port Adelaide Lions. Or Adelaide Lions. Due to that history/pride, their own comparitively equal stake in Aust Football heritage, that team would NOT have worked.

People say, lucky Fitzroy merged but they've been b'astardized in the process. It would've been better had they just continued on in the new VFL. Retained their full identity and history. IMO that's a fate far better than merging and relocating...because the end result is the same....the club loses it's identity to be absorbed and swallowed up as a new identity (even tho that heritage is still there). Like I said, I would not support a Darwin Power or Cairns Power team. And I am sure that Collingwood or Essendon supporters would jump ship too if they relocated and became Darwin Magpies or Cairns Bombers. They cease representing and being a Melb-based team, a cwood/ess team. It's like if the Australian cricket team relocated to the USA. You're no longer barracking for Australia, but the USA. And it would require this ex-Aussie cricket 'club' to abandon Australia, become USA-based, USA-sponsored, USA-run, etc.

So, it's irrelevant whether Port came from the SANFL or VFL or WAFL. As a club they are still the same club, based at the same Alberton oval, still the same FC that was once the Magpies in black-white and is now the Power in teal. No difference.

There have been many name changes, color changes, guernsey changes and nickname changes with current Vic AFL teams. North Melb, Footscray, Hawthorn, Essendon, Fitzroy etc, all have made changes in this regard, yet it's never looked upon as being a different club without a history or a new history. Port Adelaide may not have a VFL history, but that is irrelevant as they are still the same PAFC with their own history. If tomorrow a new Superleague started and they went and started playing in that, still based at Alberton etc, its no different. Leap frogging from comp to comp isn't the issue, it's the HQ base and the city they belong to. Look how many VFL clubs were ex-VFA clubs. Yet it doesnt change the fact they're still the same club that existed thruout all that time.

If you're not arguing with any of these points, then please explain exactly what it is youre saying or arguing, because otherwise I don't understand exactly what youre debate is here.

[Plugg3r]

Im not saying anything negative against your facts, they're correct.
It all started by saying Port Adelaide have won more GF's then the swans.
But in all fact Swans have won more GF's as SMFC/SFC as they have won them in the AFL.

But we could argue these facts back and forth all day.
The bottom line is.. Sydney rulez all because they're red and white

[g.g.]

Originally Posted by Plugg3r

Im not saying anything negative against your facts, they're correct.

It all started by saying Port Adelaide have won more GF's then the swans.
But in all fact Swans have won more GF's as SMFC/SFC as they have won them in the AFL.

But we could argue these facts back and forth all day.
The bottom line is.. Sydney rulez all because they're red and white

Oh ok, well I wasn't in that original flags debate. I only hopped onto this debate at the end.

But....if it's about flags.....ok, well.....Port have won more flags AS A CLUB, but 34 of those came in the SANFL and 1 more came in the AFL. Whereas the Swans have won 3 in the VFL and 1 in the AFL...or....4 VFL/AFL flags.

So, in relation to THIS league (vfl/afl) the Swans have won more due to being here right from the start over a hundred years ago while Port was naturally involved in their South Australian league. On that level, the Swans have won 3 during the early years of the VFL, and have 1 in the era of the AFL. Port having joined in 1997, have won 1 AFL flag.

It could be argued by some Port people that their 34 beats out your early VFL 3....considering during the early years the WAFL/SANFL and VFL were comparitively equal. But it could be argued also that the only flags that matter are the VFL/AFL ones. Both are correct points of view IMO. However, objectively, the Port Adelaide Football Club as a whole has been far more consistent and successful than the Swans as a club generally speaking.

I guess people could b'tch back and forth trying to big note their club. I'm not gonna do that. But, as factual information, then Swans 4 VFL/AFL > Ports 1 VFL/AFL. And, Swans 1 = Port 1 AFL. And Port 34 SANFL + 1 AFL > Swans 3 VFL + 1 AFL. All those statements are true and factual.

[PAFC]

Originally Posted by Plugg3r

GG G.G, I agreed with everything you said.
But then again the point that SMFC were a VFL team.
Port Adelaide Magpies have never been.

Ugh, the VFL was not the only league in Australia then and just because it was in Victoria it does not mean that the standard was so much higher.

You can not honestly say that 34 SANFL premierships means nothing just because Port weren't in the almightly VFL back then.