TOPIC:

swan42 wrote:

joan trieste wrote:

swan42 wrote:

joan trieste wrote: Alcohol and tobacco are two of the most dangerous substances you can expose yourself to on a regular basis. It is estimated that smoking causes 40 percent of all hospital illnesses whilst alcohol is involved in more than 50 percent of all visits to hospital emergency rooms.

and the non sequitur winner of the year is . . .

If you cannot see the connection to the previous point go back to sleep .

There is ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION between BH's comment and yours. Notwithstanding the non sequitur, your statistics came from what source and what is the Eagles' responsibility for, I presume, reducing these alcohol and tobacco problems?

And what is the correlation between BH's comment and the topic?

joan trieste wrote:

swan42 wrote:

joan trieste wrote:

swan42 wrote:

joan trieste wrote: Alcohol and tobacco are two of the most dangerous substances you can expose yourself to on a regular basis. It is estimated that smoking causes 40 percent of all hospital illnesses whilst alcohol is involved in more than 50 percent of all visits to hospital emergency rooms.

and the non sequitur winner of the year is . . .

If you cannot see the connection to the previous point go back to sleep .

There is ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION between BH's comment and yours. Notwithstanding the non sequitur, your statistics came from what source and what is the Eagles' responsibility for, I presume, reducing these alcohol and tobacco problems?

And what is the correlation between BH's comment and the topic?

Firstly, thank you for accepting that your comments were totally unrelated to those made by BH. The connection between BH's comments and the topic is quite simple. There was a quote saying that something needed to be done to address the decrease in attendances juxtaposed with the inaction during the years where there was a drug culture at the Eagles.

swan42 wrote:

joan trieste wrote:

swan42 wrote:

joan trieste wrote:

swan42 wrote:

joan trieste wrote: Alcohol and tobacco are two of the most dangerous substances you can expose yourself to on a regular basis. It is estimated that smoking causes 40 percent of all hospital illnesses whilst alcohol is involved in more than 50 percent of all visits to hospital emergency rooms.

and the non sequitur winner of the year is . . .

If you cannot see the connection to the previous point go back to sleep .

There is ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION between BH's comment and yours. Notwithstanding the non sequitur, your statistics came from what source and what is the Eagles' responsibility for, I presume, reducing these alcohol and tobacco problems?

And what is the correlation between BH's comment and the topic?

Firstly, thank you for accepting that your comments were totally unrelated to those made by BH. The connection between BH's comments and the topic is quite simple. There was a quote saying that something needed to be done to address the decrease in attendances juxtaposed with the inaction during the years where there was a drug culture at the Eagles.

My comment was in response to BH's, you should accept that. The point i was trying to make is what constitutes a drug culture? Alcohol and smoking have a far greater impact on our society and health than the drugs that a few players at the eagles (and probably every other club) were dabbling with 10 years ago and should be acknowledged as one of the dominant parts of our drug culture. That really should not be too hard to decipher. Just as the poor crowds are probably related to the poor playing form of the club. What the crowd figures has to do with Nisbett not knowing about the private lives of some players i am not sure.

joan trieste wrote:

swan42 wrote:

joan trieste wrote:

swan42 wrote:

joan trieste wrote:

swan42 wrote:

joan trieste wrote: Alcohol and tobacco are two of the most dangerous substances you can expose yourself to on a regular basis. It is estimated that smoking causes 40 percent of all hospital illnesses whilst alcohol is involved in more than 50 percent of all visits to hospital emergency rooms.

and the non sequitur winner of the year is . . .

If you cannot see the connection to the previous point go back to sleep .

There is ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION between BH's comment and yours. Notwithstanding the non sequitur, your statistics came from what source and what is the Eagles' responsibility for, I presume, reducing these alcohol and tobacco problems?

And what is the correlation between BH's comment and the topic?

Firstly, thank you for accepting that your comments were totally unrelated to those made by BH. The connection between BH's comments and the topic is quite simple. There was a quote saying that something needed to be done to address the decrease in attendances juxtaposed with the inaction during the years where there was a drug culture at the Eagles.

My comment was in response to BH's, you should accept that. The point i was trying to make is what constitutes a drug culture? Alcohol and smoking have a far greater impact on our society and health than the drugs that a few players at the eagles (and probably every other club) were dabbling with 10 years ago and should be acknowledged as one of the dominant parts of our drug culture. That really should not be too hard to decipher. Just as the poor crowds are probably related to the poor playing form of the club. What the crowd figures has to do with Nisbett not knowing about the private lives of some players i am not sure.

Where does one start. Firstly, 8 of the Eagles' players when interviewed by your coach admitted to indulging in non-legal drugs. How anyone can say that there was not sufficient circumstantial evidence to suggest that the Eagles' hierarchy were not aware to the possibility is deluding themselves. Thirdly, tobacco and alcohol are not illegal drugs and it is disingenuous in the extreme to try to included them in a discussion about illicit drugs.

Listening to the ABC on the way home from Basso it was interesting that the reasons for poor crowds went from team performances to the facilities and a combination of both, seems the weagles supporters (and I dare say the dorkers ones) want everything .

The AFL experience should be a a prelude game, a comfortable seat and a good game of football.

Not an entertainment experience unless Debbie comes to town.

Joan - what constitues a drug culture mmmm wait a moment, wait oh yeah most of perth and any other population centre in the 21st century.

Next question, what is the difference between an AFL football team (not club cos they ain't) and the rest of the community, nothing they will be a reflection of the morales, values etc of what is around them.

What does this mean to crowds not much, perhaps that if there was drug testing of players and crowds as the arrive or leave we might see lots of folks being booked.

I would lay odds that the muppet that ran on the ground yesterday was on something other that the demon liquour, he was a collingwood support after all.

Grump wrote: Listening to the ABC on the way home from Basso it was interesting that the reasons for poor crowds went from team performances to the facilities and a combination of both, seems the weagles supporters (and I dare say the dorkers ones) want everything .

The AFL experience should be a a prelude game, a comfortable seat and a good game of football.

Not an entertainment experience unless Debbie comes to town.

Spot on, once we started having ground announcers asking us who we barrack for etc ( ok for kds, but i worry when adults start yelling) then all the adds on the pa ( of course hold up a bottle of coke and win coke esky...wow!!) aint footy at all. Nothing beats the GENUINE anticipation of waiting fer yer team to run out before a big match, and the nerves kick in. The other stuff means shyte (music, stuffed animals running around the boundary line means jack). Dont get me started on the corporate buffons who wouldnt know a football form a soccer ball, but pledge thier undying love for thier beloved team. Last time i experienced some real footy passion was going to a wafl match, talking to people who had real passion for the game, NOT the event. Now gillon and nisbett want more circus events and less about the actual game

Bloody joke Nisbett...lowest crowds in 13 years well done.

UNKA2 wrote:

Grump wrote: Listening to the ABC on the way home from Basso it was interesting that the reasons for poor crowds went from team performances to the facilities and a combination of both, seems the weagles supporters (and I dare say the dorkers ones) want everything .

The AFL experience should be a a prelude game, a comfortable seat and a good game of football.

Not an entertainment experience unless Debbie comes to town.

Spot on, once we started having ground announcers asking us who we barrack for etc ( ok for kds, but i worry when adults start yelling) then all the adds on the pa ( of course hold up a bottle of coke and win coke esky...wow!!) aint footy at all. Nothing beats the GENUINE anticipation of waiting fer yer team to run out before a big match, and the nerves kick in. The other stuff means shyte (music, stuffed animals running around the boundary line means jack). Dont get me started on the corporate buffons who wouldnt know a football form a soccer ball, but pledge thier undying love for thier beloved team. Last time i experienced some real footy passion was going to a wafl match, talking to people who had real passion for the game, NOT the event. Now gillon and nisbett want more circus events and less about the actual game

Unk these blokes like Nisbett, Gillon & his dictator predecessor are so out of touch with real footy & real footy people it is actually scary ..and just think these clowns are actually running OUR game!

UNKA2 wrote:

30plusyeardrought wrote: Nisbett did say it was a range of factors including the "teams poor form".
2 of those home games with poor crowds were due to shocking weather and that would have affected any crowd anywhere in an outdoor football stadium in Australia.

As Nisbett stated "we cant put our head in the sand and say look theres nothing to fix".

I see nothing wrong with good entertainment before a game and i saw nothing wrong with the article.

"Good entertainment", was in the old days the ressies before the main game. Pre game it was taking to yer mates and talking all things footy. Now we get playschool type dress up costumes, etc etc. Spare me. I go to watch good footy, thats why i go. If i want to be entertained i will go to the flicks etc. Fix the GAME before ya FIX anything else!! I hate this manufactered FAKE PASSION.

Yep its amazing, how they dont realise people are just bored with the product, apart from the its too expensive the facilities are crap and people have found better things to do.

I reckon so many now just watch live on Foxtel...

The new 60,000 seat stadium will be interesting, I reckon dockers crowds have probaly peaked about now, and eagles have to make up 10,000 a game to get back to their peak, long way to come from to fill 60,000 seats.