HE LIVES.
Welcome back Ryan
Lucky it wasn't in the Herald Sun then it would have been a FACT
HE LIVES.
Welcome back Ryan
i'd just like to take credit for that after mentioning blitz in an email to him , he replied that i should get back on there
well done ryan bravo
HE LIVES.
Welcome back Ryan
i'd just like to take credit for that after mentioning blitz in an email to him , he replied that i should get back on there
well done ryan bravo
This is true
i was going to say you have a lot to catch up on Ryab but then i realised that:
a) more stuff was deleted from this site in the past year than was deleted in the past 10; and
b) we have just been saying the same things over and over again so you should get the gist of it pretty quick.
I've been here all along just reading and taking it in. Many of the topics over the last year were either a.) about footy, which you all are probably more qualified than me to weigh in on; or b.) about topics that, obviously, I couldn't really discuss. But happy to get a more active again, especially when it's topics that I can shed some light on.
oh crap, it means you read all the insulting things i said about you!
jks.
How embarrassment for the PR image of the AFL and The Age, but there is no such thing as a sanity clause.
How embarrassment for the PR image of the AFL and The Age, but there is no such thing as a sanity clause.
WHAT?..................NO SANITY CLAUSE?
Then where do all the presents come from at Xmas?
I've been here all along just reading and taking it in. Many of the topics over the last year were either a.) about footy, which you all are probably more qualified than me to weigh in on; or b.) about topics that, obviously, I couldn't really discuss. But happy to get a more active again, especially when it's topics that I can shed some light on.
Go to the Sorry Saga thread.
I dare you.
Something fishy has gone on here, and the AFL have been caught out.
There's a lot in the AFL's wording that is still inconsistent, and I don't understand how the deal works, especially since the original article was ambiguous too.
So has their been ANY change at all to the ticketing? If not, then theage should cop their whack, poor Vlad.
The AFL's correction isn't really clear though. I'm not sure what the difference between "free tickets" and "free allocation" is, but I guess the fact that there is a difference makes me think that the allocation might have been reduced.
It seems that the TPI (which is basically injured vets) get an allocation, but not everyone who marches, or every ex-service man/woman gets in. And this goes for ALL games, and Anzac day would be the main one the vets visiting Melbourne on 25th April would want to get into.
What I'd like to know is how exactly people are eligible, and how do they apply for and obtain entry?
It could be a case that the seats are rarely used and so the allocation is being reduced, but we wouldn't know, because the media don't want to make things clear, they just want to create intrigue and take credit for people being caught out.
If nothing else veterans deserve as many tickets as they can carry for having to put up with all the bullshit about players "going to battle" etc from commentators and journalists.
The comments about war post '10 gf draw were disgraceful.