This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I believe the league is creating a third division for the 2009 season, article needs to be edited appropriately. CTDU ( talk) 06:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
this article confirms the introduction of a 3rd division in 2009. CTDU ( talk) 02:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The article is far to long and has to much information with little significance . —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Living God ( talk • contribs) 05:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the information for the clubs from the bottom of the atricle to the top, changed the division 2 club information to be the same as the div 1 information and merged the DVFL and NFL section of the premiers as they are not seperated anywhere else.
What about the updating of life members beyond 2004. Selegie ( talk) 06:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
A note. The third division is provisional only. It should only be added once it becomes permanent. It will not be permanent if at least two clubs who are presently fielding Under 19's (Keon Park and St.Marys) do not field senior teams in 2010. The addition of a third division section should wait until then. AFL-Cool 03:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
To the IP that added the speculation in the DV Leader newspaper - whilst there may be a chance that St.Marys may be fielding a team in 2010, it is also the case that Panton Hill may be leaving for the YVMDFL. Either way - it's crystal balling that will only be settled when the 2010 draw comes out. AFL-Cool 23:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I dont need to prove that their staying, you need prove that there leaving 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 10:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field." The NFL source is a self-published source. It is a legitimate source and I havee meet the wikipedia burden of proof. Panton Hill leaving is orginal research so has no bearing on this article. 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 11:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
http://diamond-valley-leader.whereilive.com.au/sport/story/nfl-third-division-gets-go-ahead/ A third party soure 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 21:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
In 2009 the was a division 2 premiers and a division 3 premiers. There was none of this 2a and 2b premiers bullshit According to club they was division 3 premiers in 2009 http://www.sportingpulse.com/club_info.cgi?c=1-3913-48184-0-0&sID=48046&&news_task=DETAIL&articleID=10032783§ionID=48046 According to the league Parkside was division 3 premiers in 2009 http://nfl.org.au/Football-Division-2-3/finally.html "Elsewhere, Parkside were able to overcome a one goal half-time deficit to win the inaugural Division 3 premiership. Having been the favourite going into the game, Parkside continued their excellent 2009 form and ran out 16 point winners, 12.9 (81) to Hurstbridge's 8.17 (65)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 23:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
See NFL 2011 Annual report,page 47. "NFL Division 3 Premiers 2009 Parkside". http://nfl.org.au/images/records/2011%20NFL%20Annual%20Report.pdf 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 07:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
See the date on the first page,"As adopted December 14th 2010." The 2009 season was not played under the the 2011 by-laws, it was played under the 2009 by-laws. To substantiate your argument require you to provide the 2009 NFL by-laws. Even then your agrument in wrong. The NFL offical records as per the NFL annual report has Parkside winning the 2009 division 3 premership. In this case the only NFL offical records are the ulitmate authority. 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 07:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The 2000 by-laws are not the 2009 by-laws. Until you can provide the 2009 by-laws you have no evidence. 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 00:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Section 5.3 (b)The Board may otherwise promote, relegate or refuse to promote any club in the event that: (iii) there are any other circumstances which, in the opinion of the Board, require a club to be promoted, relegated or refused promotion, including those clubs that have not met their financial commitments to the NFL. Promition/Relegation can be determined at the discretion of the board, Promotion is not a prerequisite to be recongised as an offical premiership. 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 01:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
2011 NFL By-Laws
Section 5.3
(b)The Board may otherwise promote, relegate or refuse to promote any club in the event that:
(iii) there are any other circumstances which, in the opinion of the Board, require a club to be promoted, relegated or refused promotion, including those clubs that have not met their financial commitments to the NFL.
60.240.231.203 (
talk)
02:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The rules don't state that they must be promoted. 5.3(b)(iii) clearly gives the board the power to promote and relegate clubs at their discretion. It is possible officially win a premiership and not get promoted under the NFL by-laws therefore Parkside not getting promoted is not evidence they didn't offical win a premiership. In which case the offical records in the NFL annual report is the only evidence we have and that says parkside did win the D3 premiership. 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 02:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
If a temporary rule existed than it was an offical D3 premership, if no temporary rule existed then 5.3(b)(iii) allowed them to win the premiership without getting promoted therefore as per the NFL annual report it was an offical D3 premiership. Either way I am right. 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 03:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
You have provided no proof of the existence of this temporary rule change and as I said so earlier if it does exist it also supports my argument. The NFL annual report supports my argument, the Parkside Football club website supports my argument, the NFL website supports my argument and the 2011 NFL by-laws does not support your argument. 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 04:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
"The Board may otherwise refuse to promote any club in the event that there are any other circumstances which, in the opinion of the Board, requires a club to be refused promotion." It doesn't require alot if interpreting to understand what that means. The NFL board can deny a club promotion for any reason that it think necessary. That means it is possible for a club to win the premiership and not got promoted hence refuting your agrument that it can't be a proper premership because they weren't promoted. That just leaves us with the NFL annual report which clearly state that Parkside won the D3 A grade premiership, Hurstbridge won the D3 B Grade premership and Robbie Wise win the D3 League BNF in 2009. Hornberger1 ( talk) 04:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
It looks like the current edit has to stay as is. I spoke to the NFL at their office again, and I was told that the 2009 By Laws were no longer available as they had been updated at the beginning of 2010 and no record was kept. That means that unless the existence of the temporary rule can be verified by other means, the current verifiable evidence leaves the clash intact. Just to review;
It has been pointed out to me that independant third party sources would now be needed. Until then, under WP rules the current edit has to stay. The gentleman I spoke to at the NFL told me that he would keep his eyes open for something that will help, but neither of us were very confident. After all, who would keep old by laws that have been superceded? It's very frustrating and exposes a hole in WP rules, but I doubt anything can be done about it. Footy Freak7 ( talk) 11:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
A club is entitled to be promoted unless;
A Living God (
talk)
07:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Uhh Living God, read it again. It says "the club whose A Grade team were premiers in Division 2 in the previous season shall be promoted to Division 1" (with the same applying between 3 and 2). That's the compulsory promotion that you believe isn't there, and that's the league's interpretation that has been in place since 1981, with only Watsonia avoiding it due to clause 1. None of the four clauses noted applied to Parkside in 2009 under the current by laws. That's why we need the 2009 by laws including that temporary rule change I spoke of. That's what can't be verified at the moment. Footy Freak7 ( talk) 21:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
"however the NFL by laws state that any premiership won in that division would mean that club would be promoted the following season and Parkside did not make the move to Division Two in 2010."
The NFL By-laws does not say that at all. The by-laws quiet cleary says a club can be refused promotion if there are any circumstances which, in the opinion of the Board, require a club to be refused promotion. This shouldn't be up for debate. The meaning is quiet clear. Footyfreak is just being obtuse trying to deny the obivious because it doesn't agree with his opinion. Once you disgread the argument about the by-laws all you have left is the NFL offical histroy and that says Parkside won the division 3 premiership. I would have no objections have a note saying the 2009 division 3 premership was won in a part season but any way you look at it was a division 3 premiership
60.240.231.203 (
talk)
10:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
You can't just look at 5.3(a) will ignoring section 5.3(b). They must be read together. When read together they say.
A club shall be entitled to participate in the division in which it participated in the previous season PROVIDED THAT the club whose A Grade team were premiers in Division 2 in the previous season shall be promoted to Division 1 and the club whose A Grade team finished bottom in Division 1, shall be relegated to Division 2. The same shall apply between Division 2 and Division 3. The Board may otherwise promote, relegate or refuse to promote any club in the event that there are any other circumstances which, in the opinion of the Board, require a club to be promoted, relegated or refused promotion.
It is your opinion that the Parkside premiership was not with in accordance to the NFL by-laws then it is up to you to prove it. I have evidence that Parkside won the division 3 premiership (the NFL official by-laws.)
60.240.231.203 (
talk) 04:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
1) Does section 5.3(b)(iii) give the NFL board the power to refuse a club a promition for any reasons the board deem necessary? Yes or No.
2) Given you answer for Question 1, Is it possible for a club to win a premiership and not be granted promition? Yes or No.
60.240.231.203 (
talk)
04:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I take no side in this dispute (see WP:WRONGVERSION) but backwards and forwards edit warring is only being disruptive to the encyclopaedia. You will need to resolve this on the talk page or find an independent person to determine the best way forward. Moondyne ( talk) 06:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
http://nfl.org.au/Football-Division-2-3/finally.html
Elsewhere, Parkside were able to overcome a one goal half-time deficit to win the inaugural Division 3 premiership. Having been the favourite going into the game, Parkside continued their excellent 2009 form and ran out 16 point winners, 12.9 (81) to Hurstbridge's 8.17 (65).
http://nfl.org.au/History/league-premiers.html
Division 3
2009
Parkside
http://nfl.org.au/images/records/2011%20NFL%20Annual%20Report.pdf
Division 3
2009
Parkside
http://www.sportingpulse.com/club_info.cgi?c=1-3913-48184-0-0&sID=48046&&news_task=DETAIL&articleID=10032783
Parkside FC - 2009 NFL Div 3 Premiers.
I have multiple sources that say Parkside won the division 3 premiership in 2009. Footy Freak's entire argument is that the NFL by-laws requires a club to promoted as Parkside was not promoted it couldn't have been an offical premiership. This factually incorrect, this can be confirmed by anybody who reads the NFL by-laws. The NFL by-laws state the board can refuse to promote a club for any reason which the board deems necessary. Making it possible for a club to win a premership and not get promoted without breaching the NFL by-laws. Therefore Parkside not getting promoted does not form evidence that it was not an offical premiership. It was announced by league prior to the 2009 season and then again when division 2 was spilt that the winner of division would not get promoted.
http://nfl.org.au/Football-Division-2-3/division-23-recap.html
The league consider Parkside as the offical division 3 premiers, the club consider themselves division 3 premiers. The only person that disagree is Footy Freak and he has no evidence to support his agrument.
60.240.231.203 (
talk)
07:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
So if you are choosing to ignore the NFL offical history are you saying the NFL opinion doesn't matter? 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 00:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
hey doofus! dont you know an emergency rule when you see one? what was the emergency? parkside won nothing in 09 and havent won any real ones since! go the bridge! 203.17.215.23 ( talk) 04:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I just want to point out that I thought the by laws were a valid source to contradict the claims to the premiership. The origin of the view that I agreed with was the other IP (not the 203 just above by the way - the other one). It has now been established that the by laws can't be used as a source at all. This I did not know, so the clash is now no longer valid and I have been accidentally and honestly misled - unless that other IP can come up with a valid third party source. All my visits to the NFL (I already knew this and I haven't at any stage used that info in the article - like the temporary rule that overcame the issue with the by laws anyway) were OR. So I will seek to have the page unlocked and I'll fix it up. To the other IP (not the 203) if you want to reverse it all again, YOU are the one that has to provide the source to show specifically that Parkside should have been promoted and were not. And it has to come from outside both the NFL and Parkside, and it has to be a reliable source. Footy Freak7 ( talk) 22:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Additionally though, to IP 60 - you have conducted yourself rather poorly throughout this. I strongly recommend that you review WP:BAIT as you did upset me greatly during this debate with your repeats and so on. It doesn't matter if you were right. The way you conducted yourself was far from above board and you constantly drew me back to make your point - which actually when it came to the by laws you were just as wrong as I was. There were no specifics as to the application of 5.3(b)(iii). Mind you as has been pointed out to me, there is no reliable evidence of any application of the by laws full stop, which is where I was in the wrong as indeed was that other IP (not 203, although he was wrong as well). So I suggest you don't use this experience as the correct way to go about things - even if as I said you were right all along about Parkside's claim under WP rules. However, what can't be disputed is the fact that they spent part of 2009 in Division 2 (as did the other teams) so we do still need the footnote for that at least. Footy Freak7 ( talk) 22:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
And I have now restored the statistic edits of IP 60, but I kept my version (Jevansen's with edits) of the footnote, with the reference to the by laws removed completely and replaced with a simple reference to the lack of promotion and no verifiable reasons behind it. As I said in the edit summary, that should be an end to it. Footy Freak7 ( talk) 01:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The NFL is now the NFNL as it has incorporated Netball. Is there a way to amend the title of the page or would a new page be required? (sorry only new to this but need page correct as all clubs link to this page) [1] ACH0505 ( talk) 06:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I believe the league is creating a third division for the 2009 season, article needs to be edited appropriately. CTDU ( talk) 06:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
this article confirms the introduction of a 3rd division in 2009. CTDU ( talk) 02:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The article is far to long and has to much information with little significance . —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Living God ( talk • contribs) 05:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the information for the clubs from the bottom of the atricle to the top, changed the division 2 club information to be the same as the div 1 information and merged the DVFL and NFL section of the premiers as they are not seperated anywhere else.
What about the updating of life members beyond 2004. Selegie ( talk) 06:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
A note. The third division is provisional only. It should only be added once it becomes permanent. It will not be permanent if at least two clubs who are presently fielding Under 19's (Keon Park and St.Marys) do not field senior teams in 2010. The addition of a third division section should wait until then. AFL-Cool 03:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
To the IP that added the speculation in the DV Leader newspaper - whilst there may be a chance that St.Marys may be fielding a team in 2010, it is also the case that Panton Hill may be leaving for the YVMDFL. Either way - it's crystal balling that will only be settled when the 2010 draw comes out. AFL-Cool 23:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I dont need to prove that their staying, you need prove that there leaving 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 10:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field." The NFL source is a self-published source. It is a legitimate source and I havee meet the wikipedia burden of proof. Panton Hill leaving is orginal research so has no bearing on this article. 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 11:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
http://diamond-valley-leader.whereilive.com.au/sport/story/nfl-third-division-gets-go-ahead/ A third party soure 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 21:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
In 2009 the was a division 2 premiers and a division 3 premiers. There was none of this 2a and 2b premiers bullshit According to club they was division 3 premiers in 2009 http://www.sportingpulse.com/club_info.cgi?c=1-3913-48184-0-0&sID=48046&&news_task=DETAIL&articleID=10032783§ionID=48046 According to the league Parkside was division 3 premiers in 2009 http://nfl.org.au/Football-Division-2-3/finally.html "Elsewhere, Parkside were able to overcome a one goal half-time deficit to win the inaugural Division 3 premiership. Having been the favourite going into the game, Parkside continued their excellent 2009 form and ran out 16 point winners, 12.9 (81) to Hurstbridge's 8.17 (65)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 23:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
See NFL 2011 Annual report,page 47. "NFL Division 3 Premiers 2009 Parkside". http://nfl.org.au/images/records/2011%20NFL%20Annual%20Report.pdf 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 07:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
See the date on the first page,"As adopted December 14th 2010." The 2009 season was not played under the the 2011 by-laws, it was played under the 2009 by-laws. To substantiate your argument require you to provide the 2009 NFL by-laws. Even then your agrument in wrong. The NFL offical records as per the NFL annual report has Parkside winning the 2009 division 3 premership. In this case the only NFL offical records are the ulitmate authority. 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 07:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The 2000 by-laws are not the 2009 by-laws. Until you can provide the 2009 by-laws you have no evidence. 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 00:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Section 5.3 (b)The Board may otherwise promote, relegate or refuse to promote any club in the event that: (iii) there are any other circumstances which, in the opinion of the Board, require a club to be promoted, relegated or refused promotion, including those clubs that have not met their financial commitments to the NFL. Promition/Relegation can be determined at the discretion of the board, Promotion is not a prerequisite to be recongised as an offical premiership. 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 01:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
2011 NFL By-Laws
Section 5.3
(b)The Board may otherwise promote, relegate or refuse to promote any club in the event that:
(iii) there are any other circumstances which, in the opinion of the Board, require a club to be promoted, relegated or refused promotion, including those clubs that have not met their financial commitments to the NFL.
60.240.231.203 (
talk)
02:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The rules don't state that they must be promoted. 5.3(b)(iii) clearly gives the board the power to promote and relegate clubs at their discretion. It is possible officially win a premiership and not get promoted under the NFL by-laws therefore Parkside not getting promoted is not evidence they didn't offical win a premiership. In which case the offical records in the NFL annual report is the only evidence we have and that says parkside did win the D3 premiership. 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 02:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
If a temporary rule existed than it was an offical D3 premership, if no temporary rule existed then 5.3(b)(iii) allowed them to win the premiership without getting promoted therefore as per the NFL annual report it was an offical D3 premiership. Either way I am right. 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 03:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
You have provided no proof of the existence of this temporary rule change and as I said so earlier if it does exist it also supports my argument. The NFL annual report supports my argument, the Parkside Football club website supports my argument, the NFL website supports my argument and the 2011 NFL by-laws does not support your argument. 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 04:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
"The Board may otherwise refuse to promote any club in the event that there are any other circumstances which, in the opinion of the Board, requires a club to be refused promotion." It doesn't require alot if interpreting to understand what that means. The NFL board can deny a club promotion for any reason that it think necessary. That means it is possible for a club to win the premiership and not got promoted hence refuting your agrument that it can't be a proper premership because they weren't promoted. That just leaves us with the NFL annual report which clearly state that Parkside won the D3 A grade premiership, Hurstbridge won the D3 B Grade premership and Robbie Wise win the D3 League BNF in 2009. Hornberger1 ( talk) 04:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
It looks like the current edit has to stay as is. I spoke to the NFL at their office again, and I was told that the 2009 By Laws were no longer available as they had been updated at the beginning of 2010 and no record was kept. That means that unless the existence of the temporary rule can be verified by other means, the current verifiable evidence leaves the clash intact. Just to review;
It has been pointed out to me that independant third party sources would now be needed. Until then, under WP rules the current edit has to stay. The gentleman I spoke to at the NFL told me that he would keep his eyes open for something that will help, but neither of us were very confident. After all, who would keep old by laws that have been superceded? It's very frustrating and exposes a hole in WP rules, but I doubt anything can be done about it. Footy Freak7 ( talk) 11:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
A club is entitled to be promoted unless;
A Living God (
talk)
07:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Uhh Living God, read it again. It says "the club whose A Grade team were premiers in Division 2 in the previous season shall be promoted to Division 1" (with the same applying between 3 and 2). That's the compulsory promotion that you believe isn't there, and that's the league's interpretation that has been in place since 1981, with only Watsonia avoiding it due to clause 1. None of the four clauses noted applied to Parkside in 2009 under the current by laws. That's why we need the 2009 by laws including that temporary rule change I spoke of. That's what can't be verified at the moment. Footy Freak7 ( talk) 21:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
"however the NFL by laws state that any premiership won in that division would mean that club would be promoted the following season and Parkside did not make the move to Division Two in 2010."
The NFL By-laws does not say that at all. The by-laws quiet cleary says a club can be refused promotion if there are any circumstances which, in the opinion of the Board, require a club to be refused promotion. This shouldn't be up for debate. The meaning is quiet clear. Footyfreak is just being obtuse trying to deny the obivious because it doesn't agree with his opinion. Once you disgread the argument about the by-laws all you have left is the NFL offical histroy and that says Parkside won the division 3 premiership. I would have no objections have a note saying the 2009 division 3 premership was won in a part season but any way you look at it was a division 3 premiership
60.240.231.203 (
talk)
10:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
You can't just look at 5.3(a) will ignoring section 5.3(b). They must be read together. When read together they say.
A club shall be entitled to participate in the division in which it participated in the previous season PROVIDED THAT the club whose A Grade team were premiers in Division 2 in the previous season shall be promoted to Division 1 and the club whose A Grade team finished bottom in Division 1, shall be relegated to Division 2. The same shall apply between Division 2 and Division 3. The Board may otherwise promote, relegate or refuse to promote any club in the event that there are any other circumstances which, in the opinion of the Board, require a club to be promoted, relegated or refused promotion.
It is your opinion that the Parkside premiership was not with in accordance to the NFL by-laws then it is up to you to prove it. I have evidence that Parkside won the division 3 premiership (the NFL official by-laws.)
60.240.231.203 (
talk) 04:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
1) Does section 5.3(b)(iii) give the NFL board the power to refuse a club a promition for any reasons the board deem necessary? Yes or No.
2) Given you answer for Question 1, Is it possible for a club to win a premiership and not be granted promition? Yes or No.
60.240.231.203 (
talk)
04:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I take no side in this dispute (see WP:WRONGVERSION) but backwards and forwards edit warring is only being disruptive to the encyclopaedia. You will need to resolve this on the talk page or find an independent person to determine the best way forward. Moondyne ( talk) 06:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
http://nfl.org.au/Football-Division-2-3/finally.html
Elsewhere, Parkside were able to overcome a one goal half-time deficit to win the inaugural Division 3 premiership. Having been the favourite going into the game, Parkside continued their excellent 2009 form and ran out 16 point winners, 12.9 (81) to Hurstbridge's 8.17 (65).
http://nfl.org.au/History/league-premiers.html
Division 3
2009
Parkside
http://nfl.org.au/images/records/2011%20NFL%20Annual%20Report.pdf
Division 3
2009
Parkside
http://www.sportingpulse.com/club_info.cgi?c=1-3913-48184-0-0&sID=48046&&news_task=DETAIL&articleID=10032783
Parkside FC - 2009 NFL Div 3 Premiers.
I have multiple sources that say Parkside won the division 3 premiership in 2009. Footy Freak's entire argument is that the NFL by-laws requires a club to promoted as Parkside was not promoted it couldn't have been an offical premiership. This factually incorrect, this can be confirmed by anybody who reads the NFL by-laws. The NFL by-laws state the board can refuse to promote a club for any reason which the board deems necessary. Making it possible for a club to win a premership and not get promoted without breaching the NFL by-laws. Therefore Parkside not getting promoted does not form evidence that it was not an offical premiership. It was announced by league prior to the 2009 season and then again when division 2 was spilt that the winner of division would not get promoted.
http://nfl.org.au/Football-Division-2-3/division-23-recap.html
The league consider Parkside as the offical division 3 premiers, the club consider themselves division 3 premiers. The only person that disagree is Footy Freak and he has no evidence to support his agrument.
60.240.231.203 (
talk)
07:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
So if you are choosing to ignore the NFL offical history are you saying the NFL opinion doesn't matter? 60.240.231.203 ( talk) 00:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
hey doofus! dont you know an emergency rule when you see one? what was the emergency? parkside won nothing in 09 and havent won any real ones since! go the bridge! 203.17.215.23 ( talk) 04:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I just want to point out that I thought the by laws were a valid source to contradict the claims to the premiership. The origin of the view that I agreed with was the other IP (not the 203 just above by the way - the other one). It has now been established that the by laws can't be used as a source at all. This I did not know, so the clash is now no longer valid and I have been accidentally and honestly misled - unless that other IP can come up with a valid third party source. All my visits to the NFL (I already knew this and I haven't at any stage used that info in the article - like the temporary rule that overcame the issue with the by laws anyway) were OR. So I will seek to have the page unlocked and I'll fix it up. To the other IP (not the 203) if you want to reverse it all again, YOU are the one that has to provide the source to show specifically that Parkside should have been promoted and were not. And it has to come from outside both the NFL and Parkside, and it has to be a reliable source. Footy Freak7 ( talk) 22:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Additionally though, to IP 60 - you have conducted yourself rather poorly throughout this. I strongly recommend that you review WP:BAIT as you did upset me greatly during this debate with your repeats and so on. It doesn't matter if you were right. The way you conducted yourself was far from above board and you constantly drew me back to make your point - which actually when it came to the by laws you were just as wrong as I was. There were no specifics as to the application of 5.3(b)(iii). Mind you as has been pointed out to me, there is no reliable evidence of any application of the by laws full stop, which is where I was in the wrong as indeed was that other IP (not 203, although he was wrong as well). So I suggest you don't use this experience as the correct way to go about things - even if as I said you were right all along about Parkside's claim under WP rules. However, what can't be disputed is the fact that they spent part of 2009 in Division 2 (as did the other teams) so we do still need the footnote for that at least. Footy Freak7 ( talk) 22:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
And I have now restored the statistic edits of IP 60, but I kept my version (Jevansen's with edits) of the footnote, with the reference to the by laws removed completely and replaced with a simple reference to the lack of promotion and no verifiable reasons behind it. As I said in the edit summary, that should be an end to it. Footy Freak7 ( talk) 01:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The NFL is now the NFNL as it has incorporated Netball. Is there a way to amend the title of the page or would a new page be required? (sorry only new to this but need page correct as all clubs link to this page) [1] ACH0505 ( talk) 06:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)