Cricket is better off because of Australian Football

Jeffles · Post by **Jeffles** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:16 am

Cricket has benefitted from winter tenants. Lots of sports have benefitted from each other by sharing facilities.

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:20 am

And as the WACA and SACA have shown you can be profitable and redevelop the venue even without a solid winter tenant.

Nines · Post by **Nines** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:27 am

Jeffles wrote:Cricket has benefitted from winter tenants. Lots of sports have benefitted from each other by sharing facilities.

Most people would take that as cricket having benefited from the involvement of Australian Football .

.

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:28 am

Nines wrote:
Jeffles wrote:Cricket has benefitted from winter tenants. Lots of sports have benefitted from each other by sharing facilities.
Most people would take that as cricket having benefited from the involvement of Australian Football .

.

Miss that did we

Nines · Post by **Nines** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:53 am

Egan wrote:Miss that did we

It seems that you and a few other people cannot accept the statement
"cricket having benefited from the involvement of Australian Football"
in it's simplicity .

.

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:56 am

Because its not correct to make a statement that doesn't hold weight everywhere around the country. And thats not your argument you have been touting. Its changed from without Aussie Rules, these grounds would never have been developed...you change your tune when you get corrected.

And as you said previously you can broaden it to include 'winter tenants' not just Aussie Rules.

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:59 am

The problem Nines is that you fail to see that Australian Rules has also benefited from cricket, by cricket allowing Australian Rules Football to use their grounds at the very beginning of the sport.

Cricket pre-dates Aussie Rules.

Let's not look at history, because Nines knows nothing about sports history.

Nines · Post by **Nines** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:23 pm

Egan wrote:And as you said previously you can broaden it to include 'winter tenants' not just Aussie Rules.

What's the point .

We can't get you agreeing to "cricket has benefited from the involvement of Australian Football ."

So what's the chance of you agreeing to " cricket has benefited from the involvement of Australian Football and other winter sports ".

.

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:30 pm

Nines wrote:
We can't get you agreeing to "cricket has benefited from the involvement of Australian Football ."

So what's the chance of you agreeing to " cricket has benefited from the involvement of Australian Football and other winter sports ".

.

I do agree that cricket has benefited by Australian Rules Football just as Australian Rules Football has benefited by cricket, when the SACA, WACA and MCC allowed football to be played on their grounds in the winter season...

But heck Aussie Rules is the saving grace of the world...

What's the point .

Because you have broaden it from Australian Rules Football to winter tenants as well. I am using your words, not mine...

Nines · Post by **Nines** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:34 pm

Egan wrote:I do agree that cricket has benefited by Australian Rules Football .

So you agree ?

.

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:38 pm

Do you agree that Australian Rules Football has benefited by Cricket?

And this is a simplistic and changed argument then you previously debated me on that the cricket grounds have only been developed because of Aussie Rules.

I disagree on this and that has been shown to be untrue.

I also suggest that in the WACA and SACA they have both been able to record profit thus they don't need Australian Rules Football as you have also previously suggested was the case.

Consistency isn't a common thought process for you is it?

Like Jeffles said, all sports benefit from a venue being multi-tenated. But sometimes there are other more pressing issues such as history that mean its not always integral or can be done...

But yes I do agree that cricket has benefited by Australian Rules Football just as much as Australian Rules Football has benefited by Cricket. And that Australian Rules Football needs the MCG and Adelaide Oval more than what it will publicly admit...

Nines · Post by **Nines** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:42 pm

Egan wrote:I do agree that cricket has benefited by Australian Rules Football...

Most people would see that as you agreeing that cricket has benefited from the involvement of Australian Football .

If so , we can move on and widen the debate .

.

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:44 pm

Nines wrote:
Most people would see that as you agreeing that cricket has benefited from the involvement of Australian Football .

If so , we can move on and widen the debate .

.

You have already changed the debate on multiple levels multiple times

just re-read your posts on this thread.

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:44 pm

My statement is that Cricket has no more benefited from Australian Rules Football than Australian Rules Football has benefited from Cricket.

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:49 pm

So can we move this debate on like Nines said that winter tenant and a summer tenant at one ground is desirable, regardless of code? Yet sometimes its not at all possible due to historical impediments that restrict this from happening eg the WACA/SACA example?

Lets not be sport specific

Totally agree . I could have titled the thread cricket is better off because of winter tenants .