I haven’t read it but I’m guessing the gist of Barrett’s bollocks is something along the lines of sheil 50 50 on joining Essendon late in the deal. And basically saying he nearly chose Carlton. Without ever actually backing up with a source of how he came to that conclusion. And then sheil basically saying he had nothing to do with discussions and always new he was going to Essendon, which basically contradicts anything barratt said.
Amirite amirite amirite.
I’m against train spotting begbie like violence but I would go to great lengths to toss a pint glass directly on his noggin before inciting a full blown riot on his person.
8 Likes
You sir, are a well mannered gentleman. I suspect many would do far worse.
2 Likes
What I took away from Shiel’s account of how the trade got over the line is that GWS asked him to change his mind after they had offloaded enough players to resolve their salary cap issues.
Not only did Shiel choose us over $$$ he wanted us more than staying at GWS, Carlton were no longer on his radar once he chose us.
The hold up was GWS no longer wanted to let Shiel go and left Jackets with no leverage, and GWS weren’t going to let Jackets pay anything less than full price.
I reckon Barrett was listening to SOS or just made shiit up for some drama. He did seem to believe his own BS though. To the point of asking Shiel to confirm it. Shiel was very clear though. I really like his lack of BS.
However I was surprised Shiel gave XC and Jackets all the credit. Woosha doesn’t seem to be on his radar yet.
3 Likes
I watched the last pet of the televised trading.
Barrett was trying to fire things up at the end, Cornes was having none of it saying ‘well played Essendon…’’, then it seemed right near the end Cornes suggesting it could fall over.
But right throughout they kept saying they were 100% the deal would get done…
Barrett was trying to sell the idea that Shiel had changed his mind for the Carlton $$$ though. And saying it was only human to have second thoughts about walking away from extra millions.
2 Likes
Shiel is absolutely a staunch Bomber. He is thrilled to bits to be at the club and that enthusiasm will filter through on every level imaginable. We are very lucky to have him.
Welcome to Bomberland Shiely, we can’t wait to see you running around with the boys in the red and black.
Exciting times ahead. Go Bombers.
btw…screw Carlton.
2 Likes
Tbh i don’t think woosha was needed to sell the club football wise to shiel.
all i’ve heard and read about shiel over the last few weeks is how meticulous he was in coming to his decision. I reckon he evaluated which club would benefit him and which club would benefit from him. We have a clear deficiency in our midfield and he goes a long way to solving that.
What xavier and disco had to do was convince him about the organisation that is the essendon football club could do for him off field and in terms of culture. and as feral as us fans get (me included), the football club looks like a wonderful place to work right now (maybe not the membership department, but then you’re dealing directly with us fuckwits).
If Xavier gets us to a flag under his watch step aside Gale, there’s a new young CEO of melbourne.
5 Likes
More excited by seeing Shiel,than I am eating my next Vietnamese Pork Roll.
And I don’t say that lightly.
8 Likes
He will follow the tradition of winning the BnF in his first year. Guaranteed.
Less vs fewer
Every Grammar Rule Is Wrong
Marko Ticak
5-6 minutes
Rules are rules, and they exist for a reason. They create order and minimize uncertainty. They are necessary because nothing would work without them. But some people don’t seem to understand that.
They don’t understand why it’s bad to split your infinitives, or why you shouldn’t start a sentence with a conjunction, or why you can’t end it with a preposition. Some people just don’t care. Some people just want to watch the world burn, fuelled by the misuse of “good” for “well,” and “while” for “though.” But if the world really depends on people adhering to those strict and sometimes obscure grammar rules, it might as well burn. Because all of the pedantic rules mentioned above are wrong. Forget everything you know, grammar pedant, because it’s all a lie.
Okay, so maybe the world won’t burn, and maybe not everything you know about grammar is a lie. A lot of it might be, though. Some grammar rules are simply myths with little to no basis in how the language is actually used. Other grammar rules aren’t applicable across the whole spectrum of English subtypes and dialects. And there are rules with so many exceptions that they probably shouldn’t be called rules.
Take the myth about ending sentences with a preposition, for example. We know exactly who to blame for this little superstition. John Dryden, a seventeenth-century British poet, was the person who came up with this “rule.” Robert Lowth, a bishop in the Church of England and a composer of prescriptive grammar textbooks, is often blamed for perpetuating the myth, but in fact he said quite clearly that avoiding a sentence-ending preposition is a matter of style, not grammar. Why did Dryden and Lowth do this? Well, they were men of their time, and in their time it was very popular to force English to follow the the rules of another language. That other language was, you guessed it, Latin. It’s true, you can’t end a sentence with a preposition in Latin. But it’s a common and correct construction in English.
The prohibition against splitting infinitives is another one that seems to have sprung from a fondness for applying Latin grammar rules to English. In English, splitting an infinitive means inserting an adverb between “to” and the uninflected form of a verb (e.g., “to boldly go”). Latin doesn’t have split infinitives because in Latin an infinitive is a single word. But in English, rigidly avoiding split infinitives can change the meaning of your sentence or make it more difficult to understand. So go ahead and split an infinitive when you need to, Latin be damned.
Another of these hobgoblins is the supposed rule that you can’t start a sentence with a conjunction. Starting too many sentences with conjunctions will make your writing awkward, for sure, but never doing it? It’s overkill. Conjunctions glue the elements of your writing together. These elements might be words or clauses. But they can also be sentences.
The rules governing the use of “that” and “which” are also a bit shaky. The rule says that we should use “that” for restrictive relative clauses and save “which” for nonrestrictive relative clauses. This rule is sort of half-true, because using “that” for nonrestrictive relative clauses does sound a bit awkward. But the part of the rule that says you can’t use “which” for restrictive relative clauses is, well, not a good rule. You can do it, and there are situations when it’s the only choice you can make.
The point is that you shouldn’t blindly follow every prescriptive rule you come across without a second thought. Following these rules in formal writing and speaking might do you some good—people believe they’re true, remember—but in your everyday communication, you don’t have to worry about splitting infinitives or starting sentences with conjunctions. You can sometimes even let your modifiers dangle.
There are plenty of real rules to worry about, after all. Do you know the proper order of adjectives, for example? You probably wouldn’t be able to recite it off the top of your head, but if you use more than one adjective to describe something, you will intuitively arrange them in a way that just sounds good. You will say that something is big or small before you say which color it is. You will say that something is new or old before you say it’s French or British or Ugandan. There are plenty of rules you use you’re not even aware of. So relax, grammar pedant. Sit back, grab some marshmallows, and enjoy the fire if you think it’s there.
TLDR
10 Likes
Does the AFL make and enforce these grammar rules?
7 Likes
My question to Essendon — if you always intended to offer up two first-round picks — would be why would you put Dylan Shiel through 10 days of crap and not just do the deal.”
Interesting comments from another club official.
Is this going to have an impact going forward. Exactly what I feared.
Whenever it suits them as per the rest of their dictatorship
Who cares? It’s like handing your homework in. Be a goody two shoes and submit it early, or, be as cool as a cucumber. Hand it in just before ts due.
EFC won, over the last 2 trade periods.
2 Likes
If we don’t attack this thing from pre-season game one, next year and keep up the momentum going… I don’t know.
Which is all to say: let’s ■■■■■■■ attack this season like it’s 2000. Stop ■■■■■■■ around.
6 Likes
Has nothing to do with the examples that were put forward, which addressed plain distinctions between nouns, verbs and adjectives, rather than sentence construction.
Nice cut and paste job though.
1 Like
Geez, I’d love to be in a negotiation to buy a house from some people on here.
5 Likes
How does one acquire this house form of which you speak?
3 Likes