If only we had the handouts like Sydney had, then we might have had as much success
1 Like
correct. and have been a laughing stock for it. and have since realised that hanging onto recycled jobbers, antiquated game styles and coaches pets ain’t the way forward. I like the way you refer to Essendon, really you should see the alarming trend your other club is taking given the obvious cautionary tale you’ve been able to witness.
lazy/injured/one dimensional = expendable
Not exactly a new phenomenon.
See also Cummings, S; Kickett, D &
Jakovich, A
1 Like
we’re ■■■■ and have been for ages. nearly everyone here acknowledges this.
Those first two are terrible examples.
Actually, all three.
1 Like
Like multiple games at the MCG and travelling 4-6 times a year instead of 11-12?
Lols playing up to 10-11 games a year at a neutral where you have no discernible home ground advantage does not equate to an extra 10% in player payments. It takes a pretty thick person to think it does.
D Menzel isn’t lazy. 1x knee recon would have seen him off if he was. One dimensional is ok if that one dimension is pretty good. Injuries have been a problem.
1 Like
You don’t seem to understand the purpose of the COLA. Add it to the list of things you don’t understand.
I know, I understand full well whats the purpose of it was. I also understand full well it wasn’t used for it’s purpose, rather abused.
I enjoy your deflection though. Shows that you don’t actually understand what’s happening to your footy club. Which again I thought you probably would’ve recognised give the cautionary tale your other club has demonstrated.
It wasn’t abused as you put it at all. The AFL’s own integrity unit found that the 9.8% COLA surcharge was spread evenly across the list. Just as it was intended. If you think otherwise…
…just add it to the list.
You travel 10 times a year, you also play at your home ground that you train on.
You als ok have access to academies in Aussie rules areas, not just rugby heartland.
You have (had) extra salary cap which was used to poach players, not retain players.
Wrong: 11x times minimum + finals with the GF played at… well, you know.
Wrong: Every club has access to the players developed in Sydney’s academy.
Wrong: sigh… See above
Want to keep going with this, dopey?
Not sure I’m with T Harley on the ‘best of three’ GF series. They players are ratshit after one game.
With him on the COLA reintroduction though.
You’re counting travelling to GWS as travel?
Every club can bid on a player, but Sydney can simply match it with whatever picks they have at the end other draft based on points. If a player is worth 1st round, Sydney can just use 3rd and 4th round picks to pick him up
Right:
Lol, dopey. When you start resorting to personal insults, we know you are beaten. Run along old man, you’re done.
2 Likes
I agree he isn’t lazy. He is very one dimensional and is the type of player that teams once carried in the forward line quite regularly. But these days you cannot have a one dimensional player that allows the ball to rebound with ease for the opposition to score.
Well, fair enough too as they’re the ones doing the investing into the promising young footballers and that will go for Essendon as well if it establishes its own academy.
As for your last line, following your own dopey logic, I take it you know you’re beaten? Dopey?
All four could play, but they all dropped off the face of the earth when they weren’t kicking goals. Take it or leave.
Regardless, if Menzel was even half as good without the ball as he is with it, he’d have a very, very long contract. He doesn’t.
absolutely dead stone motherless last for tackles at Geelong. Behind Hawkins. Behind all their ruckmen. Behind full backs.
For a mid size forward, who actually moves pretty well, in today’s game? That’s unforgivable.
2 Likes