1 hour ago, stuie said:

Harvey is not Stevie J.

Indeed, he is not. He's nearly six years younger for a start. And he was 32 when he joined GWS, not nearly 39.

13 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

Indeed, he is not. He's nearly six years younger for a start. And he was 32 when he joined GWS, not nearly 39.

Little Stevie could end up costing "God's gift to the AFL" a Grand Final appearance and indeed a Flag so bugger him as a comparison to anyone!

4 hours ago, Sylvia Saint said:

I lean the other way. He'll cost nothing and make us a better side. He could be the difference between making and missing the 8, that's how tight spots will be. Yes it might not lead to a premiership but what's stopping us from having a run like the Bulldogs and building confidence if we did make it? 

GWS wouldn't even think twice if they had their time again with Stevie J. 

Yes to Boomer

Agreed. It reads like a lot of posters simply don't like him and are letting that cloud their judgement when it comes to recruiting him. Some even going as far as saying they won't support the club if he plays for them. Rubbish. 

Perhaps ask why North let him go, if he'd make them a better side? Or are we somehow different to North?

And it's got nothing to do with not liking him. I've never "not liked" him.

What is he? 38? Let's recruit Craig Bradley as well.

We've been building a team of young competitors from the ground up, seems counter-productive recruiting a 38 year old. He could be a consideration if we were pushing for top 4 and needed a forward pocket but we're not and we don't so what's the point?

And please, spare me the 'leadership' line.

4 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

We've been building a team of young competitors from the ground up, seems counter-productive recruiting a 38 year old. He could be a consideration if we were pushing for top 4 and needed a forward pocket but we're not and we don't so what's the point in recruiting a 38 year old? 

And please, spare me the 'leadership' line.

But think of what he offers our young group in terms of leadership on and off the field!!!!!

1 hour ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Whatever happened to Gomer?

I seem to remember he was caught between a Rock and a hard place or some such thing.

Well golly gee your memory's good BBO

What if there are no bottom lockers left?

I just really can't fathom anyone thinking we ought to give a one-year contract to someone who going to be 39. Have we lost our senses?

13 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

I just really can't fathom anyone thinking we ought to give a one-year contract to someone who going to be 39. Have we lost our senses?

And I can't fathom anyone not wanting a player who'd be a walk up start in our best 22. But there you go.

1 hour ago, Members' Wing said:

And I can't fathom anyone not wanting a player who'd be a walk up start in our best 22. But there you go.

What's the point in bringing him in when he may have one season left? We have to think longer term. 

32 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

What's the point in bringing him in when he may have one season left? We have to think longer term. 

Because if he helps us win 1-2 more games than we wouldn't have otherwise, that will in turn help our development and foster a winning culture anyway. 

People are too focused on his age. If age was a factor then he should have been retired six years ago like every other player. Look at his football- he was playing very, very well this year.

5 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

What's the point in bringing him in when he may have one season left? We have to think longer term. 

ET isn't the idea to win every game we play not prep for 2 years time?

17 hours ago, Cards13 said:

Maurie for mine if you look at the Dawks you can see it is much easier to let other develop a player and then look to bring them in ready made. I've said it a few times but if one of our young blokes can't get a game before someone like Harvey they won't win us a game either. hopefully it pushes them to work harder to get in front of him. Not saying I could stomach him in red and blue but if he helps us win 2-3 more games next year... bingo!

 

It also stops a young player from getting games and developing into a player capable of winning matches.

If Harvey was on our list this year, he could have prevented Jayden Hunt from getting games. Would we then be looking at the prospect a delisting a kid who hadn't been able to crack the senior side & show anything at AFL level?

14 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

 

It also stops a young player from getting games and developing into a player capable of winning matches.

If Harvey was on our list this year, he could have prevented Jayden Hunt from getting games. Would we then be looking at the prospect a delisting a kid who hadn't been able to crack the senior side & show anything at AFL level?

This is my biggest issue. I don't think we're in the same place as a few years ago when we recruited Daniel Cross to bring leadership to a rabble. We are breeding young competitors and leaders capable of taking this club a long way.

Harvey would definitely be best 22 next year at this stage, but is winning one or two extra games at the expense of unearthing another young gem really the go?

In any event, we already have Melksham and Hibberd likely to come in next year and Salem and Brayshaw who barely played. Those two guys might be released into Harvey style wing-half forward roles if Melksham and Hibberd can hold down spots at half back. I'd rather punt on them.

1 hour ago, Cards13 said:

ET isn't the idea to win every game we play not prep for 2 years time?

Depends who you ask Cards, the Kangaroos delisted him to prep for the future.

When it comes down to it I'm no longer 100% opposed to having a player come to the club as a player/coach for 1 year. I was but i can see the benifits a bit more noe... However I have 2 questions:

Is Boomer really the right player to get in and play that role? I would think a midfielder or KPD would be more use than adding to our well stocked small forward brigade
and
Would having him in our side this year actually won us 2 or 3 more games as some have suggested he might do next year? He has been a star at times but most games this year he has been little more than a role player... I just dont see him being big influence on results..

1 hour ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Depends who you ask Cards, the Kangaroos delisted him to prep for the future.

Yea they are in a different spot to us I think. They were stuffed full of old farks who couldn't get the to a flag. Harvey could push us to finals and help us develop further.

2 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Depends who you ask Cards, the Kangaroos delisted him to prep for the future.

They had the oldest list in the competition. Is it any wonder?

We have the youngest list, (or there abouts) with only two players in our starting 22 who have 150+ games experience.

11 hours ago, mauriesy said:

I just really can't fathom anyone thinking we ought to give a one-year contract to someone who going to be 39. Have we lost our senses?

This argument is so ridiculous and I'm so bored of it.

He is an exception to the rule. Most obviously. He's a freak. Completely anomalous.

His age is completely and utterly irrelevant simply because of the nick he is in which is due to the unbelievable attention to detail he has in regards to looking after his body. (Another leadership quality right there Ethan).

His age will be a factor when and only when his on-field performance begins to decline and when he starts losing some of his physical capabilities. Like his speed etc.

Honestly, some of the posts in this thread are jaw-droppingly thoughtless.

Harvey will play next year, somewhere. I doubt it'll be us simply because we're not even in the eight yet. But if he was interested, does anybody really think that Simon Goodwin, the FD and our entire list would be against the idea? Seriously?

 

21 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

When does the little sniper turn 39?

Pretty sure on his next birthday, SWYL.

I'm not sure he's much of a leader and that is the ONLY reason why a side in our position would recruit a guy over 30 years of age imo

5 minutes ago, Abe said:

I'm not sure he's much of a leader and that is the ONLY reason why a side in our position would recruit a guy over 30 years of age imo

Hasn't been in North's leadership group since 2013.

 

It's a slight on all our current leaders (e.g. Jones, Viney) to think Harvey is needed for "leadership". He's not a leader's bootlace, at North when it came to leadership he was just a much-loved veteran figurehead.

If Harvey was worth an extra 1-2 wins per year in 2017, North would have kept him.