4 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

You know i reckon he might have some reasonable credentials here.

You talk of emotions..isnt that what a dinky di signed up member is supposed to possess whilst swallowing the club's koolaid ?

There's knowledge..and theres supposition.

Does someone like COYB really know what levels of professionalism the club expects of its senior players? 

I've always been a massive critic of our FDs in the past, but in this instance I'm in agreement, based on what I see of Jack Watts the footballer.

35 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Yep...think you might know something...and some lol 

Well played sir . The force is strong with you.

Thank you kind sir.

LUKE: But how am I to know the good side from the bad?
YODA: You will know. When you are calm, at peace. Passive. A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack.

Star Wars: The Empire Strikes back

8 hours ago, hemingway said:

 

The last few weeks have shown that Jack has many outstanding qualities.  The way he managed the saga was way better than those responsible for dispatching him. 

A little ironic that the coach himself benefited from the support of the Adelaide Football Club for a considerable period of time when he had problems in his personal life and then again when he was at Essendon. Despite the doping saga, the MFC was prepared to support him with his appointment as coach.  He was given the opportunity to continue his playing and coaching career despite making significant errors of judgment. He was given support when he most needed it. 

And to you, Ernie 'well said'.  One last 'last comment' from me on this sad & sorry saga; the focus now moves back to where it always belonged, the ability of the Football Department to maximise potential, devise a winning strategy and motivate a team to enact it..  Having 'fire-sold' a favourite, the bed has been made and they are about to lay in it.  I hope that the pressure is keeping them awake at night looking for the winning formula.

34 minutes ago, mo64 said:

And as such, your commentary of events has been emotional rather than rational. Your perception of Jack Watts the footballer, is blinkered by your feelings of Jack Watts the person.

Also based on only one side of the story.

1 hour ago, mo64 said:

And as such, your commentary of events has been emotional rather than rational. Your perception of Jack Watts the footballer, is blinkered by your feelings of Jack Watts the person.

The FD's decision was based on cold hard facts, not emotion. And that's how a Football Department should operate.

Sure. I can understand why that would be your first reaction. And it was certainly not unexpected that this would be the response.

I'm absolutely comfortable in admitting that at times my commentary has been come from an emotional base.......BUT............I would hope that has only been when a post has contained information that the poster has purported to be fact (or to the reader could certainly come across as 'fact') when I know 100% that it is 100% bulltish (e.g. "he's on the p155 3 or 4 nights a week" was one statement that I lambasted another was that no other clubs were interested in him so it just goes to show how poorly they think of him).

I would like to think that if you look back at my posts you will see that i have never had an issue with Jack being told to move on. In fact I think you will find that I have often supported/liked a post that has said it is probably best for the club and for Jack. Rather, my issue is how it has been handled by the club (or particular FD staff), what has been the sequence of events and what have been the statements actually made - rather that what has been presented to the media. That is something that no other posters on here know about. The truth in this regard is black and white in many instances and can't be influenced by my emotional attachment. It's basically what happened.

I trust that you too are sufficiently open-minded to accept that your commentary must, by nature of you love for the club and the pain you have been through for many years and the hope of a brighter future, also have an emotional undercurrent. Otherwise you wouldn't be human.

I'm sure the FD's decision was based on the hard cold facts to them and not emotion. Have no problems with that. Footy clubs have to make hard decisions and I myself can see why they are making this decision. But the discourse that have put out in the media about Jack moving on (e.g. how/who made that decision) and the seemingly purposeful attempt to discredit Jack in numerous ways is bulltish - not only from a factual perspective. But from a "management" of elite sportsperson perspective.

So. To save you from having to trawl through my posts on this matter, I will repeat. I have no issue with the FD deciding that the best way forward for them is without Jack........and it is also probably the best option for him. But their handling of it and distortion of events and Jacks influence on the players in no way is supported from the commentary of players and player's parents that I have seen 1st hand.

I'm not here for a fight. But I won't stand for unsubstantiated bulltish.

Very true....and the 4th kind 

1 hour ago, bing181 said:

Also based on only one side of the story.

And so by extension are you saying that your commentary is based on both sides of the story?

1 hour ago, mo64 said:

Does someone like COYB really know what levels of professionalism the club expects of its senior players? 

I've always been a massive critic of our FDs in the past, but in this instance I'm in agreement, based on what I see of Jack Watts the footballer.

Ill offer an alternative...as a devils advocate.

Youre in agreement perhaps with that which has been presented.

I can fully understand why anyone would be frustrated with Jack for the first 7. I certainly was.

The past two seasons have been pretty good really barring injury.

Interesting that those making the 'takedown" judgement haven't really been here that long but employ his history as reason to move him on. Strikes me a tad odd.

You're entitled to your view, mine is mine.

I see X happening and Y as the reason to move him on.

This FD is far from deserving of any free pass in any of this. Much of their rhetoric is rubbery and looks to have been manipulated to serve and end.

I hope they dont stuff too much more up.

Seems odd to me the supposed reasons for pushing out Jack are totally ridiculed by the intentions of his suitors.

Im sure Ken Hinkley expects as much of his players as Goodwin.

On 10/8/2017 at 5:33 AM, bing181 said:

Fantasyland.

You are seriously, seriously in denial. 

Even the fact that you seem to think that this is just between Watts and Goodwin, my god ... the frustration with Watts goes right through the club, from player level up to (clearly, as this wouldn't happen without their endorsement) Board level. As someone "in the know" commented, "Watts has burnt too many bridges".

Sad end to the fairytale, but there you go.

While we're at it bing181, perhaps you can provide some substantiation to the claim you make above. Quoting someone "in the know" is a pretty sly way of making a statement and purporting it to be fact. Can you add any points of detail or are you satisfied with taking a broad comment for which you sought no substantiation and sought no specific details to cast a dispersion about Jack for, seemingly, no other reason than to discredit him?

And then is your claim that clearly, as this wouldn't happen without their endorsement just an an opinion of what you would expect to have happened or do you know what actually happened.

Lastly, can you explain to me how any of your posts are a reflection of someone that's looking at both sides of the story.

Thank you. I look forward to a response. I've put my cards on the table. How about you come to the party too.

 

 

8 hours ago, ChewyOnMyBoot said:

Don't get me wrong, Lever has shown (so far) that he's a talented player and has great prospects. And I think it's a great pickup by the Dees.

But the articles you've provided fall well short of proving the claim in your post that "There wouldn't have been a club in Victoria who wouldn't want Lever on their list". They report that there were [possibly] 4 clubs "interested" in him. And I've even included in the count of 4, Hawthorn, even though all the article said was "Clubs including Hawthorn and Melbourne are keen to acquire young defenders such as Lever". That's very different to "Hawthorn wants Lever". I had assumed that you would have read them yourself before posting them.

You may like to believe that I'm a "troll". I figure that all I'm doing is calling out bulls**t when I read it. And in this particular instance I'm making a point to some of the dung beetles on this thread who want to take cheap shots at Jack by stating only one club was interested in him (because there was only one club that publicly made an offer) and that it was somehow a reflection of how poorly all the other clubs rated Jack. That's the sort of bulls**t that needs to be questioned.

There were a number of clubs interested in Jack (and if you read today's Age you'll see that Geelong were obviously interested).

But yes. In the end only one was seriously considered because that was where Jack wanted to go. Similar to Lever - how many clubs actually made an offer to him? One. And that was the club that he wanted to go to. Well done to the Dees.

As for your final statement, I can't help but feel a little sad for someone (I assume a grown man) who resorts to schoolboy name-calling antics to express their dissatisfaction/frustration. And as for claiming that you won't waste any more time on me. I'll get over it. But if you change you're mind do please try to piece together something that resembles some clear, rational thought with a little commonsense.

Thank you for your time.

If Geelong wanted him they would have grabbed him, they didn't... Port the only ones who put a bid in?

Chew.. its happened, it is best for both parties and thats ok. Jack is one of us and part of us but in the past tense from a playing point of view.

Farewell Jack for your very very good, few highlights, wish you all the best at port.

1 hour ago, Cards13 said:

If Geelong wanted him they would have grabbed him, they didn't... Port the only ones who put a bid in?

It's an open market. The fact that we let him go for pick 31 indicates what the competition for him was.

6 hours ago, Biffen said:

I know how Jack feels having to go to Port.

Circumstance at the Gatwick Hotel have lead me to purvey drugs to the good folk of Ballarat in the interim period of my career.

Once I get a new product Established in town I will be back by the sea faster than you can say "You Bute".

If the Eastern Station is still open, I'm sure you can find a bed there Biffo.

2 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Ill offer an alternative...as 

Interesting that those making the 'takedown" judgement haven't really been here that long but employ his history as reason to move him on. Strikes me a tad odd.

 

 

No names, but my information is that you're off the mark here with some who were involved in the decision process.

I'll trust my source and the info provided.

They involved were fully aware and exposed to it over many years

The penny was never going to drop with Jack at MFC.

Tough decision needed to ne made and it was 

4 hours ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

If the Eastern Station is still open, I'm sure you can find a bed there Biffo.

i have standards Col- the gutter here is just fine, cobbled and full of gold dust.

11 hours ago, Jimcor2 said:

And to you, Ernie 'well said'.  One last 'last comment' from me on this sad & sorry saga; the focus now moves back to where it always belonged, the ability of the Football Department to maximise potential, devise a winning strategy and motivate a team to enact it..  Having 'fire-sold' a favourite, the bed has been made and they are about to lay in it.  I hope that the pressure is keeping them awake at night looking for the winning formula.

The trading period saw us take up one decent player for the loss of some high draft picks and one other dodgy player with issues. How is this ‘looking for the winning formula’ ?

It's sad to see Jack go, he seems like a great clubman.  But the history of this club over the last 12 years is also pretty sad. His football never consistently reached the heights that we would all have liked - he is no great player.  The club needs to bear responsibility for the excess pressure and lack of development in the early part of his career, however I think the time was probably right to move him on.  It's a tough call but one that needed to be made.  And I don't think this decision is anything like the premature calls made on shipping off McDonald, Yze, White, Robbo, Miller etc in the late 2000s - now those WERE poor decisions for different reasons.

1 hour ago, Diamond said:

The trading period saw us take up one decent player for the loss of some high draft picks and one other dodgy player with issues. How is this ‘looking for the winning formula’ ?

I'm with you, I think.  Not once have I seen or heard anyone from the Football Dept acknowledging their responsibility for this failure.  Not one person in the FD has said that they were unable to find a way to trigger JW's undoubted potential.  As far as they're concerned, the fault is all is the player's.  As they say in the classics, 'Weak as [censored]'!  We have yet to see the winning formula realised and they need to be aware that their performance should be analysed and responded to in exactly the same way that JW's has been.  I hope my instincts are wrong but if they are not, I hope they will be hung out to dry and humiliated in the same way.

On 10/18/2017 at 10:46 PM, Lucifer's Hero said:

Skuit, What on earth were you drinking last night!

 

Something significantly stronger than bathwater I'm afraid.

12 hours ago, beelzebub said:

I see X happening and Y as the reason to move him on.

You've made hundreds of similar long, rambling conspiracy theory posts in this thread about "trojan horses" and "X ...Y".

If you've got something specific to say then just say it.

15 hours ago, ChewyOnMyBoot said:

Hahahaha. Mazer. I'll be gentle with you. ? I've really enjoyed your posts. You have a balanced, reasoned approach to the topic of this thread. Neither a wildy pro Jack nor anti Jack stance.

My son lives with Jack.

I've tried to gently put forward my understanding of what i know has happened. Is it the truth? I believe it is. 

Happy to be friends. I love the Dees. Have a particular man crush on Petracca. Am i a member. Absolutely. Have been since Jack got signed up. So not a lifetime supporter but love em none the less.

As to whether you get hurt.....it depends on how much you want to know.

So, Chewy, are you going to stick with the Demons now or are you going to shift your allegiance to Port? 

 

Last comment (though I haven’t been as prolific as others on here).

While the heat is on our FD if Jack comes good, the heat is also largely on Jack too.

Facts are QB, poor development in his early career and unreasonable expectations aren’t going to wash as excuses.

He won’t be viewed as a savior, a victim of the past or, at least initially, everyone’s mate. 

In short, excuse time is over. His supporters claim he is a finisher. He isn’t Jonno Brown crashing packs. That’s not a point I disagree with. 

He therefore needs to actually playing that role effectively.

 

 

11 hours ago, Cards13 said:

If Geelong wanted him they would have grabbed him, they didn't... Port the only ones who put a bid in?

Chew.. its happened, it is best for both parties and thats ok. Jack is one of us and part of us but in the past tense from a playing point of view.

I absolutely agree with you - it is best for both parties and thats ok.

And if you don't have much of an opinion of Jack's worth as a footballer, that's ok too. Everybody is entitled to an opinion.

But as to "If Geelong wanted him they would have grabbed him, they didn't... Port the only ones who put a bid in?" - that's codswallop. And I suspect that like many on DL you are using that statement to somehow back up you're opinion of Jack's worth as a footballer.

Geelong absolutely 100% made an offer to Jack. But as it turns out, Port Adelaide absolutely nailed their presentation to Jack and the role that they want Jack to play is completely aligned with what he believes are his strengths.

Furthermore, if you want to take a guess at how many other clubs enquired of PC requesting that they be consulted should Jack's initial choice fall through I can tell you that 2 is wrong and anything below that is wronger. Hahahahaha.

Them's the facts. Sorry to disappoint you.

17 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

You've made hundreds of similar long, rambling conspiracy theory posts in this thread about "trojan horses" and "X ...Y".

If you've got something specific to say then just say it.

55. You seem to have your faculties but are all of you that incapable of seeing whats before you. Of looking at the club , looking at whos come in and gone over say the period of the 'resurrection'. ( The time from PR on ) ?

How the influence of some has changed. Maybe not for the better.

Maybe elements of deja vu compared to other club(s)?

L36 smacked a nail on the head when he suggested BM has his fingerprints all over this. No doubt.

BM can do "wonders" say the desciples. He also got given marching orders. Lets look to how Bevo revitalised that list , how Hardwick changed his tune for their better. Weve gone the 'other' way .

It would seem the Chameleon Goodwin now takes his cue from McC where before he had a wiser mentor in Roos.

I wish and hope for Melbourne success. Thats all.

I also wish Jack well.He was extremely poorly treated by our club in the end.

I have my doubts about our ability to produce the best out of our list currently. 

Time will tell. Hope im wrong.

9 hours ago, Pennant St Dee said:

No names, but my information is that you're off the mark here with some who were involved in the decision process.

I'll trust my source and the info provided.

They involved were fully aware and exposed to it over many years

The penny was never going to drop with Jack at MFC.

Tough decision needed to ne made and it was 

Tough decision does not necessarily equate to right decision. 

Sometimes the tough decision is the easy decision.