Those Who Shall Not Be Named

Apparently Richmond met with Stringer. Stringer was asked a rather direct question about some rumored off-field issues. Stringer apparently got up and left the meeting on the spot. 

If there's any legs to that story (and the question which was put to him), I'd be steering well clear of him. 

I actually think Mahoney won't bring someone with issues in, I just want to know why his name pops up in Watts trade

2 minutes ago, SFebey said:

I actually think Mahoney won't bring someone with issues in, I just want to know why his name pops up in Watts trade

Same manager...

1 minute ago, rjay said:

Same manager...

I'm sure managers have multiple players to deal with, we'll see. Was hoping for another surprise this year, doesn't look likely 

12 minutes ago, Gawn's Beard said:

Apparently Richmond met with Stringer. Stringer was asked a rather direct question about some rumored off-field issues. Stringer apparently got up and left the meeting on the spot. 

If there's any legs to that story (and the question which was put to him), I'd be steering well clear of him. 

They're a lot smarter at the Tiges since Balme came on board.

Looks like they're not going to make the same mistake twice.

My guess is they are now keeping their ears to the ground and asking the hard questions they should've asked before.

No harm in asking and doing your due diligence, even if the rumours are not true.

1 minute ago, rjay said:

No harm in asking and doing your due diligence, even if the rumours are not true.

Exactly. The response of the player shows a lot about their character. Put them in an uncomfortable situation and see how they react. Getting up and walking out (if that did indeed happen) says it all really...

47 minutes ago, Gawn's Beard said:

Apparently Richmond met with Stringer. Stringer was asked a rather direct question about some rumored off-field issues. Stringer apparently got up and left the meeting on the spot. 

If there's any legs to that story (and the question which was put to him), I'd be steering well clear of him. 

Apparently there was a meeting at Geelong with club leaders and a few of the management team, and he didn't even turn up. A few of the Geelong posters on BigFooty seem to know about it/have had it confirmed. 

Make of it what you will, but he seems a troubled lad at the moment.

16 hours ago, SFebey said:

What does this stand for? And agree, wake up call for Jake and I'd back him in

To who shall not be named 

Just now, willmoy said:

To who shall not be named 

Thanks mate

On 10/13/2017 at 10:30 PM, SFebey said:

I actually think Mahoney won't bring someone with issues in, I just want to know why his name pops up in Watts trade

Think reality is many at the MFC would take the risk, back themselves - if you dont take risks in AFL football you end up with a team of alter boys - we are getting rid of the alter boys.   

However, more relevant is Stringer wants to be elsewhere think they have a better deal on the table. 

This reeks of him wanting the bumbers only, and is manipulating the trade situation to them being the only suitor - making it harder for the Bulldongs to negotiate from a position of strength (and likely forcing them to take Dodo's weaker offer)!

 

 

23 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

Think reality is many at the MFC would take the risk, back themselves - if you dont take risks in AFL football you end up with a team of alter boys - we are getting rid of the alter boys.   

However, more relevant is Stringer wants to be elsewhere think they have a better deal on the table. 

I'd take a risk on half a dozen available players ahead of Stringer. We're building a team-wide system that should provide enough goal opportunities to whoever is in the forward line, and did so for the first half of the year. There was no one in spectacular form forward all year. Do we desperately need Stringer? I don't think so. These type of dreams of unearthing a Jeff Farmer-esque player that kicks a bag of goals every 2 or 3 weeks are over. Even in their premiership year, Stringer was dropped a few weeks before the finals and didn't contribute much within the finals. You could see the writing was on the wall even then. 

It's not about discounting individualism in favor of conformity, it's about backing your system without the pipe dream of a live-wire forward that does all the lifting. Did Richmond need Stringer? No, all they needed was Jack Riewoldt to bring the ball to ground and kick 2 or 3 goals, something that's well within Jesse Hogan's powersE

Edit: Would love to bring in one more small forward with goal kicking nous, but not with Stringers price and trade tag.

Edited October 15, 20177 yr by Deeprived Childhood

4 minutes ago, Deeprived Childhood said:

I'd take a risk on half a dozen available players ahead of Stringer. We're building a team-wide system that should provide enough goal opportunities to whoever is in the forward line, and did so for the first half of the year. There was no one in spectacular form forward all year. Do we desperately need Stringer? I don't think so. These type of dreams of unearthing a Jeff Farmer-esque player that kicks a bag of goals every 2 or 3 weeks are over. Even in their premiership year, Stringer was dropped a few weeks before the finals and didn't contribute much within the finals. You could see the writing was on the wall even then. 

It's not about discounting individualism in favor of conformity, it's about backing your system without the pipe dream of a live-wire forward that does all the lifting. Did Richmond need Stringer? No, all they needed was Jack Riewoldt to bring the ball to ground and kick 2 or 3 goals, something that's well within Jesse Hogan's powers.

Safe solid approach - safe and solid dont win premierships. Tigers dont have the money for Stringer - but it appears neither do we. Tigers have never been scared to take a risk. 

10 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

Safe solid approach - safe and solid dont win premierships. Tigers dont have the money for Stringer - but it appears neither do we. Tigers have never been scared to take a risk. 

Tbh, as a MFC supporter, It's safe (and sad) to say I have no idea what wins premierships. I just know that the price tag that comes with Stringer right now, after the two first round Lever trade, is far too much of a gamble for us to take. Menzel offers the same value at no cost. But I have a sneaking suspicion that we were onto something from rounds 1-14 as the #1 pressure team in the comp that had Richmond on the ropes until injuries struck. We're not in desperate need of any forward addition. A few forwards may surprise this year with the delivery from a midfield thats played together for an extra year.

Edited October 15, 20177 yr by Deeprived Childhood

30 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

Safe solid approach - safe and solid dont win premierships. Tigers dont have the money for Stringer - but it appears neither do we. Tigers have never been scared to take a risk. 

They don't anymore...and it's a reason they won the flag.

Yarran burnt them, was a risk and a very poor bet. Well known before the Tiges took him.

With Balme on board they now make well considered decisions.

They were safe and solid for years, backing in an average list with holes a mile wide. Then they took a risk, gamble approach and came unstuck.

Last off season along came Balme, they looked at their list and made considered decisions based on what they needed. They didn't take any risks, although any recruiting decision will always have an element of risk (not a gamble as you're suggesting) and got the players to strengthen their list.

I think we've done similar the last 2 off seasons with Hibberd and Lever.

Why the need to gamble, and why inferences of "alter Boys". It has nothing to do with what we are about now.

1 hour ago, rjay said:

They don't anymore...and it's a reason they won the flag.

Yarran burnt them, was a risk and a very poor bet. Well known before the Tiges took him.

With Balme on board they now make well considered decisions.

They were safe and solid for years, backing in an average list with holes a mile wide. Then they took a risk, gamble approach and came unstuck.

Last off season along came Balme, they looked at their list and made considered decisions based on what they needed. They didn't take any risks, although any recruiting decision will always have an element of risk (not a gamble as you're suggesting) and got the players to strengthen their list.

I think we've done similar the last 2 off seasons with Hibberd and Lever.

Why the need to gamble, and why inferences of "alter Boys". It has nothing to do with what we are about now.

Interesting assessment of the Tigers. Its not accurate but never the less very interesting.

The 2017 flag was born in the depths of the Port Adelaide football club many, many years ago - when you do your research you will find - How this flag 2017 and many before it where created.

Balme did contribute by bringing with him Blake Carecella who had a much bigger impact than Balme himself - Leppa was also huge get much more important than Balme.

Oh and you cant forget a large portion of good fortune and being prepared to take a risk at the draft table - again Balme has very little to do with that apart from being the spokesperson. Blair and to a much lesser extent these days Francis call the shots on this. 

I'm not knocking Balmey - I fully appreciate his talents. Best thing he ever did was get Dimma to read the writing on the wall. 

Edited October 16, 20177 yr by DaveyDee

On 10/13/2017 at 10:22 PM, Gawn's Beard said:

Apparently Richmond met with Stringer. Stringer was asked a rather direct question about some rumored off-field issues. Stringer apparently got up and left the meeting on the spot. 

If there's any legs to that story (and the question which was put to him), I'd be steering well clear of him. 

Was that actually reported anywhere of note, or is it just another chinese whisper?

15 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Was that actually reported anywhere of note, or is it just another chinese whisper?

more likely a korean whisper these days, hardtack