ChewyOnMyBoot

On 10/23/2017 at 6:24 PM, bing181 said:

Nothing "supposedly" about the fact that the highest offer we had for Jack was pick 31 from Port. That's how other clubs view him.

Oh bing181. Are you popping your head back up out of the dung? As I've said before, Jack chose Port Adelaide and because of the way it was handled by the FD PA knew that they didn't have to go high to get him. FD basically shot themselves in the foot.

But I don't want to damage the fragile little world that you live in so you just go on believing what you want to. And maybe you'll see Santa Claus this year fly past your window too.

If you would please reply to my post on page 268 (5 posts from the bottom) i would be most grateful. I've been trying to chase you down about unsubstantiated crap you've put on this thread but you keep on running away from it. Man up I say son!!!

On 10/23/2017 at 5:55 PM, Satyriconhome said:

I hope you don't try, failing to even get close could be detrimental to your  already frail self esteem

Wow. That's cutting. I was concerned that I might have been making you look like an idiot. Now I realise you do it all by yourself anyway.

19 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Because I don't trust the bloke.  He's turned up here as the Watts stuff took off and went from being totally harmless on the issue to claiming he is Watts' uncle.  Then he has to think about sticking with the Dees because, you know, he's supported us for 9 years which is the length of time Jack has been with the club.

This is purely my opinion, but Chewy is a troll.  I wouldn't believe a word he types on this forum.  Hence, why I encouraged him to 'jog on'.

I'd never use that turn of phrase with posters who have been here for a long time or shown themselves to be quality contributors to these forums.  He's neither.

So I'm Jack's uncle. How would you suggest I prove that?

Why does that cause you so much concern? And why does it offend you that I would find it difficult to continue supporting the Dees given that Jack has been moved on? My post about that was honest and I thought I explained my dilemna quite well. Obviously you beg to differ. In any case I didn't think it warranted the aggressive response.

Assuming that it is ok for someone on DL (an MFC member at that) to report the other side of the story, and other than what I have mentioned above, is there anything in particular that I have posted that has caused you grief?

Some posters on here claim that I can't possibly be objective about what I have to say (and so obviously believe I am Jack's uncle) because of my relationship with Jack. I can understand where they're coming from but I would like to think that I have been more objective than most in what I have posted. I wonder if any posters on DL recognise that the same 'objectivity' logic that has been applied to me, also applies to themselves and the FD i.e. that their objectivity can be affected because of their "relationship". Anyone who thinks everything the FD of any AFL club puts out in the media is the truth, rather than just what they want you to hear, really does need a reality check.

There are a number of posters that publish opinions or rumours on here and present them as fact. Not surprisingly, each time I have asked for them to back up their claims they either don't come back at all or what they do come back with is hardly factual . I take particular umbrage when comments are made about Jacks 'partying ways' (e.g. on the pi55 3 or 4 times a week) or the supposedly poor view in which the players and/or all the other AFL clubs view him. You will have noticed that I haven't taken issue with any posters that have stated an opinion on Jack's football skills or performance or whether he should be moved on. Because everyone's entitled to their opinion.

Apologies if I haven't quite shown, at all times on this thread, the respect and good manners that I should have. Hardly an island in that respect.

On 10/21/2017 at 1:50 PM, Wiseblood said:

@praha - the above is easily the best summation of the situation in 267 pages.  Couldn't have put it any better.

On 10/21/2017 at 2:53 PM, Satyriconhome said:

That's a bit harsh on Wise, I've read all of them as well, on my lunch breaks etc, I must admit mainly for the comedy value in some of them

I also agree with Wise, the summation is very good, although I said the same thing about 150 posts ago, perhaps I should have used more words

 

Wow. Talk about being pleased with ourselves. I guess you two are the posters we should all be measuring ourselves against hey?

On 10/21/2017 at 8:04 AM, Stretch Johnson said:

1.  It's a disgrace

2. The typ×e of person you are dealing with is self evident casting serious doubt on the information

3.  The relationship between the poster and player is far less likely to produce objective information anyway 

4.  It's a disgrace

Mmmmmm. Interesting.

I fear you have indeed been stretching your johnson a little too forcefully but anyway, to humour you, I'll assume that you are serious.

In regard to Point 2 can you explain what information I have put on DL that you would seriously doubt.

Point 3 I can understand. And if we extend the reasoning of your statement, you will obviously agree that the relationship between the club and supporters is far less likely to produce objective information, too.

As for you're "It's a disgrace comment, could you please show me any of my comments that have caused a sense of 'disgrace' in you? It would be most welcome. Thank you.

On 10/20/2017 at 1:05 PM, beelzebub said:

Does that make Jack >>>> Lowbacca ...Lowie...a ...Jedi !! 

You've got me on this one B. Can't get my head around it. Too many brain cells lost from "late into the night" battles with Johnnie Walker I guess. 

4 hours ago, jumbo returns said:

Response to @ChewyOnMyBoot

Can you please wish him all the best from me and I hope he's okay

Thanks

 

Sure will. Before Jack headed overseas, he was certainly pleased the dealing was over (as you can imagine) and really positive about the future.

Hopefully it works out for both sides.

On 10/21/2017 at 7:23 AM, bing181 said:

Says the guy posting private information about a player, information received in confidence, on a public forum.

Respect?

It's heartening that you are so concerned about some private information that I have released on this thread that may be of some 'damage' to Jack. And it's even more heartening that ProDee has liked your post giving some indication that perhaps he is the intellectual giant that he professes to be.

So that I could apologise to Jack for letting out what must be some pretty damaging private information about him for you to be so concerned, would you be so kind as to let me know which of my comments in particular cause you so much concern?

And perhaps at the same time, you could finally respond to some of my recent posts asking you for clarification on some of you earlier comments on this thread. Thank you. I await your considered response. I have included them here again below in their entirety to save you time:

And the next one:

1 hour ago, Dockett 32 said:

Chewy I understand your family connection, you're 'coming out'  so to speak and the admiral job you did of presenting your ( maybe the families) side of the story.

Nonetheless I would have to disagree with your suggested level of market interest in Jack.

 Sadly for us there was not strong or significant demand as far as I was able to detect from the external information available . IMO it supports our FD and maybe the broader AFL clubs valuation.

In any event the market spoke and the fact is that it was pick 31.

Its not the worst position in the world, but  some distance from Weller , Lever or Gibbs like unfortunately for us.

 

 

 

 

Thanks. I have tried to be open minded about it all. Nah. It was only me. Jack doesn't know about me being on here and I'm sure he'll kill me if he finds out. And I have only recently told Jack's mum and dad.

We all have the choice in what we want to believe. But I don't think that I'd be making any over-the-top statement by suggesting that not all information is made available to the public. I'm not here to brow beat people into believing me. Just to share what I know to be the facts. And I know what the level of market interest was in Jack. Believe me or not, that's fine.

The real problem the FD had is in what they said to Jack and to PC about Jack's chances of remaining a Dee. From the outset, PC knew that the club couldn't/wouldn't take Jack back and so MFC had no wriggle room when it came to negotiating for higher picks. And, my opinion is, that I'd be quite certain that PA knew that too. So why would they offer anything better when they know they can get 'away' with pick 31 and MFC contributing to Jacks package.

But again I'm not here to beat you into believing my stories.

I wish the Dees every success but really hope the FD get their heads around some better, more respectful, player management practices.

2 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

The fact that it's an interesting question to you, and not an instant answer of 'of course I'll be sticking with the Dees' says all we need to know about you Chewy.

Jog on, pal.

Sadly predictable Wiseblood. Did you read any more of my post? Or was it a case of premature joculation?

Perhaps if you read the rest of my post you would be able to put that statement in context.

And what's with the "Jog on, pal"? Are you saying that me, as a fully paid up member of 9 years, has no right to express an opinion on here unless it correlates with your view of the world? If that upsets you then maybe you should take your own advice.

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

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

 

Really interesting question. Of course I'll follow Jack at PA but I feel very attached to, and excited by, the playing group at MFC. I would love to see them be successful and would love to be a part of that. The young men i have met at MFC are undoubtedly ripping young blokes. And i happily admit to having a pretty severe mancrush on Petracca. He could be anything. His lower body strength reminds me of some of the absolute greats - Matthews, Ablett Snr & Jnr, Voss. His ability to keep his feet while he's ripping the ball out of the scrums our game has become infected with is unmatched by anyone in todays game. So my attachment to the team is f#*%ing hard to let go off.

But there's one more bit of information that i should disclose that makes it a little difficult for me to maintain the level of support i have given over the last 9 years.

You see my son, who lives with Jack, is actually Jack's cousin. And you know what that means.

At the very least i will barrack for the Dees whoever they are playing (excluding PA of course). Even against 'my' club prior to my conversion to the Dees (the Saints). 

And when he plays against the Dees, if Viney, TMac or Jonesy happen to give Jack a good whack around the ear I'll be there cheering them on and encouraging them to do it again. Hahaha. Little 6astard deserves it every now and again.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

26 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

But can we trust you Chewy? We've been hurt before. We're not ready to commit to a relationship with some new rumourmonger. Don't disappoint us. I don't think we could take being hurt one more time. Let's just be friends.

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.

3 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

Unless your name is Paul Connors and whoever is Lever's manager , neither of you would know who was interested in either player

Move on

Fair enough. So I'm obviously not PC. But what if, perhaps, i am in the position to hear things second hand. From Jacks side of course. Would that be sufficient for you?

23 hours ago, ProDee said:

You mean you wanted more proof ?

"WHY ARE AFL clubs lining up to offer a still-developing key defender from Adelaide a lucrative contract comparable to deals given to some of the game's very best?"

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-22/why-are-clubs-so-keen-to-lure-jake-lever

Hawthorn is mentioned in the next article.

You're a dope and I won't be wasting any more time on you.

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.

11 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

sounds like the move to Adelaide is made easier as his girlfriend lives in Canada

His girlfriend is in Canada on an exchange program. She lives here

24 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

1) Post Season Jones and Goodwin say nothing.  Yes they were asked questions about Watts.  Standard answer should have been a straight bat eg

Our List Management Team, like those of other clubs are looking to review and to improve our playing list.  When any information is available about any player we will let you know. 

Instead they carried on with: not meeting expectations, Jack had been in a rut for 9 years,  off-field behaviours, setting example for young players etc etc etc.  Of course, the media jumped all over those comments which fueled more and more questions.

They should have stuck with straight bat, straight bat, straight bat.  Better still not put them on them on air.  Post round 23 Mahoney should be our only spokesperson.

2) After the GF Mahoney should have come out and said something like: 

Our List Management Team has met and we have asked Jack Watts to explore his options with other clubs.  We believe that other list opportunities will result in changes to the structure of our forward line and it is in both parties interests to take this path.  If no suitable trade is found, Jack can remain at mfc. 

Instead he came over real heavy echoing Goodwin's and Jones criticisms and added a few more about being tired of having these conversations with Jack.  

Everything in itallics is factual.  The dirty laundry wasn't necessary.  The media could say what it wanted there was no reason for the club to validate it.

The WB had a similar problem.  Cutting Stringer was swift and brutal.  Thereafter, no one at the club made a single solitary comment.  They let the rumours float around but did not give them validity because they said nothing.  Result:  Supporters were shocked and upset at the decision but were accepting of the process.

Instead MFC made it a death of a thousand cuts for Jack by having coach, captain and football manager give a regular commentary on Jack's deficiencies over a 5/6 week period.   Result:  Supporters were upset at the decision and the process. 

On this thread even most the ardent fans of the decision lamented how it was handled by the club.

Thank you Lucifer. You have saved me a lot of time.

28 minutes ago, ProDee said:

If I was you I'd abandon logic as a reference point.

There wouldn't have been a club in Victoria who wouldn't want Lever on their list, although for some, like Carlton, he wouldn't be a priority.

The final 3 clubs interested in Lever were the Dees, Pies, and Dogs, but others had shown interest back in March.

But you'd know this even if you just took a passing interest in footy.

Tom Browne 

 

✔@TomBrowne7

 

Understand @CollingwoodFC @stkildafc @NMFCOfficial have all made significant indicative offers on @Adelaide_FC Jake Lever

7:09 PM - Mar 7, 2017

And just to prove your point......you've certainly abandoned logic as a reference point with this one. Wow, resorting to a tweet from a minnow in football media to back up your argument has really convinced me of your superior knowledge and judgement.

I'll be sure to keep up with Tom Browne and his tweets when I decide to start taking a passing interest in footy.

1 hour ago, qwerty7 said:

https://www.3aw.com.au/jack-watts-says-its-been-an-emotional-few-weeks-following-his-trade-to-port-adelaide/

I'd recommend listening to this interview from this morning. Such a great guy and only wished the best for the club. 

None of us can comment yet whether this was or wasn’t the right decision by the club – this time next year we should. However, I think it is fair to say that it is all a very sad situation. He loved the club and wanted to stay, but the coaches didn’t see him being part of the success the hopefully not-so-distant future entails. I hope they are right that Watts might have been the anchor keeping us at the shore, but I am not convinced.

Good luck, Wattsy, and thanks for everything! Go Dees

 

Stands out in stark contrast to the way MFC have handled the whole ugly matter. Jack handled it as a man - with dignity and respect to all involved. Mahoney and Goodwin have handled it like a couple of schoolboys. Man up guys. You can do it. 

9 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yeah the players are clearly shattered. Gawn on the verge of re-signing. Hogan going nowhere. Jones & Viney clearly not unhappy with the decision and looking forward to crack in to preseason.

Jog on mate.

9 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

He's just here to stir up some trouble.  Others have called him out for it days ago.  He's not worth giving air time to, Doc.

Wow. Some on here are, surprisingly, pretty sensitive. Happy to dish it out but not quite able to take it? You guys need a man hug! 

Despite what you think I have little issue with Jack going. It could have been good for both the club and for Jack. A win win as they say. Sadly, Melbourne have stuffed it up badly. Good clubs, with healthy culture, do it with respect. Melbourne have butchered it worse than a Viney pass into the forward line.

Obviously time will tell. 

5 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Ah no - several clubs were keen on Lever and were told in no uncertain terms that he was going to Melbourne. If you supported the Demons you would know this.

Ahh. I see. Fair enough. And maybe you can also accept that Jack very well may have made it clear that he was going to Port Adelaide. Last week in fact.