beelzebub

WAC.. I fully understand the idea of GWS. Its the ideal of it that lacks. The analogy earlier of Vietnam might prove warranted. Both the AFL and the US are mighty in repsective circles. Both ahve huge armoury and war chests to finance their goals. The US made grave errors of judgement in its understanding of not only who or what the enemy was, let alone where but also of how its own constituents viewed the whole affair. Its all well to take on ones enemy head on and in their strong-hold but will that win you the lollies ? I dont see the Tassie thing as being of consequence to any desire or need to expand the game in 'other' backyards. Tassie will come one day . The league ( AFL ) is seeking to mount an offensive in the enemy's heartland. Its hoping, in so doing , to land some sort of fatal wound. One mighty lunge at the jugular. It ( Vlad & co ) might well look to the history books and observe the failed and futile campaigns waged by seemingly greater forces against established and stubborn foes. The argument possibly by some is it migt have been wiser to seek to starve the enemy rather than behead it. Gnaw away at regiosn that feed the NRL rather than its heart. Its possible these same 'wheatbelts' also foster ambition in the round ball code so some will argue going to these areas would kill two birds for the effort. The larger public might just view it as the AFL trying to bully its way and often bullies come unstuck. Im all for furthering our great game, but you need to be clever and this just seems hamfisted really.

Umm.they are...up to the right a bit , just above the social media buttons

He wasnt dropped because he had a stack. Was he ? He's not having to attend Alcohol counselling because he sat in the passenger seat is he ? He'd been out on the turps. Do you doubt or question that ? Seems the club and Eade alike believe this. Eade didnt hesitate in considering him unfit to continue to the training camp. He therefore must have been unfit for this purpose. He was expected to uphold certain requirements and he failed. EPIC

Now now.. Im simply asking a fair question.. You do however go to a point which I think becomes manifest in viewing much of this. There might well be a thousand pemutations of offences and trangressions. ANd there may well indeed be some merit in approaching them with a view that different horses run on different course and as such a selection of sanctions needs to be drawn upon. Th eproblem as I see this is how many different sets of rules do you employ in a realtively focused environment such as a footbal club. There arent even 50 people for whom the rules apply. Its because of this I beleive you make the boundaries very simple and remove any vagary. Lets keep it simple. These are said rules and this is what happens should you break them. Individualise it too much and you create a minefield.

Nothing gets past you !!! lol Tis indeed intriguing.

Sylvia has also been istructed to undergo Alcohol counseling. Just as a q DC. How do you see the SJ and CS occurences as being that different?. Both serial offenders. Both failed to heed ealier fines/punishments.. Quite similar I would have thought .

I supose it would offer an invaluable insight for the coaches to be aware of how the players see themselves. It might clarify influences and as such enable a astute coach(s) the opportunity to bettter match younger older mentor type pairings. It concerns me I suppose that given the fairly broad pallete of experience and personalities within a club's playing group that there is a possibility that some who are voting really have no idea about it. A possibility of the 'sheep' effect. Given there is no self serving attached to any ajudications by the coach(staff) they are more likely to have a better persecive of not only who lead, and who are led but who amongst the leaders would make the best choice as captain. I understand the position taken by some who profer the ideals of self empowerment and the like , but Im not convinced its appropriate to a professional team situation.. it wil be interesting to see who are included in 2012's leadership and who assumes the mantel.

excuse me HT was I actually talking with you.. ? I was simply calling for a clairfication from someone who was answer me. You can see that Im sure. Its not just about you two I take it.

I have my suspiscions yo could well be right. Would be pure dumb luck by Gallop though as it strikes me he couldnt organise a p!ss up in a brewery. The only thing that will work in the AFL's favour , as I see it, is if you were to soley extrapolate all things oin as they are then the AFL WILL lose. If however yo factor in that the demographic and population in that area is likely to greatly change then its this change that the AFL might be able to harness and indeed coat-tail ride. Now if the AFL could only get the Vietnamese to play footy more !!

Am no fool.. there youre own bloody words !! You want to run with hare and hunt with the hounds . Some of us have been consistent. Go off and do whatever.. .

actually you did this very thing when you asked in post 161 You make the correlation that any punishment in the manner handed out to Sylvia by assoication is a punishment to the club. Do you now contend that punishing Sylvia does not in fact punish the club ?

So in reality its really just for show ? I get the distinct idea Neeld will very much sit back ( in a fasion ) and see what cream rises to the top. He wont be fooled. I think he'll be well accustomed to using his cruet. I confess i invariably place no faith in a team selecting its captain.

You know...strangely I did.. I put it to you youre failing to grasp the overtone. Does it really hurt th eclub to punish Sylvia in an appropriate manner ? If so how so ? Hes all full of talent, hes a real gunna...gunna turn it on one day. Again read what ive written. It really doesnt matter to the club if hes not there in a short term. It WOULD matter if it gave a message to all and sundry that we ( the club ) dont take things like this seriously. It sets a tone. It puts the bar at a certain psotion for al lto see and adhere to. There are far greater gains in doing this in terms of over all team adherence and performance than there is to let one naughty boy get off with a wrist slap. You propose the idea it hurts the club. I contest that.

RPFC..do yo know for certain theres still a vote ? I got the disntinct impression from Neeld it was the clubs call not the players now. I dont understand at all the idea of voting fo a captain.. What army's soldiers pick its General. Im all for an appointed captain myself.

Jrmac.. you fail to grasp the situation I think.. You place much credence upon the notion he was only the pasenger ina car. The actual trangression was failing to be fit for work...I.e he was p!ssed on the job . Techincally he did much.!! He also showed scant respect for team rules or anyones directives other than his own.. Thats the context.

I think its a healthy sign that Neeld & Co are wresting control back of the determination of such things. Quite plainly the players themselves have a fawning self interest in how they approach any selection of leader. Neeld will see it for exactly what it is, and who is whom.

Or would you rather pander to the whims of a selfish psuedo teenager ? ( he behaves like one ) Pretty easy for mine. The club is way way bigger than any player. Everyone makes out we are zilch without Colin. Most of this is based upon the summised input he miht one day put in. I fervently hope Neeld has well and truly put this insolent on notice.

oh...my bad...missed that.... T-I-C ..lol..

How he playes in games 2-22 is what wil linterest me Old. Unfortunately he s not the ilk of say a Wayne Carey who managed to remain in headlines most his career but come the weekend he brought his A game..week in week out. As much as youd lament his non footy side youd admire his efforts once he crossed the whilte line. Everythiing regarding Col is what he MIGHT bring ...one day...maybe. Choir Boy hes not. Consistent he's not. Quite frankly hes got not a leg to stand on..yet. . Actually he does have a certain consistency.... for making poor judgements.

Before its slammed back at me as some form of retort I have no familiarity with either the length or breadth ( as it were ) of Sylvia's contract. What I am aware of is there were seriously uncomfortable wriggling and worming from the ColSyl camp regarding the nature of his impending contract. This did centre on there being performance triggered elements and in all reality why wouldnt any player have them. This was a major sticking point. Given the way the club has handled other's contracts and extension I get the gut feeling it wasnt the MFC that caved. Colin would do well to heed these words. Well hed do well to start heeding a lot of things.

Any thread about this bloke always ends up about one thiing and one thing only ...attitude. His is quite frankly crap most of the time. everyone salivates about the moments of abberation. Am I the only one who thinks this is totally f#*%ed !!!! I hope not. If only

good

yes..its by association...not by design. One is cause the other is consequence. I rather like the "fishing" analogy.

Well.....umm... you have to start somewhere, and we've started. Now comes the real work, now we see what the coaches can make of this lot. Some may not know what has just him them..... Its a Mack truck called EXPECTATIONS !!

sadly all missed by some