BLWNBA

I don’t disagree mate, but people holding onto the idea that the current Oliver is worth what he was 12 months ago on the market is farcical.

1) That’s irrelevant to the point made by both myself and the OP that was quoted. 2) I’m surprised you didn’t find a way to also throw Maynard in there. But don’t worry mate, victim status and the shortcomings of the MFC will always be welcomed by the majority of those on Demonland. You’ll get your likes.

We had a Ferrari; it’s since been treated like a lawnmower.

Pert told her so.

Once again, can you actually acknowledge and refute anything I’ve said, rather than continuing to deflect? But yes, the beacon of truth is a what a club employee says to a random supporter at a Best and Fairest or family day.

You’re absolutely playing semantics, and I note that the end result doesn’t indicate a ‘lie’ or ‘misrepresentation’. A reported ‘intention’ can be accurate, without a corresponding result ensuring. I may have a desire and intent to go to the movies today, not completing that action does not take away from either the intention or desire. That’s simply output dependency; a change to an input can absolutely result in a change in output. As I said earlier, your binary outlook lacks any analytical value at all, and is an extremely sheltered and naive way to treat information. It has no real world application. Feel free to keep living in the post truth world though, it’s scary out there.

Yeah, how dare parties disagree on a forum. Next you’ll bring out the timeless classic “supporters support” line.

As you’re the one asserting a mistruth, or claims of libel, the onus is actually on you to suggest otherwise. But given you’re essentially wanting to impart some obscure, reverse onus, I would suggest to you that there is enough on the balance of probabilities to indicate much of what is reported is accurate to the extent the information is available. Do you want to proceed with tendency examples? Show some critical thinking, it may hold you in good stead. Once again, your inability to critique the club says volumes.

One of the best posts in this thread.

Your inability to ever critique the club, and constant grandstanding honestly just removes any credibility in your stance(s). ‘Notoriously’ way off? Guessing you live and work in a binary world then?

Asking for clarification on your own contention, using your words, is a straw man? Okay.

What are you genuinely talking about? You’ve gone from stating that the ‘club’ should bring a legal claim against The Age, for ‘lies’, proceeding to ask for a ‘quote’, and now your stating that ‘this is a forum discussion not a published article’, yet your first point is directed at an article published by The Age. Honestly, it’s beyond nonsensical.

Ah yeah, nothing like a good old straw man to really prove a point. Well done, a resounding showing of critical thinking.

He’ll be right at home. Bring him in, fellas!

Similar to just claiming something as a ‘lie’, yeah?

I look forward to the accompanying turnover.

Fanboys gotta blame someone.

Nailed it.

I can't speak for the original poster, but essentially, diagnoses are often used as a shield, often without any nuance. Whilst there are legitimate reasons and occurrences where a diagnosis can play a part in an aggravating / mitigating manner, to have it bandied about in such a trivial manner, is not only disingenuous but completely trivialises and diminishes legitimate cases where a diagnoses is a causative mechanism. I'd also suggest in many cases, these factors are far more causative than enabling.

Agree with all points, and for all the faults of the club - there was nothing more that could be done to support Oliver. We as a club absolutely lent in to support him in an authentic and genuine manner. It went far beyond traditional window dressing and I'm actually proud of the club for this. What is absolutely disappointing for mine, is the toing and throwing the club has done over the past two seasons with Oliver. It's weak and frankly pretty embarrassing. We made a decision to back him in and mend the relationship, yet the club has acted akin to a parent that makes empty threats and everyone knows it - including the child; a real "if you keep doing that, you'll be getting out of the pool", and then the parent never delivers. If we're at a point we're the relationship is untenable, or the concerns around Oliver and his behaviour/standards can no longer be tolerated, then get him out. The weakness of the club in this regard is embarrassing and frankly somewhat farcical.

Agree, the days of Oliver being worth a top ten pick, let alone multiple top ten picks, are gone as it stands. The writing on the wall from the situation is that Oliver will go. I suspect some posters on here will be in for a rude awakening regarding the return.

I can't stand Goodwin, and I have huge issues with Pert and Roffey, I'm on the record there. But the club can't be blamed for Oliver's immaturity, extraneous strings pulling at Petracca and ANB has legitimate reasons to go back to SA. I completely disagree with your definitive statement on ANB; and until you've been in a situation like that there's no point projecting. Whilst I somewhat agree with your point around the environment being subpar, the whataboutism is a completely hypothetical point.

What was said that was incorrect?

Four vastly different situations.

Fair summation. I'd have Peatling in the 'nice to have' category, but I realistically wouldn't be giving that sort of a player a five year deal as has been mooted.