Gardner OK - Cousins NOT

[WayneJudson42]

Did we? Did we give due dilligence, and a 5 month investigation as to the company he kept, his behaviour etc etc?

If we did - we've certainly dropped the ball on that one since then.

Please clarify.

[joffaboy]

It's the same reason he still pots and lies about GT at every opportunity.

GT is gone. Move on

[rodgerfox]

Did we? Did we give due dilligence, and a 5 month investigation as to the company he kept, his behaviour etc etc?

If we did - we've certainly dropped the ball on that one since then.

Please clarify.

What's to clarify??

If we did a 5 month investigation into Michael Gardiner as to the company he kept, his behaviour etc. etc. before recruiting him, we failed.

Did we do a 5 month investigation into him?

[WayneJudson42]

We took Michael Gardner in 2006 who had played a handful of games since 2003 and has a F***ed body. and had serious off-field issues and used DP#43 to do so.

Yet

Denied the 2005 Browlnow medallist, whose body is as fit as any player who has ever played. Cousins was in rare touch as late as 2007 averaging 25 possessions a game..

This decision is disgraceful, and goes against the want of the members and coaches and players......and AFL community...

it happens when a bunch of suits try to make decisions about sport, when they have zero fu**ing idea....really football matters should be left to those who know something about the game....i want to win, and seriously could not give a rats about upholding bullsh*t values.

Football First........seriously, besides two, who in that group actually understands the game......especially not a scottish git, whose every decision seem to be a massive F*** up.

I will seriously consider my position in supporting a basket case.....tonight will be remembered as the night our club made another poor decision and let a golden opportunity (risk albeit) slip......how often do you get the chance to take a brownlow medallist?????

F*** heads

Agree 100%

Cousins might actually be the one player who could make a difference in our midfield and this decision made by a board who should have been kicked out yesterday, might actually cost us a premiership!

Who knows, but it is very possible, that in 2009 with Cousins, potentially we were going to be a much bigger threat to any opposition club.

As for footy first, those f****** had better be ready when the AGM comes around!

FAIR DINKUM

B4E... Cousins was not drafted because he refused to drive all the way to Seaford for training.

Apparently, there are some trips he doesn't do.

BTW, congratulations on having a commemorative hamburger named after your posts...

Hungry Jack's: Angry Whopper.

[WayneJudson42]

Did we? Did we give due dilligence, and a 5 month investigation as to the company he kept, his behaviour etc etc?

If we did - we've certainly dropped the ball on that one since then.

Please clarify.

What's to clarify??

If we did a 5 month investigation into Michael Gardiner as to the company he kept, his behaviour etc. etc. before recruiting him, we failed.

Did we do a 5 month investigation into him?

No, I beleive not.

Your post insinuates that we got it wrong and that he has somehow relapsed. Well that's how I read it.

Assuming we did, how exactly have dropped the ball since then?

[Richter]

No, I disagree.

It's usually very clear if it's someone view or opinion. I ignore these as they don't count for shiit.

I look for facts. To see if someone knows something. People's opinions bore me.

If I read 'he has done everything the club has asked of him' I take that as a statement of fact.

It it's not true however, it's a lie.


When I pick up a newspaper it's the same. If in the first sentence or paragraph I realise it's an opinion piece, then I don't bother reading.

If it's factual, or gossip from what's considered to be a good source, then I'm interested.


I just can't stand floggers who rate their opinion so highly that they state it as fact.

You are a very concrete thinker Rodger (now is that a fact or my (perhaps informed) opinion?).

People's opinions don't bore you Rodger (again IMO but is it a FACT? well, here comes the evidence....) - you are often asking for others' views on here. You wouldn't ask (usually politely) and then respond intelligently (as you usually do) if you were bored. You wouldn't have racked up nearly 5000 posts on here if opinions bore you. You know very well that there is a mountain of speculation on here and very little true knowledge. I am quite sure that you have better information at your fingertips outside of here. The main reason you come on here, IMO based on having read your posts...... is because you enjoy talking about the Saints with other diehards.....


You ask sRs to admit he might be wrong from time to time...... fair enough, perhaps he can be a bit priggish (not IMO btw but I can see where you're coming from)..... but to outright call someone a liar - and you seem to be the only person who has a problem with him - is a bit over the top.

How about you start the mea culpae and admit that the central issue you have is with that particular poster and just the content of the posts. It's as plain as day to everyone else on here.

[joffaboy]

If we did a 5 month investigation into Michael Gardiner as to the company he kept, his behaviour etc. etc. before recruiting him, we failed.

Did we do a 5 month investigation into him?

Can I ask a genuine question RF?

Do you think the circumstances of Michael Gardiner required the same type of investigation as Ben Cousins? In asking that I am making the assumption from what I have read by you on the Cousins issue that the seriousness of it was disproportional to the issue at hand - i.e do we draft him as a footballer or not.

From most perspectives I have read here, it would seem opinion is that MG's supposed issues were of significantly less seriousness compared to Ben Cousins and his issues.

Am I correct in assuming this? And do you think this is the fundamental difference between your stance on this issue and others?

[Mr Magic]

Simple

I've called SrR a liar plenty of time.

The reason I would have thought was quite obvious - because he is.


The comments about Gardiner aren't SrR's POV - if they were he would have said that.

But he didn't.

He stated them as fact.

They're not fact. They'e untrue.
So he's not telling the truth. Therefore, he's lying.

So....wait for it...he's a liar.


Simple.

There you are roger, in your own words.

What was it sRr is supposed to have lied about, according to you?

You're the one who made the accusation. All I and others have asked you is to put up the facts that back your statement that 'They'e untrue'.

He's a lair. Wher's the facts to support this statement?

He's done everything the club has asked of him. What did the club ask of him? And where is the evidence to prove that he has?

That's just two. In one post.

SrR makes stuff up to support his views which have been rammed down everyone's throats.

He supported Lyon for recruiting Gardiner. And still makes stuff up to support that view.
It's the same reason he still pots and lies about GT at every opportunity.

roger,
If it comes down to a choice between believing unsubstantiated facts from either sRr or yourself, then I'm sorry to have to tell you that I would believe sRr's version before your own. He at least comes on here and tries to engage in debate rather then trying to be a smartar$e 'baiter' like you appear to be.

FYI I've highlighted in red the statements you made in this post that are nothing but your unsubstantiated allegations and yet you 'hurl' them as proven fact.
You are the one making the unsubstantiated allegations, IMHO, you should put up the facts to support them.

[rodgerfox]

If we did a 5 month investigation into Michael Gardiner as to the company he kept, his behaviour etc. etc. before recruiting him, we failed.

Did we do a 5 month investigation into him?

Can I ask a genuine question RF?

Do you think the circumstances of Michael Gardiner required the same type of investigation as Ben Cousins? In asking that I am making the assumption from what I have read by you on the Cousins issue that the seriousness of it was disproportional to the issue at hand - i.e do we draft him as a footballer or not.

From most perspectives I have read here, it would seem opinion is that MG's supposed issues were of significantly less seriousness compared to Ben Cousins and his issues.

Am I correct in assuming this? And do you think this is the fundamental difference between your stance on this issue and others?

I don't even remember what my stance on the subject is.

I don't even remember what the subject is?

[rodgerfox]

Simple

I've called SrR a liar plenty of time.

The reason I would have thought was quite obvious - because he is.


The comments about Gardiner aren't SrR's POV - if they were he would have said that.

But he didn't.

He stated them as fact.

They're not fact. They'e untrue.
So he's not telling the truth. Therefore, he's lying.

So....wait for it...he's a liar.


Simple.

There you are roger, in your own words.

What was it sRr is supposed to have lied about, according to you?

You're the one who made the accusation. All I and others have asked you is to put up the facts that back your statement that 'They'e untrue'.

He's a lair. Wher's the facts to support this statement?

He's done everything the club has asked of him. What did the club ask of him? And where is the evidence to prove that he has?

That's just two. In one post.

SrR makes stuff up to support his views which have been rammed down everyone's throats.

He supported Lyon for recruiting Gardiner. And still makes stuff up to support that view.
It's the same reason he still pots and lies about GT at every opportunity.

roger,
If it comes down to a choice between believing unsubstantiated facts from either sRr or yourself, then I'm sorry to have to tell you that I would believe sRr's version before your own. He at least comes on here and tries to engage in debate rather then trying to be a smartar$e 'baiter' like you appear to be.

FYI I've highlighted in red the statements you made in this post that are nothing but your unsubstantiated allegations and yet you 'hurl' them as proven fact.
You are the one making the unsubstantiated allegations, IMHO, you should put up the facts to support them.

With all due respect Mr Magic, I couldn't give a shiit if you believe me or not.

And with more due respect, I couldn't give a shiit about YHO either.

[rodgerfox]

Did we? Did we give due dilligence, and a 5 month investigation as to the company he kept, his behaviour etc etc?

If we did - we've certainly dropped the ball on that one since then.

Please clarify.

What's to clarify??

If we did a 5 month investigation into Michael Gardiner as to the company he kept, his behaviour etc. etc. before recruiting him, we failed.

Did we do a 5 month investigation into him?

No, I beleive not.

Your post insinuates that we got it wrong and that he has somehow relapsed. Well that's how I read it.

Assuming we did, how exactly have dropped the ball since then?

Your the one assuming, so you answer the question.

[WayneJudson42]

Did we? Did we give due dilligence, and a 5 month investigation as to the company he kept, his behaviour etc etc?

If we did - we've certainly dropped the ball on that one since then.

Please clarify.

What's to clarify??

If we did a 5 month investigation into Michael Gardiner as to the company he kept, his behaviour etc. etc. before recruiting him, we failed.

Did we do a 5 month investigation into him?

No, I beleive not.

Your post insinuates that we got it wrong and that he has somehow relapsed. Well that's how I read it.

Assuming we did, how exactly have dropped the ball since then?

Your the one assuming, so you answer the question.

That's why we love you.

You made the comment, so clarify what you meant by it.

[rodgerfox]

Did we? Did we give due dilligence, and a 5 month investigation as to the company he kept, his behaviour etc etc?

If we did - we've certainly dropped the ball on that one since then.

Please clarify.

What's to clarify??

If we did a 5 month investigation into Michael Gardiner as to the company he kept, his behaviour etc. etc. before recruiting him, we failed.

Did we do a 5 month investigation into him?

No, I beleive not.

Your post insinuates that we got it wrong and that he has somehow relapsed. Well that's how I read it.

Assuming we did, how exactly have dropped the ball since then?

Your the one assuming, so you answer the question.

That's why we love you.

You made the comment, so clarify what you meant by it.

I didn't make the comment at all.

I said 'if we did a 5 month investigation into Gardiner etc. etc.'.

We didn't do a 5 month investigation.

If you want to go into hypotheticals, that's fine. However I don't.

[Mr Magic]

roger,
in case you were somehow under a misapprehension, I'm not sure there's many on here who actually 'give a shiit', to use your vernacular, about you and/or your opinion.

You seem to believe that this forum waits with bated breath for the next pearl of wisdom from the great rogerfox's keyboard?

Why do you feel the need to turn every thread you infect into an 'it's all about me. rogerfox' thread?

[rodgerfox]

roger,
in case you were somehow under a misapprehension, I'm not sure there's many on here who actually 'give a shiit', to use your vernacular, about you and/or your opinion.

You seem to believe that this forum waits with bated breath for the next pearl of wisdom from the great rogerfox's keyboard?

Why do you feel the need to turn every thread you infect into an 'it's all about me. rogerfox' thread?

It's pretty simple - don't respond. Or even better - don't even read my posts.

That way you won't get so upset.

[SENsei]

If we did a 5 month investigation into Michael Gardiner as to the company he kept, his behaviour etc. etc. before recruiting him, we failed.

Did we do a 5 month investigation into him?

Can I ask a genuine question RF?

Do you think the circumstances of Michael Gardiner required the same type of investigation as Ben Cousins? In asking that I am making the assumption from what I have read by you on the Cousins issue that the seriousness of it was disproportional to the issue at hand - i.e do we draft him as a footballer or not.

From most perspectives I have read here, it would seem opinion is that MG's supposed issues were of significantly less seriousness compared to Ben Cousins and his issues.

Am I correct in assuming this? And do you think this is the fundamental difference between your stance on this issue and others?

I don't even remember what my stance on the subject is.

I don't even remember what the subject is?

That's a pretty piss poor response to a pretty genuine question Rodger. I think the question deserved more than that.

FWIW, I enjoy reading Rodger's posts....although I do sometimes tire of the question answering a question line of questions though!!

[rodgerfox]

If we did a 5 month investigation into Michael Gardiner as to the company he kept, his behaviour etc. etc. before recruiting him, we failed.

Did we do a 5 month investigation into him?

Can I ask a genuine question RF?

Do you think the circumstances of Michael Gardiner required the same type of investigation as Ben Cousins? In asking that I am making the assumption from what I have read by you on the Cousins issue that the seriousness of it was disproportional to the issue at hand - i.e do we draft him as a footballer or not.

From most perspectives I have read here, it would seem opinion is that MG's supposed issues were of significantly less seriousness compared to Ben Cousins and his issues.

Am I correct in assuming this? And do you think this is the fundamental difference between your stance on this issue and others?

I don't even remember what my stance on the subject is.

I don't even remember what the subject is?

That's a pretty piss poor response to a pretty genuine question Rodger. I think the question deserved more than that.

FWIW, I enjoy reading Rodger's posts....although I do sometimes tire of the question answering a question line of questions though!!

I don't think I ever reallt commented on the decision to recruit Cousins.

My comments have been based on the reasoning and handling of the decision.


I have no idea whether we should have recruited Cousins or not. I don't know him, have never met him, haven't seen his medical records and don't know anyone who has.

If we was going to play as well as he has in the past, then I'd say any risks would have to be incredibly high to outweigh the positives.

[SENsei]

I was against recruiting him on football issues, not moral grounds. The hammys and time out of the game had me concerned from the get go.

Having said that, in a football sense, I've been astounded by the extension to the contract of Michael Gardiner. Can't see that being justified at all at present.

Lastly, I don't think you can compare the BC & MG situations. BC was banned from the game and the AFL really don't want him to play again. Pressure was exerted on clubs not to recruit him IMO.

[Mr Magic]

roger,
in case you were somehow under a misapprehension, I'm not sure there's many on here who actually 'give a shiit', to use your vernacular, about you and/or your opinion.

You seem to believe that this forum waits with bated breath for the next pearl of wisdom from the great rogerfox's keyboard?

Why do you feel the need to turn every thread you infect into an 'it's all about me. rogerfox' thread?

It's pretty simple - don't respond. Or even better - don't even read my posts.

That way you won't get so upset.

Hey don't self-flagellate or flatter yourself roger. You couldn't upset me.


I just find it really interesting that you would waste your oh so valuable time consistantly baiting people on a footy forum, just so you can get your jollies or rocks off.
But hey, it takes all types and you are just our resident flog.

Oh, and not a fact roge, just one personna's opinion
.

[rodgerfox]

roger,
in case you were somehow under a misapprehension, I'm not sure there's many on here who actually 'give a shiit', to use your vernacular, about you and/or your opinion.

You seem to believe that this forum waits with bated breath for the next pearl of wisdom from the great rogerfox's keyboard?

Why do you feel the need to turn every thread you infect into an 'it's all about me. rogerfox' thread?

It's pretty simple - don't respond. Or even better - don't even read my posts.

That way you won't get so upset.

Hey don't self-flagellate or flatter yourself roger. You couldn't upset me.


I just find it really interesting that you would waste your oh so valuable time consistantly baiting people on a footy forum, just so you can get your jollies or rocks off.
But hey, it takes all types and you are just our resident flog.

Oh, and not a fact roge, just one personna's opinion
.

'our resident flog'?

Who are you referring to when you say 'our'?

[Mr Magic]

roger,
in case you were somehow under a misapprehension, I'm not sure there's many on here who actually 'give a shiit', to use your vernacular, about you and/or your opinion.

You seem to believe that this forum waits with bated breath for the next pearl of wisdom from the great rogerfox's keyboard?

Why do you feel the need to turn every thread you infect into an 'it's all about me. rogerfox' thread?

It's pretty simple - don't respond. Or even better - don't even read my posts.

That way you won't get so upset.

Hey don't self-flagellate or flatter yourself roger. You couldn't upset me.


I just find it really interesting that you would waste your oh so valuable time consistantly baiting people on a footy forum, just so you can get your jollies or rocks off.
But hey, it takes all types and you are just our resident flog.

Oh, and not a fact roge, just one personna's opinion
.

'our resident flog'?

Who are you referring to when you say 'our'?

Us

[Saints Premiers 2008]

different circumstances

[joffaboy]

different circumstances

I would have thought so.

However put it this way. I still would rather have cousins than Gardiner on our list.

[WayneJudson42]

I owuld have thought it was simple enough...

OhWhen asked about MG:

Did we? Did we give due dilligence, and a 5 month investigation as to the company he kept, his behaviour etc etc?

You replied...

If we did - we've certainly dropped the ball on that one since then.

So what did you mean by that?

Which ball did we drop? And in what context? If you don't deal in hypotheticals, why say it?

Is it really too difficult to answer the question?

[rodgerfox]

If you don't deal in hypotheticals, why say it?

I didn't say I don't deal in hypotheticals.