The Richmond Situation Vs. Ours

[WayneJudson42]

I think you'll find that on any given day... and in any given situation... the people who are upset are the ones who will be more vocal than people who are satisfied.

That's why you'll always get a disproportionate number of complaints v praises, no matter how great your service and products are.

In our case, I'd suspect that the ones who don't care about BC simply don't care. Whereas the supporters who are pissed off are more likely to vent their anger.

..and then there's idiots like me.

Just look at this forum as a microcosm of human behaviour... I'll bet that there are far more angry threads when we're not travelling well... compared to when we're winning.

I guess that in the end, supporters will judge with their wallets. Let's see how memberships go next year.

However, I suspect that whatever level we achieve, the pro BC's will be shouting "it could have been more if we recruited Benny".

[happy feet]

A few weeks ago I listened to an interview of Kevin Sheedy on ABC radio on the south coast of NSW. Not often you get AFL coverage in gods own glorious country. I did not know much of Sheedy but it was a bloody good interview, and, at its end after his discussion of the Cousins dilemma, I knew Richmond would take him on. Why so you say. A simple answer.

Leadership.

Leadership in its true form does not make the safe decision the only option. It goes with gut feel, with daring and calculated risk. The things that wini you a game.

Good luck to Richmond for daring to take the risk. And, all the things that I felt but did not know about Sheedy disappeared in a 20 minute interview that showed intelligence, compassion and daring. No wonder the Bombers have had success. Mr Sheedy is a true leader of men.

I cannot wait to be howled down, but so be it.

[Quixote]

^^^ Are you George Miller?

[vacuous space]

Let's see how memberships go next year.

I don't think memberships are going to be greatly affected by whether we pick up one player or not. I think, given the position we're in (3 prelims in 5 years), people will be waiting to see what kind of start we get off to. If people can talk themselves into believing we're a shot for the flag, they'll buy memberships. If we're fun to watch they'll buy memberships. If we're playing snoozers and losing, they won't buy memberships.

I think the current state of the world economy will have more people holding off buying their memberships. If memberships aren't as high as expected next year, I'd be more inclined to believe it was the economy than anything to do with Ben Cousins that was doing it.

[WayneJudson42]

A few weeks ago I listened to an interview of Kevin Sheedy on ABC radio on the south coast of NSW. Not often you get AFL coverage in gods own glorious country. I did not know much of Sheedy but it was a bloody good interview, and, at its end after his discussion of the Cousins dilemma, I knew Richmond would take him on. Why so you say. A simple answer.

Leadership.

Leadership in its true form does not make the safe decision the only option. It goes with gut feel, with daring and calculated risk. The things that wini you a game.

Good luck to Richmond for daring to take the risk. And, all the things that I felt but did not know about Sheedy disappeared in a 20 minute interview that showed intelligence, compassion and daring. No wonder the Bombers have had success. Mr Sheedy is a true leader of men.

I cannot wait to be howled down, but so be it.

I know first hand that this was Sheedy's pet project. He is a decent man and compassionate. I have no doubt that he was p1ssed at the AFL by the way they teated the whole episode.

Kudos to him for what he's doing for BC. Now given the title of this thread... one wonders had Sheedy not been with Richmond...and without his assurances and passion... would their board (less Sheedy) have had the guts to take him? Probably not.

Sheeds would have been content to see him go to the Saints and possibly Brissie. However, when both clubs declined, he stood up and persuaded Richmond to get on board.

Had he been with us, and not the tiges... then I reckong BC would be a Saint.

Richmond got balls? Yes, and his name is Sheedy. Without him, they would still be a eunuch footy club and would not have even considered BC.

[Shaggy]

A few weeks ago I listened to an interview of Kevin Sheedy on ABC radio on the south coast of NSW. Not often you get AFL coverage in gods own glorious country. I did not know much of Sheedy but it was a bloody good interview, and, at its end after his discussion of the Cousins dilemma, I knew Richmond would take him on. Why so you say. A simple answer.

Leadership.

Leadership in its true form does not make the safe decision the only option. It goes with gut feel, with daring and calculated risk. The things that wini you a game.

Good luck to Richmond for daring to take the risk. And, all the things that I felt but did not know about Sheedy disappeared in a 20 minute interview that showed intelligence, compassion and daring. No wonder the Bombers have had success. Mr Sheedy is a true leader of men.

I cannot wait to be howled down, but so be it.

At the Saints RL is the leader and he was not pro BC.

RL has already shown he doesn't mind recruiting oldies (MC) or those with dubious backgrounds (MG).

Risk taking was not the issue but trust (IMO). And there was a break down prior to the decision at the Saints (IMO).

I doubt Sheedy would have made any difference.

[degruch]

A few weeks ago I listened to an interview of Kevin Sheedy on ABC radio on the south coast of NSW. Not often you get AFL coverage in gods own glorious country. I did not know much of Sheedy but it was a bloody good interview, and, at its end after his discussion of the Cousins dilemma, I knew Richmond would take him on. Why so you say. A simple answer.

Leadership.

Leadership in its true form does not make the safe decision the only option. It goes with gut feel, with daring and calculated risk. The things that wini you a game.

Good luck to Richmond for daring to take the risk. And, all the things that I felt but did not know about Sheedy disappeared in a 20 minute interview that showed intelligence, compassion and daring. No wonder the Bombers have had success. Mr Sheedy is a true leader of men.

I cannot wait to be howled down, but so be it.

I know first hand that this was Sheedy's pet project. He is a decent man and compassionate. I have no doubt that he was p1ssed at the AFL by the way they teated the whole episode.

Kudos to him for what he's doing for BC. Now given the title of this thread... one wonders had Sheedy not been with Richmond...and without his assurances and passion... would their board (less Sheedy) have had the guts to take him? Probably not.

Sheeds would have been content to see him go to the Saints and possibly Brissie. However, when both clubs declined, he stood up and persuaded Richmond to get on board.

Had he been with us, and not the tiges... then I reckong BC would be a Saint.

Richmond got balls? Yes, and his name is Sheedy. Without him, they would still be a eunuch footy club and would not have even considered BC.

I dunno...sounds like a great way of scheming yourself to the top by Sheeds. Wallace needs to make the finals, so why not put a potential premiership points loser in the team!?!

[bob__71]

A few weeks ago I listened to an interview of Kevin Sheedy on ABC radio on the south coast of NSW. Not often you get AFL coverage in gods own glorious country. I did not know much of Sheedy but it was a bloody good interview, and, at its end after his discussion of the Cousins dilemma, I knew Richmond would take him on. Why so you say. A simple answer.

Leadership.

Leadership in its true form does not make the safe decision the only option. It goes with gut feel, with daring and calculated risk. The things that wini you a game.

Good luck to Richmond for daring to take the risk. And, all the things that I felt but did not know about Sheedy disappeared in a 20 minute interview that showed intelligence, compassion and daring. No wonder the Bombers have had success. Mr Sheedy is a true leader of men.

I cannot wait to be howled down, but so be it.

And those incharge at StKilda had the gut feel that it was not right for them.

[rodgerfox]

At the Saints RL is the leader

Is he??

[WayneJudson42]

A few weeks ago I listened to an interview of Kevin Sheedy on ABC radio on the south coast of NSW. Not often you get AFL coverage in gods own glorious country. I did not know much of Sheedy but it was a bloody good interview, and, at its end after his discussion of the Cousins dilemma, I knew Richmond would take him on. Why so you say. A simple answer.

Leadership.

Leadership in its true form does not make the safe decision the only option. It goes with gut feel, with daring and calculated risk. The things that wini you a game.

Good luck to Richmond for daring to take the risk. And, all the things that I felt but did not know about Sheedy disappeared in a 20 minute interview that showed intelligence, compassion and daring. No wonder the Bombers have had success. Mr Sheedy is a true leader of men.

I cannot wait to be howled down, but so be it.

I know first hand that this was Sheedy's pet project. He is a decent man and compassionate. I have no doubt that he was p1ssed at the AFL by the way they teated the whole episode.

Kudos to him for what he's doing for BC. Now given the title of this thread... one wonders had Sheedy not been with Richmond...and without his assurances and passion... would their board (less Sheedy) have had the guts to take him? Probably not.

Sheeds would have been content to see him go to the Saints and possibly Brissie. However, when both clubs declined, he stood up and persuaded Richmond to get on board.

Had he been with us, and not the tiges... then I reckong BC would be a Saint.

Richmond got balls? Yes, and his name is Sheedy. Without him, they would still be a eunuch footy club and would not have even considered BC.

I dunno...sounds like a great way of scheming yourself to the top by Sheeds. Wallace needs to make the finals, so why not put a potential premiership points loser in the team!?!

I don't think there's anything sinister in his motives. It's typical sheedy. But I highly doubt that Richmond, and their board don't deserve their "super hero" status bestowed upon them.

Remember that up until a few weeks ago... BC was a no go with them.

[Saints94]

A few weeks ago I listened to an interview of Kevin Sheedy on ABC radio on the south coast of NSW. Not often you get AFL coverage in gods own glorious country. I did not know much of Sheedy but it was a bloody good interview, and, at its end after his discussion of the Cousins dilemma, I knew Richmond would take him on. Why so you say. A simple answer.

Leadership.

Leadership in its true form does not make the safe decision the only option. It goes with gut feel, with daring and calculated risk. The things that wini you a game.

Good luck to Richmond for daring to take the risk. And, all the things that I felt but did not know about Sheedy disappeared in a 20 minute interview that showed intelligence, compassion and daring. No wonder the Bombers have had success. Mr Sheedy is a true leader of men.

I cannot wait to be howled down, but so be it.

I know first hand that this was Sheedy's pet project. He is a decent man and compassionate. I have no doubt that he was p1ssed at the AFL by the way they teated the whole episode.

Kudos to him for what he's doing for BC. Now given the title of this thread... one wonders had Sheedy not been with Richmond...and without his assurances and passion... would their board (less Sheedy) have had the guts to take him? Probably not.

Sheeds would have been content to see him go to the Saints and possibly Brissie. However, when both clubs declined, he stood up and persuaded Richmond to get on board.

Had he been with us, and not the tiges... then I reckong BC would be a Saint.

Richmond got balls? Yes, and his name is Sheedy. Without him, they would still be a eunuch footy club and would not have even considered BC.

I dunno...sounds like a great way of scheming yourself to the top by Sheeds. Wallace needs to make the finals, so why not put a potential premiership points loser in the team!?!

I don't think there's anything sinister in his motives. It's typical sheedy. But I highly doubt that Richmond, and their board don't deserve their "super hero" status bestowed upon them.

Remember that up until a few weeks ago... BC was a no go with them.

Yeah..... sponsers didn't have a say because they don't have any

[rodgerfox]

I don't think there's anything sinister in his motives. It's typical sheedy. But I highly doubt that Richmond, and their board don't deserve their "super hero" status bestowed upon them.

Remember that up until a few weeks ago... BC was a no go with them.

And that was kinda the point of this thread.

Did it take balls for Richmond to swallow their pride and take him? Or was it a gutless submission to pressure?

Or did we gutlessly succumb to pressures? Or did we have balls to make the correct decision for us even if it wouldn't be popular?


I suppose unless you were a fly on the wall at the 4 hour Board meeting, we'll never know why we didn't take him. Therefore we can't judge whether or not we were gutless or ballsy.

[WayneJudson42]

I don't think there's anything sinister in his motives. It's typical sheedy. But I highly doubt that Richmond, and their board don't deserve their "super hero" status bestowed upon them.

Remember that up until a few weeks ago... BC was a no go with them.

And that was kinda the point of this thread.

Did it take balls for Richmond to swallow their pride and take him? Or was it a gutless submission to pressure?

Or did we gutlessly succumb to pressures? Or did we have balls to make the correct decision for us even if it wouldn't be popular?


I suppose unless you were a fly on the wall at the 4 hour Board meeting, we'll never know why we didn't take him. Therefore we can't judge whether or not we were gutless or ballsy.

why didn't you just say that in your op?

Give me a few weeks and I'll find out why... i suspect it was the latter

[Digs20]

http://megaswf.com/view/37b1a2cafbbdfe0 ... 75db2.html

about Richmond signing benny

also did the Ben Cousins game for teh saints:

www.hibernate.com.au/Cousins.html

hope you enjoy.

[barks4eva]

Can someone summarise this post in under 1,000 words please, so I don't have to read 14 pages of utter crappola?

Ta!

The St kilda board squibbed it!

Conclusion, current board, you've had your go, now move on and let someone with a fair dinkum clue, take control!

[Solar]

GET OVER IT



or just keep acting like whitnalls brother ... "go tigers"

[Banger2Plugger]

Ok - I am a little bemused by the so called "leadership" capabilities that are such a plus to have in Ben Cousins.

Lets go back to West Coast - a true leader needs to get on the park to begin with so what stopped Benny getting on the park to begin with:

Off Field Indiscretions - running away from a police booze bus
- affiliating with known drug pushers
- admitting to substance abuse

and I am sure there were more which lead to in fighting between players at WCE - Daniel Chic and another player springs to mind.

Now i admit - the guy is known to be regimented in his preparation, a gut runner.

A leader - the good ones - the best ones - carry themselves as leaders on the field, and off it - Ben is not one of those, purely by past actions.

If Judd is the best leader of men in the AFL, then Ben is a long long long way off being the "leader" that people seems to be holding him in so high regard.

[WayneJudson42]

Oh the irony of it all...

Ben Cousins is now coahed by Ben Dover.

[sunsaint]

If Judd is the best leader of men in the AFL, then Ben is a long long long way off being the "leader" that people seems to be holding him in so high regard.

I read that statement, then saw you ID and thought,
Not all players aspire to be leaders and role models.
Most just want to play footy, doesnt make them better or worse.
Harvey and Lockett never aspired to be leaders and role models. Two individuals who had very different personalities, & whose "football" lives started and ended when they crossed over the white line.

[WayneJudson42]

If Judd is the best leader of men in the AFL, then Ben is a long long long way off being the "leader" that people seems to be holding him in so high regard.

I read that statement, then saw you ID and thought,
Not all players aspire to be leaders and role models.
Most just want to play footy, doesnt make them better or worse.
Harvey and Lockett never aspired to be leaders and role models. Two individuals who had very different personalities, & whose "football" lives started and ended when they crossed over the white line.

Sadly, Benny gave a new meaning to white line fever. A leader he was not. Like Carey, he ripped the sould out of his club and let down a lot of people. And he'll have to live with that.

Let the guy get on with his life, let's not make a matyr of him.

[n1ck]

Judd is not the best leader of men.

Cousins was and will always be a far better FOOTBALLING leader than Chris Judd.

[Digs20]

Carlton got the best leader last year when Judd arrived.

Tigers now have someone to follow who knows what he's doing too.

Which team benefits the most? I say the Tigers because the drop from Cousins to Richo/Brown/whoever is far greater than the drop down of Judd to Fev/Whitnall etc.

But if Cousins went to the Blues somehow - Judd would immediately be second in line (ON THE FIELD - where it counts)

[doggerel]

Can someone summarise this post in under 1,000 words please, so I don't have to read 14 pages of utter crappola?

Ta!

The St kilda board squibbed it!

Conclusion, current board, you've had your go, now move on and let someone with a fair dinkum clue, take control!

Jeld Wen said they would pull their sponsorship if we recruited Cousins. Does that mean the board squibbed it? They took the only course they could in the circumstances. Doesn't mean they liked it anymore than you or I do.

[SaintDippa]

Re: Board squibbing.

Can anyone confirm my mail that it was never discussed at Board level. RL said no, so end-of-story.

[PJ]

I suppose unless you were a fly on the wall at the 4 hour Board meeting, we'll never know why we didn't take him. Therefore we can't judge whether or not we were gutless or ballsy.

This should be the concluding argument to the thread really - says it all rodgerfox - cheers.