Barret on Hannebery

[SaintPav]

Cool.

[saynta]

I would say he has more credibility and inside knowledge about the AFL than anyone on here.

It also seems to coincide with other things that have been said.

Not with me and I suspect the bulk of the football loving public. A stain on the game imho.

Even Richo called bulls*** on the flog's statement saying he doubted the truth of it.

As did Simon:

"Lethlean said he’d be “surprised if anyone with any credibility” from the Swans would have been bemused the Saints’ decision to add Hannebery to the leadership group.

“I’d be interested to know who it was that’s laughing about their vice-captain from last year and a 200-game player that’s much-loved by the club,” he said.

“It certainly wouldn’t have come from (coach) John Longmire, (chief executive) Tom Harley or (former CEO) Andrew Ireland and people that are respected in the football industry and I doubt it would come from a club like Sydney that have a great culture and great respect in football.”

So as I said Barrett is a flog not above lying his ugly face off.

If you’re asking me who is most likely telling porkies in that situation, the club has way more reasons to than Barrett.

When does a club ever throw a current player under the bus?

You got that wrong. Either the swans said it or didn't say it. Barrett's either telling the truth of lying. The clubs betting on the latter.

What f****** porkies are you accusing the Saints of telling?

[rodgerfox]

I would say he has more credibility and inside knowledge about the AFL than anyone on here.

It also seems to coincide with other things that have been said.

Not with me and I suspect the bulk of the football loving public. A stain on the game imho.

Even Richo called bulls*** on the flog's statement saying he doubted the truth of it.

As did Simon:

"Lethlean said he’d be “surprised if anyone with any credibility” from the Swans would have been bemused the Saints’ decision to add Hannebery to the leadership group.

“I’d be interested to know who it was that’s laughing about their vice-captain from last year and a 200-game player that’s much-loved by the club,” he said.

“It certainly wouldn’t have come from (coach) John Longmire, (chief executive) Tom Harley or (former CEO) Andrew Ireland and people that are respected in the football industry and I doubt it would come from a club like Sydney that have a great culture and great respect in football.”

So as I said Barrett is a flog not above lying his ugly face off.

If you’re asking me who is most likely telling porkies in that situation, the club has way more reasons to than Barrett.

When does a club ever throw a current player under the bus?

What is Barrett actually saying though?

What's the actual story?

The Swans were bemused? Who was bemused? Why were they bemused?


Barrett is woeful. For a guy with apparently so much inside information, he certainly doesn't say a lot.

I never understand why his style of 'journalism' is ever taken seriously.

If you have information - report it.

If you don't, then don't report it.

If he has an opinion, share it. By all means. But don't pretend it's fact.

[Cairnsman]

I would say he has more credibility and inside knowledge about the AFL than anyone on here.

It also seems to coincide with other things that have been said.

Not with me and I suspect the bulk of the football loving public. A stain on the game imho.

Even Richo called bulls*** on the flog's statement saying he doubted the truth of it.

As did Simon:

"Lethlean said he’d be “surprised if anyone with any credibility” from the Swans would have been bemused the Saints’ decision to add Hannebery to the leadership group.

“I’d be interested to know who it was that’s laughing about their vice-captain from last year and a 200-game player that’s much-loved by the club,” he said.

“It certainly wouldn’t have come from (coach) John Longmire, (chief executive) Tom Harley or (former CEO) Andrew Ireland and people that are respected in the football industry and I doubt it would come from a club like Sydney that have a great culture and great respect in football.”

So as I said Barrett is a flog not above lying his ugly face off.

If you’re asking me who is most likely telling porkies in that situation, the club has way more reasons to than Barrett.

When does a club ever throw a current player under the bus?

What is Barrett actually saying though?

What's the actual story?

The Swans were bemused? Who was bemused? Why were they bemused?


Barrett is woeful. For a guy with apparently so much inside information, he certainly doesn't say a lot.

I never understand why his style of 'journalism' is ever taken seriously.

If you have information - report it.

If you don't, then don't report it.

If he has an opinion, share it. By all means. But don't pretend it's fact.

Looking at it from Barrett's perspective.

How easy is this caper.

My audience are morons.

I can control their thoughts and emotions with a primary school dictionary.

To find out how to push thier buttons all I need to do is get my personal assistant to monitor social media and boil it down for me in dot points.

I get paid ship loads to then select a template for the story and get my PA to fill in the blanks and hit the submit button.

And just repeat the cycle season after season.

Life is good Barrett would say a lot.

Keep clicking folks. The Barretts of the world loves yooos all.

[The_Dud]

I would say he has more credibility and inside knowledge about the AFL than anyone on here.

It also seems to coincide with other things that have been said.

Not with me and I suspect the bulk of the football loving public. A stain on the game imho.

Even Richo called bulls*** on the flog's statement saying he doubted the truth of it.

As did Simon:

"Lethlean said he’d be “surprised if anyone with any credibility” from the Swans would have been bemused the Saints’ decision to add Hannebery to the leadership group.

“I’d be interested to know who it was that’s laughing about their vice-captain from last year and a 200-game player that’s much-loved by the club,” he said.

“It certainly wouldn’t have come from (coach) John Longmire, (chief executive) Tom Harley or (former CEO) Andrew Ireland and people that are respected in the football industry and I doubt it would come from a club like Sydney that have a great culture and great respect in football.”

So as I said Barrett is a flog not above lying his ugly face off.

If you’re asking me who is most likely telling porkies in that situation, the club has way more reasons to than Barrett.

When does a club ever throw a current player under the bus?

You got that wrong. Either the swans said it or didn't say it. Barrett's either telling the truth of lying. The clubs betting on the latter.

What f****** porkies are you accusing the Saints of telling?

All clubs are telling porkies to the public all the time, and if you think not then you’re being incredibly naive.

Years later a coach will come out at a country footy club do and say “yeah his rib was actually totally broken and we jabbed him up and thought he’d make it through, was probably the wrong decision in hindsight! Haha”

Clubs have plenty of reasons to lie to protect their image or keep stuff behind closed doors that the public doesn’t need to know.

[shanegrambeau]

Looking at it from Barrett's perspective.

How easy is this caper.

My audience are morons.

I agree we are easy targets. Emotionally charged, reactive, not very rational. Dame Edna Everage once said of Australian Rules Football something very like, “ I think it is absolutely wonderful and it gives those unfortunates something to do on the weekend”

So why is he in top of the game? Well, I think he has courage and is good with the boys. He can straddle that danger line, on one side is the wolves that bark, “ We are the red blooded boys, the sports jocks, the real men, drinking real beer” and the other side which are the robots of the future. They say stuff like, (in robot voices) “your words will eat you in future”, “watch the morons on the other side slit their own throats by opening their mouth”, “the generals are generals because they know what not say” The real boys respect him because he isn’t scared of attacking other journalists (carefully selected) like Robbo, who he has humiliated in radio in a very personal and professional sense, or people like Eddie in the footy show etc. And he gets credit with politically minded types because he knows how to mix the words not to hit the trip wires that have led to so many peoples downfall, and yet play on the emotions of us lot whilst staying between the politically correct flags of the future. He even speaks like a robot and has glasses.

[saynta]

I would say he has more credibility and inside knowledge about the AFL than anyone on here.

It also seems to coincide with other things that have been said.

Not with me and I suspect the bulk of the football loving public. A stain on the game imho.

Even Richo called bulls*** on the flog's statement saying he doubted the truth of it.

As did Simon:

"Lethlean said he’d be “surprised if anyone with any credibility” from the Swans would have been bemused the Saints’ decision to add Hannebery to the leadership group.

“I’d be interested to know who it was that’s laughing about their vice-captain from last year and a 200-game player that’s much-loved by the club,” he said.

“It certainly wouldn’t have come from (coach) John Longmire, (chief executive) Tom Harley or (former CEO) Andrew Ireland and people that are respected in the football industry and I doubt it would come from a club like Sydney that have a great culture and great respect in football.”

So as I said Barrett is a flog not above lying his ugly face off.

If you’re asking me who is most likely telling porkies in that situation, the club has way more reasons to than Barrett.

When does a club ever throw a current player under the bus?

You got that wrong. Either the swans said it or didn't say it. Barrett's either telling the truth of lying. The clubs betting on the latter.

What f****** porkies are you accusing the Saints of telling?

All clubs are telling porkies to the public all the time, and if you think not then you’re being incredibly naive.

Years later a coach will come out at a country footy club do and say “yeah his rib was actually totally broken and we jabbed him up and thought he’d make it through, was probably the wrong decision in hindsight! Haha”

Clubs have plenty of reasons to lie to protect their image or keep stuff behind closed doors that the public doesn’t need to know.

I am far from naive and I resent your comment.

You basically were posting that the saints were telling porkies in the Barrett story. I asked you to be specific. I wasn't talking about clubs in general telling porkies.

[The_Dud]

I would say he has more credibility and inside knowledge about the AFL than anyone on here.

It also seems to coincide with other things that have been said.

Not with me and I suspect the bulk of the football loving public. A stain on the game imho.

Even Richo called bulls*** on the flog's statement saying he doubted the truth of it.

As did Simon:

"Lethlean said he’d be “surprised if anyone with any credibility” from the Swans would have been bemused the Saints’ decision to add Hannebery to the leadership group.

“I’d be interested to know who it was that’s laughing about their vice-captain from last year and a 200-game player that’s much-loved by the club,” he said.

“It certainly wouldn’t have come from (coach) John Longmire, (chief executive) Tom Harley or (former CEO) Andrew Ireland and people that are respected in the football industry and I doubt it would come from a club like Sydney that have a great culture and great respect in football.”

So as I said Barrett is a flog not above lying his ugly face off.

If you’re asking me who is most likely telling porkies in that situation, the club has way more reasons to than Barrett.

When does a club ever throw a current player under the bus?

You got that wrong. Either the swans said it or didn't say it. Barrett's either telling the truth of lying. The clubs betting on the latter.

What f****** porkies are you accusing the Saints of telling?

All clubs are telling porkies to the public all the time, and if you think not then you’re being incredibly naive.

Years later a coach will come out at a country footy club do and say “yeah his rib was actually totally broken and we jabbed him up and thought he’d make it through, was probably the wrong decision in hindsight! Haha”

Clubs have plenty of reasons to lie to protect their image or keep stuff behind closed doors that the public doesn’t need to know.

I am far from naive and I resent your comment.

You basically were posting that the saints were telling porkies in the Barrett story. I asked you to be specific. I wasn't talking about clubs in general telling porkies.

All clubs/businesses/organisations/politicians tell lies, whether it be a tiny bend of the truth to a flat out lie, to manage their public image, and I’m happy to stand by that and reiterate anyone who thinks otherwise is being incredible naive.

In this particular situation I would say there’s some truth in what Barrett is saying and the club has done the obvious thing and come out and defended their man, which is perfectly fine.

I find that much more likely than Barrett randomly making up a story about a small, bottom club and a passed his prime, sort of known player.

[saynta]

I would say he has more credibility and inside knowledge about the AFL than anyone on here.

It also seems to coincide with other things that have been said.

Not with me and I suspect the bulk of the football loving public. A stain on the game imho.

Even Richo called bulls*** on the flog's statement saying he doubted the truth of it.

As did Simon:

"Lethlean said he’d be “surprised if anyone with any credibility” from the Swans would have been bemused the Saints’ decision to add Hannebery to the leadership group.

“I’d be interested to know who it was that’s laughing about their vice-captain from last year and a 200-game player that’s much-loved by the club,” he said.

“It certainly wouldn’t have come from (coach) John Longmire, (chief executive) Tom Harley or (former CEO) Andrew Ireland and people that are respected in the football industry and I doubt it would come from a club like Sydney that have a great culture and great respect in football.”

So as I said Barrett is a flog not above lying his ugly face off.

If you’re asking me who is most likely telling porkies in that situation, the club has way more reasons to than Barrett.

When does a club ever throw a current player under the bus?

You got that wrong. Either the swans said it or didn't say it. Barrett's either telling the truth of lying. The clubs betting on the latter.

What f****** porkies are you accusing the Saints of telling?

All clubs are telling porkies to the public all the time, and if you think not then you’re being incredibly naive.

Years later a coach will come out at a country footy club do and say “yeah his rib was actually totally broken and we jabbed him up and thought he’d make it through, was probably the wrong decision in hindsight! Haha”

Clubs have plenty of reasons to lie to protect their image or keep stuff behind closed doors that the public doesn’t need to know.

I am far from naive and I resent your comment.

You basically were posting that the saints were telling porkies in the Barrett story. I asked you to be specific. I wasn't talking about clubs in general telling porkies.

All clubs/businesses/organisations/politicians tell lies, whether it be a tiny bend of the truth to a flat out lie, to manage their public image, and I’m happy to stand by that and reiterate anyone who thinks otherwise is being incredible naive.

In this particular situation I would say there’s some truth in what Barrett is saying and the club has done the obvious thing and come out and defended their man, which is perfectly fine.

I find that much more likely than Barrett randomly making up a story about a small, bottom club and a passed his prime, sort of known player.

As I said before Barrertt is a flog who peddles rumours as fact.You have accused the Saints of lying over this issue when all they have done is put doubt on the flog's story.

You related to Barrett or something?

You have basically called the whole world and everyone in it a liar. How sad.

[Shaggy]

In this particular situation I would say there’s some truth in what Barrett is saying and the club has done the obvious thing and come out and defended their man, which is perfectly fine.

I find that much more likely than Barrett randomly making up a story about a small, bottom club and a passed his prime, sort of known player.

"However, Longmire doesn’t understand this comment for one simple reason.

“He was our vice-captain last year and has been in our leadership group for a number of years,” Longmire told SEN’s Time On.

“It would’ve been a surprise if he wasn’t in the leadership group from my perspective.

“He’s been a key player for us for a long time and has been our vice-captain for a number of years. I wasn’t surprised at all that he was in the leadership group at St Kilda.”

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2019/02/27/ ... ise-claim/

[saynta]

In this particular situation I would say there’s some truth in what Barrett is saying and the club has done the obvious thing and come out and defended their man, which is perfectly fine.

I find that much more likely than Barrett randomly making up a story about a small, bottom club and a passed his prime, sort of known player.

"However, Longmire doesn’t understand this comment for one simple reason.

“He was our vice-captain last year and has been in our leadership group for a number of years,” Longmire told SEN’s Time On.

“It would’ve been a surprise if he wasn’t in the leadership group from my perspective.

“He’s been a key player for us for a long time and has been our vice-captain for a number of years. I wasn’t surprised at all that he was in the leadership group at St Kilda.”

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2019/02/27/ ... ise-claim/

Thank you for your post mate. Confirms Barrett as the flog and liar that he is.

How desperate is the creep. Prepared to make up a story denigrating a fine young man trying to make his way in a new team in a new city.

f****** disgraceful if you ask me.

[The_Dud]

I would say he has more credibility and inside knowledge about the AFL than anyone on here.

It also seems to coincide with other things that have been said.

Not with me and I suspect the bulk of the football loving public. A stain on the game imho.

Even Richo called bulls*** on the flog's statement saying he doubted the truth of it.

As did Simon:

"Lethlean said he’d be “surprised if anyone with any credibility” from the Swans would have been bemused the Saints’ decision to add Hannebery to the leadership group.

“I’d be interested to know who it was that’s laughing about their vice-captain from last year and a 200-game player that’s much-loved by the club,” he said.

“It certainly wouldn’t have come from (coach) John Longmire, (chief executive) Tom Harley or (former CEO) Andrew Ireland and people that are respected in the football industry and I doubt it would come from a club like Sydney that have a great culture and great respect in football.”

So as I said Barrett is a flog not above lying his ugly face off.

If you’re asking me who is most likely telling porkies in that situation, the club has way more reasons to than Barrett.

When does a club ever throw a current player under the bus?

You got that wrong. Either the swans said it or didn't say it. Barrett's either telling the truth of lying. The clubs betting on the latter.

What f****** porkies are you accusing the Saints of telling?

All clubs are telling porkies to the public all the time, and if you think not then you’re being incredibly naive.

Years later a coach will come out at a country footy club do and say “yeah his rib was actually totally broken and we jabbed him up and thought he’d make it through, was probably the wrong decision in hindsight! Haha”

Clubs have plenty of reasons to lie to protect their image or keep stuff behind closed doors that the public doesn’t need to know.

I am far from naive and I resent your comment.

You basically were posting that the saints were telling porkies in the Barrett story. I asked you to be specific. I wasn't talking about clubs in general telling porkies.

All clubs/businesses/organisations/politicians tell lies, whether it be a tiny bend of the truth to a flat out lie, to manage their public image, and I’m happy to stand by that and reiterate anyone who thinks otherwise is being incredible naive.

In this particular situation I would say there’s some truth in what Barrett is saying and the club has done the obvious thing and come out and defended their man, which is perfectly fine.

I find that much more likely than Barrett randomly making up a story about a small, bottom club and a passed his prime, sort of known player.

As I said before Barrertt is a flog who peddles rumours as fact.You have accused the Saints of lying over this issue when all they have done is put doubt on the flog's story.

You related to Barrett or something?

You have basically called the whole world and everyone in it a liar. How sad.

That’s fine, like I said, I’m happy to stand by what I’ve said previously.

I’m also happy to not blindly follow without question.

Thirdly, I’m fairly confident every man, woman and child who had ever inhabited this Earth for any length of time has at least bent the truth at some stage.

[spert]

I usually watch a game and see who is playing well, rather than wonder what's going on in their social life. Hannebery will be gold for us this season

[saynta]

I would say he has more credibility and inside knowledge about the AFL than anyone on here.

It also seems to coincide with other things that have been said.

Not with me and I suspect the bulk of the football loving public. A stain on the game imho.

Even Richo called bulls*** on the flog's statement saying he doubted the truth of it.

As did Simon:

"Lethlean said he’d be “surprised if anyone with any credibility” from the Swans would have been bemused the Saints’ decision to add Hannebery to the leadership group.

“I’d be interested to know who it was that’s laughing about their vice-captain from last year and a 200-game player that’s much-loved by the club,” he said.

“It certainly wouldn’t have come from (coach) John Longmire, (chief executive) Tom Harley or (former CEO) Andrew Ireland and people that are respected in the football industry and I doubt it would come from a club like Sydney that have a great culture and great respect in football.”

So as I said Barrett is a flog not above lying his ugly face off.

If you’re asking me who is most likely telling porkies in that situation, the club has way more reasons to than Barrett.

When does a club ever throw a current player under the bus?

You got that wrong. Either the swans said it or didn't say it. Barrett's either telling the truth of lying. The clubs betting on the latter.

What f****** porkies are you accusing the Saints of telling?

All clubs are telling porkies to the public all the time, and if you think not then you’re being incredibly naive.

Years later a coach will come out at a country footy club do and say “yeah his rib was actually totally broken and we jabbed him up and thought he’d make it through, was probably the wrong decision in hindsight! Haha”

Clubs have plenty of reasons to lie to protect their image or keep stuff behind closed doors that the public doesn’t need to know.

I am far from naive and I resent your comment.

You basically were posting that the saints were telling porkies in the Barrett story. I asked you to be specific. I wasn't talking about clubs in general telling porkies.

All clubs/businesses/organisations/politicians tell lies, whether it be a tiny bend of the truth to a flat out lie, to manage their public image, and I’m happy to stand by that and reiterate anyone who thinks otherwise is being incredible naive.

In this particular situation I would say there’s some truth in what Barrett is saying and the club has done the obvious thing and come out and defended their man, which is perfectly fine.

I find that much more likely than Barrett randomly making up a story about a small, bottom club and a passed his prime, sort of known player.

As I said before Barrertt is a flog who peddles rumours as fact.You have accused the Saints of lying over this issue when all they have done is put doubt on the flog's story.

You related to Barrett or something?

You have basically called the whole world and everyone in it a liar. How sad.

That’s fine, like I said, I’m happy to stand by what I’ve said previously.

I’m also happy to not blindly follow without question.

Thirdly, I’m fairly confident every man, woman and child who had ever inhabited this Earth for any length of time has at least bent the truth at some stage.

Well, I for my part believe the swans coach. That makes a fool of the flog.

[rodgerfox]

I find that much more likely than Barrett randomly making up a story about a small, bottom club and a passed his prime, sort of known player.

What is the story though?

You seem to be defending a 'story' when there isn't even a story to defend.

What is Barrett actually saying?

You defend Barrett, because he is apparently really well informed. He apparently wouldn't just make stuff up.


So what is the actual story here? What are the facts?

Which part of what Barrett is saying do you believe?


From where I sit, Barrett isn't actually saying anything. He's just making insinuations.

But even his insinuations are vague.

Yet you believe it?

Which part of his insinuations do you believe?

[The_Dud]

I find that much more likely than Barrett randomly making up a story about a small, bottom club and a passed his prime, sort of known player.

What is the story though?

You seem to be defending a 'story' when there isn't even a story to defend.

What is Barrett actually saying?

You defend Barrett, because he is apparently really well informed. He apparently wouldn't just make stuff up.


So what is the actual story here? What are the facts?

Which part of what Barrett is saying do you believe?


From where I sit, Barrett isn't actually saying anything. He's just making insinuations.

But even his insinuations are vague.

Yet you believe it?

Which part of his insinuations do you believe?

If you want to get further details of what he’s talking about I guess you’ll have to ask him, I have no idea.

It sounds to me like he was probably talking to someone from Sydney and this topic came up and they told him they were surprised. It could have been a number of reasons why they were surprised, not necessarily all bad, but again, you’ll have to ask them.

Again, it makes no sense for him to make this up out of thin air. If you’re going to make something up, aim a bit higher.

If you were to believe this forum, posters are adament all commentators/journalists/AFL employees have a vendetta against us and hate us. This is ridiculous. Just because a journo writes something negative that you don’t agree with doesn’t mean that they’re full of crap and hate the Saints.

And for the record, I don’t really care what players do off the field as long as they’re not hurting other people, if they perform on field that’ll do me. I’m sure there’s a whole bunch of d**kheads who play for St Kilda, same as every club, but I’m not too worried about it as I don’t have to interact with them.

It does my head in when supporters think everyone associated with their club is infallible purely because they happen to play for a club they like.

[CQ SAINT]

I find that much more likely than Barrett randomly making up a story about a small, bottom club and a passed his prime, sort of known player.

What is the story though?

You seem to be defending a 'story' when there isn't even a story to defend.

What is Barrett actually saying?

You defend Barrett, because he is apparently really well informed. He apparently wouldn't just make stuff up.


So what is the actual story here? What are the facts?

Which part of what Barrett is saying do you believe?


From where I sit, Barrett isn't actually saying anything. He's just making insinuations.

But even his insinuations are vague.

Yet you believe it?

Which part of his insinuations do you believe?

If you want to get further details of what he’s talking about I guess you’ll have to ask him, I have no idea.

It sounds to me like he was probably talking to someone from Sydney and this topic came up and they told him they were surprised. It could have been a number of reasons why they were surprised, not necessarily all bad, but again, you’ll have to ask them.

Again, it makes no sense for him to make this up out of thin air. If you’re going to make something up, aim a bit higher.

If you were to believe this forum, posters are adament all commentators/journalists/AFL employees have a vendetta against us and hate us. This is ridiculous. Just because a journo writes something negative that you don’t agree with doesn’t mean that they’re full of crap and hate the Saints.

And for the record, I don’t really care what players do off the field as long as they’re not hurting other people, if they perform on field that’ll do me. I’m sure there’s a whole bunch of d**kheads who play for St Kilda, same as every club, but I’m not too worried about it as I don’t have to interact with them.

It does my head in when supporters think everyone associated with their club is infallible purely because they happen to play for a club they like.

Barretts story was that some at Sydney would be shocked that St.Kilda put Hanners on the leadership group. Saints say anyone with any credibility would refute that. Longmire did. End of story.
Barrett clearly showed he has an agenda and little credibility, Lethlean implied that Hanners came with a 'reputation' attached to his social life. No facts, no lies, no truths. Just an article about nothing really.

[rodgerfox]

I find that much more likely than Barrett randomly making up a story about a small, bottom club and a passed his prime, sort of known player.

What is the story though?

You seem to be defending a 'story' when there isn't even a story to defend.

What is Barrett actually saying?

You defend Barrett, because he is apparently really well informed. He apparently wouldn't just make stuff up.


So what is the actual story here? What are the facts?

Which part of what Barrett is saying do you believe?


From where I sit, Barrett isn't actually saying anything. He's just making insinuations.

But even his insinuations are vague.

Yet you believe it?

Which part of his insinuations do you believe?

If you want to get further details of what he’s talking about I guess you’ll have to ask him, I have no idea.

It sounds to me like he was probably talking to someone from Sydney and this topic came up and they told him they were surprised. It could have been a number of reasons why they were surprised, not necessarily all bad, but again, you’ll have to ask them.

Again, it makes no sense for him to make this up out of thin air. If you’re going to make something up, aim a bit higher.

If you were to believe this forum, posters are adament all commentators/journalists/AFL employees have a vendetta against us and hate us. This is ridiculous. Just because a journo writes something negative that you don’t agree with doesn’t mean that they’re full of crap and hate the Saints.

And for the record, I don’t really care what players do off the field as long as they’re not hurting other people, if they perform on field that’ll do me. I’m sure there’s a whole bunch of d**kheads who play for St Kilda, same as every club, but I’m not too worried about it as I don’t have to interact with them.

It does my head in when supporters think everyone associated with their club is infallible purely because they happen to play for a club they like.

?

So you have no idea what he's actually insinuating, yet you believe it. Whatever it is.

WTF?

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

Conclusion. Barret is a flog and made s*** up on this one. Thanks Johnny Longmire and Simon Lethlean.

[rodgerfox]

Conclusion. Barret is a flog and made s*** up on this one. Thanks Johnny Longmire and Simon Lethlean.

I don't think journalists just make s*** up.


Barrett's problem, and it's what makes him so woeful as a journalist, is that he's not actually saying anything.

He's making insinuations.

He's not reporting a story, not passing on facts, but instead he's merely gossiping.


And I have no issue with footy gossip.

But these flogs can't gossip and lead the moronic public to believe there is any journalistic integrity behind it. They need to be clear when they're reporting facts, or when they're just gossiping like the rest of us.

Barrett is a shocker for this.

[CQ SAINT]

Conclusion. Barret is a flog and made s*** up on this one. Thanks Johnny Longmire and Simon Lethlean.

I don't think journalists just make s*** up.


Barrett's problem, and it's what makes him so woeful as a journalist, is that he's not actually saying anything.

He's making insinuations.

But these flogs can't gossip and lead the moronic public to believe there is any journalistic integrity behind it. They need to be clear when they're reporting facts, or when they're just gossiping like the rest of us.

Barrett is a shocker for this.

Apparently, they can.

[Crossy66]

Conclusion. Barret is a flog and made s*** up on this one. Thanks Johnny Longmire and Simon Lethlean.

I don't think journalists just make s*** up.


Barrett's problem, and it's what makes him so woeful as a journalist, is that he's not actually saying anything.

He's making insinuations.

But these flogs can't gossip and lead the moronic public to believe there is any journalistic integrity behind it. They need to be clear when they're reporting facts, or when they're just gossiping like the rest of us.

Barrett is a shocker for this.

Apparently, they can.

I thought Journalists such as Barrett had AFL accreditation and as such, should this be something the AFL take a look at and withdraw if appropriate?
Its hardly in the interests of the player, club, AFL community or public at large, particularly if its not supported by hard facts.
Perhaps if the AFL dont take this step, some will think its because there is an element of truth. May be they do this stuff behind the scenes, but i think it needs to be public, so they are taking steps to protect their players from salacious rumour.

[The_Dud]

Conclusion. Barret is a flog and made s*** up on this one. Thanks Johnny Longmire and Simon Lethlean.

I don't think journalists just make s*** up.


Barrett's problem, and it's what makes him so woeful as a journalist, is that he's not actually saying anything.

He's making insinuations.

But these flogs can't gossip and lead the moronic public to believe there is any journalistic integrity behind it. They need to be clear when they're reporting facts, or when they're just gossiping like the rest of us.

Barrett is a shocker for this.

Apparently, they can.

I thought Journalists such as Barrett had AFL accreditation and as such, should this be something the AFL take a look at and withdraw if appropriate?
Its hardly in the interests of the player, club, AFL community or public at large, particularly if its not supported by hard facts.
Perhaps if the AFL dont take this step, some will think its because there is an element of truth. May be they do this stuff behind the scenes, but i think it needs to be public, so they are taking steps to protect their players from salacious rumour.

Just like the apparent “ITKs” on here, journos are never going to give up their sources.

[Crossy66]

Conclusion. Barret is a flog and made s*** up on this one. Thanks Johnny Longmire and Simon Lethlean.

I don't think journalists just make s*** up.


Barrett's problem, and it's what makes him so woeful as a journalist, is that he's not actually saying anything.

He's making insinuations.

But these flogs can't gossip and lead the moronic public to believe there is any journalistic integrity behind it. They need to be clear when they're reporting facts, or when they're just gossiping like the rest of us.

Barrett is a shocker for this.

Apparently, they can.

I thought Journalists such as Barrett had AFL accreditation and as such, should this be something the AFL take a look at and withdraw if appropriate?
Its hardly in the interests of the player, club, AFL community or public at large, particularly if its not supported by hard facts.
Perhaps if the AFL dont take this step, some will think its because there is an element of truth. May be they do this stuff behind the scenes, but i think it needs to be public, so they are taking steps to protect their players from salacious rumour.

Just like the apparent “ITKs” on here, journos are never going to give up their sources.

I'm talking about Barrett getting a "please explain" from the AFl and if he is found to be peddling gossip rather than fact he is sanctioned or has his accreditation suspended or revoked. He makes his living of the industry , so might make him think twice. Bit like an AFL tribunal - bringing the game into disrepute type of thing.

[skeptic]

I'm listening to a wrestling podcast at the moment called 83 weeks with Eric Bischoff about the old WCW days

And one of things that's quite interesting about it is that Bischoff who was the President of the company had a lot of issues with ppl in the company leaking stiff to a particular journalist. His impression was that the reason ppl did it was that this journalist named David Meltzer had the most popular wrestling reporting platform at the time and tended to write positive things about ppl that fed him tidbits and either ignored or wrote negative things about those that didn't.

And the kicker was that ppl who fed Meltzer tidbits didn't actually need to give him accurate, truthful things... they just needed to give him plausible news that he could publish and get reads

I wonder if maybe what this incident suggests is that the Saints maybe don't have particularly positive or useful relations with this aspect of footy media and as a result, they don't mind burying us for headlines and sales as it seems that there's a lot 'stories' about us that seem to have little substance