I wonder. Earlier in the year the leaders almost had an implosion.kaos theory wrote:This has to be the most stupid post you have ever made. If RB & the board need replacing it will not be for their decision on the baker case."we will go away and have a little think about"
Is this guy for real?
Who does he think he's talking to - 8 year olds?
Stop patronising your membership and grow some farking balls.
FFS, our players must cringe at the thought of having this fool representing their interests.
Embarressed by his comments last night, embarrassed by them today.
Archie's "our advice is we would lose but we're still thinking about it" comment is almost as bad. Why on earth would you say "our advice is we'd lose" when you're still thinking about it.
Ken Sheldon's "should of" comment last night - further embarrassment.
God help us .
What childish & stupid thing to say. So is the club supposed to jump up and down scream and carry on like idoits and rush off to the high court, spend millions, lose focus on the things that matter, ie winning games running the club, just so we can say, "we stood up to the afl"??? How rediculous!
You have for a long time looked for ways of getting rid of RB & the board, but using this as a reason is stupid.
Now they say dont challenge the Baker case legally as we need to focus.
They can focus on the legalities. Let the playing group focus on teh game.
To say we couldn't win this case needs some description to the members on why. This would not be a kangaroo courst anymore but one with clear standards that the AFL may just not understand.
On the game tonight, the team was focussed but not good enough. Why, lack of team depth in midfield and inability to curtail key oppo players.
Additionally we got killed in the ruck, when we one the tap the Eagles often raffled it, particularly in the third quarter. I dont buy the good ruck theory as a real need. Just need more midfield depth.