Well, GT's been gone so long now....saint66au wrote:Ah well..at least theres a ready-made excuse for losing games in 09..every game we lose by less than 10 goals CLEARLY would have been won if Cousins had been playing
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Aren't they one in the same?The Fireman wrote:Is it loyalty to Cousins or simply ire towards those who have prevented him from contributing to the team?JeffDunne wrote:I find it truly bizarre that some people seem to have more loyalty to Ben Cousins than they do the football club.
I don't think the board is the Club... or venting on an internet forum is unforgivably disloyal.JeffDunne wrote:I find it truly bizarre that some people seem to have more loyalty to Ben Cousins than they do the football club.
Huh?markp wrote:I don't think the board is the Club... or venting on an internet forum is unforgivably disloyal.JeffDunne wrote:I find it truly bizarre that some people seem to have more loyalty to Ben Cousins than they do the football club.
Not all members have the Saints emblem tattooed on their scrotum either, and I for one don't have a problem with that.
This 'you're an unquestioning Saints member for life no matter what, or you can F*** off' attitude pushed by some is pretty lame.
Not in my eyes, I have a loyalty to the club, my 30 year membership will attest to that but I will always stand up to argue a decision made by the club hierarchy that i think is wrong.JeffDunne wrote:Aren't they one in the same?The Fireman wrote:Is it loyalty to Cousins or simply ire towards those who have prevented him from contributing to the team?JeffDunne wrote:I find it truly bizarre that some people seem to have more loyalty to Ben Cousins than they do the football club.
There's only one person responsible for the seeds of doubt and that person is Ben Cousins (and his manager).
It says pushed by some douche... if I quote your post does every sentence in my post have to refer to yours?JeffDunne wrote:Huh?markp wrote:I don't think the board is the Club... or venting on an internet forum is unforgivably disloyal.JeffDunne wrote:I find it truly bizarre that some people seem to have more loyalty to Ben Cousins than they do the football club.
Not all members have the Saints emblem tattooed on their scrotum either, and I for one don't have a problem with that.
This 'you're an unquestioning Saints member for life no matter what, or you can F*** off' attitude pushed by some is pretty lame.
Not sure why you quoted my post when dribbling this crap as I'm the last person to push that line.
More than happy for people to question the board, in fact I encourage it, but some of the hysterical clap-trap posted here since last night is downright embarrassing.
I think you may be on to something...but what concerns me today, in reflection, is that we've wasted about an extra month (ie. I mean the Pies started their work before us, and finished before), and the BC distraction may have got in the way of the National Draft and our overall strategy.HarveysDeciple wrote:With the benefit of a night sleep, doesn't it seem strange that the Pies research for 6 months, and we research for 5 months and come to the same verdict?
Perhaps it sais something.........things we might not know but if we did....
you believe wrong. EVERYONE knows that RL and the players wanted BC. He was rolled by the floggers on the Board.SENsaintsational wrote:Sponsors were obviously one part of the equation. The coach also had reservations if you believe the reports. He has a pretty big say on footy issues.
I believe that if Ross wanted BC, he would've got him.
Who told you that's what happened?Con Gorozidis wrote:you believe wrong. EVERYONE knows that RL and the players wanted BC. He was rolled by the floggers on the Board.SENsaintsational wrote:Sponsors were obviously one part of the equation. The coach also had reservations if you believe the reports. He has a pretty big say on footy issues.
I believe that if Ross wanted BC, he would've got him.
Thats what happened. Its a FACT.
Agreed, Nixon's handling of this has been amateurish at best but was thinking maybe the club could have seen past that and purely focused on the short term gain. It's done and dusted and we will all have to live with the decision, it's just one that I disagree with.JeffDunne wrote:Sorry Firey, I didn't make my point clear.
What I meant by "one in the same", was that IMO it is Ben that prevented St Kilda signing him and nobody else.
I was more than happy for the club to make the call on him and would have loved to seen him in our colours next year . . . but I'm equally as happy for the club to make the call the other way if they had too many doubts.
Must admit I wasn't impressed with Nixon's performance after the AFL announced the decision as said so at the time, even more so when I heard he hadn't actually submitted a hair sample.
TBH, I reckon the club probably feared Nixon as much as they did Ben getting back on the blow.
Me too but I don't know what they know.The Fireman wrote:Agreed, Nixon's handling of this has been amateurish at best but was thinking maybe the club could have seen past that and purely focused on the short term gain. It's done and dusted and we will all have to live with the decision, it's just one that I disagree with.
Either way It won't be long before we find out if the decision was good or bad. I'm willing to admit I was wrong if Ben fails but was always willing to take the gamble.
How much did this cost the club?saintspremiers wrote:I think you may be on to something...but what concerns me today, in reflection, is that we've wasted about an extra month (ie. I mean the Pies started their work before us, and finished before), and the BC distraction may have got in the way of the National Draft and our overall strategy.HarveysDeciple wrote:With the benefit of a night sleep, doesn't it seem strange that the Pies research for 6 months, and we research for 5 months and come to the same verdict?
Perhaps it sais something.........things we might not know but if we did....
Well I wish they would tell us because one thing that I do know is that the boy can play.JeffDunne wrote:Me too but I don't know what they know.The Fireman wrote:Agreed, Nixon's handling of this has been amateurish at best but was thinking maybe the club could have seen past that and purely focused on the short term gain. It's done and dusted and we will all have to live with the decision, it's just one that I disagree with.
Either way It won't be long before we find out if the decision was good or bad. I'm willing to admit I was wrong if Ben fails but was always willing to take the gamble.
good question.....lots of time, not necessarily lots of money, but lots of time that could've been spent in the past month looking at the draft and other deficiencies in our list IMO.rodgerfox wrote:How much did this cost the club?saintspremiers wrote:I think you may be on to something...but what concerns me today, in reflection, is that we've wasted about an extra month (ie. I mean the Pies started their work before us, and finished before), and the BC distraction may have got in the way of the National Draft and our overall strategy.HarveysDeciple wrote:With the benefit of a night sleep, doesn't it seem strange that the Pies research for 6 months, and we research for 5 months and come to the same verdict?
Perhaps it sais something.........things we might not know but if we did....
Going from the 'strategic leaking' to Caroline Wilson, Ross had reservations. I think for the most part Ross wanted to want BC, but in the end, there was a nagging doubt.Con Gorozidis wrote:you believe wrong. EVERYONE knows that RL and the players wanted BC. He was rolled by the floggers on the Board.SENsaintsational wrote:Sponsors were obviously one part of the equation. The coach also had reservations if you believe the reports. He has a pretty big say on footy issues.
I believe that if Ross wanted BC, he would've got him.
Thats what happened. Its a FACT.
I'm sure there was two parts to Ross recommendation.SENsaintsational wrote:Going from the 'strategic leaking' to Caroline Wilson, Ross had reservations. I think for the most part Ross wanted to want BC, but in the end, there was a nagging doubt.
Yep agree. If it were purely football, it would never have needed board approval.JeffDunne wrote:I'm sure there was two parts to Ross recommendation.SENsaintsational wrote:Going from the 'strategic leaking' to Caroline Wilson, Ross had reservations. I think for the most part Ross wanted to want BC, but in the end, there was a nagging doubt.
One being from a football perspective the other from the obvious.
On one I imagine he was 100% sure, the other, anything less and the board would feel rightly nervous.
Dear oh dear oh dear...someone else who gets their inner thoughts mixed up with fact.Con Gorozidis wrote:you believe wrong. EVERYONE knows that RL and the players wanted BC. He was rolled by the floggers on the Board.SENsaintsational wrote:Sponsors were obviously one part of the equation. The coach also had reservations if you believe the reports. He has a pretty big say on footy issues.
I believe that if Ross wanted BC, he would've got him.
Thats what happened. Its a FACT.
Apparently 750 million Chinese people really didnt careEVERYONE knows that RL and the players wanted BC.