Jake King out with Bikies

[evertonfc]

I agree, we need to display...

More Moral Outrage That A Certain Journalist Hasn't Morally Scolded Players From Another Club That Isn't St Kilda.

Sigh. This "Small Club Syndrome" our fans have been infected with is really getting me down.

[whiskers3614]

I agree, we need to display...

More Moral Outrage That A Certain Journalist Hasn't Morally Scolded Players From Another Club That Isn't St Kilda.

Sigh. This "Small Club Syndrome" our fans have been infected with is really getting me down.

More capital letters also!

[satchmo]

Sigh. This "Small Club Syndrome" our fans have been infected with is really getting me down.

Actually typing the word "Sigh" should be enough to get you down.

[BigMart]

We are always 'victims'

[Sainternist]

"ban visible tattoos", "a sign of weakness", "tramp stamps"

You guys must be joking??

Do the names Jason Gram and Peter Everitt ring any bells?

[Teflon]

I agree, we need to display...

More Moral Outrage That A Certain Journalist Hasn't Morally Scolded Players From Another Club That Isn't St Kilda.

Sigh. This "Small Club Syndrome" our fans have been infected with is really getting me down.

Hello.... On cue.... Here's "freedom of the press" gallery hiding behind shyte, unbalanced journalism with "your all small minded and should just enjoy being lambasted while bias towards other clubs reign supreme"

No wonder many of my mates from Bombers/Pies etc laugh at us and continue to tell me that the AFL will bend over to look after the "big clubs" and hang a St Kilda out to dry (see current drugs fiasco)......but no, we just have to "think we're big" and all those inequities will just evaporate..... Odd

[Viking3]

Yep, that's 2 out of a likely 2,300,000 Australian's who have tattoos. They must all be no good then! Oh, that's also 2,300,000 Aussies that are 'weak'.
JFK, Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt must have all been of poor character and weak.
Sheeeesh.

[Enrico_Misso]

Have to say I never noticed Sir Winston had a sleeve or JKF a neck tattoo!

I'm not talking about some discreet little tattoo.
I'm talking about major work like a sleeve or those hideous neck tattoos and abominable face tattoos.

No way would there be 23,000 Australians with them much less 2.3 million.
And I would reckon the majority of people with such tattoos would be either criminals, people of poor character, or very very unwise / weird.

[Dr Spaceman]

[stevie]

Some nice work here. I don't really mind the neck ones. The sleeves don't look overly cool if they have too much detail.

http://www.inkedandsexy.com/blogs/news

[Viking3]

Have to say I never noticed Sir Winston had a sleeve or JKF a neck tattoo!

I'm not talking about some discreet little tattoo.
I'm talking about major work like a sleeve or those hideous neck tattoos and abominable face tattoos.

No way would there be 23,000 Australians with them much less 2.3 million.
And I would reckon the majority of people with such tattoos would be either criminals, people of poor character, or very very unwise / weird.

The comments made on here in relation to character and weakness were in reference to ALL tattoos, not just visible ones as your earlier post mentioned.

[Johnny Member]

Sigh. This "Small Club Syndrome" our fans have been infected with is really getting me down.

What is 'small club syndrome'?

Are you suggesting that the Saints aren't an easy target for the media? And that the Saints aren't unfairly singled out for 'culture' issues?

And that the Saints are given the same off-field free kicks that the AFL's 'big' clubs get?


Surely you can't be? That would be utterly ignorant to do so.

[Johnny Member]

We are always 'victims'

I thin you're ignorant to the fcat that operating in the AFL is not free reign.

As a club, you can't simply go out and do whatever you want to get ahead.

The AFL has constraints, and you must operate within those constraints. Those constraints are designed to ensure the AFL overall profits. And everyone knows, that more ofthen than not it means that small clubs suffer and big clubs prosper - which directly leads to the AFL overall profiting.


Frankly, you live in fantasy land BigMart.


You seem to have this notion that the club has failed because poor decisions keep being made, whilst big clubs prosper because they don't ever make a mistake on or off-field.


If anyone has a victim mentality, quite clearly it's you. You wallow in misery about how this horrible club lets you down constantly and is a weight on your shoulders and bogs you down as a person because they can't get their act together.


The reality is, it's a club operating in the AFL business, and will only ever be as prosperous as that business allows it to be.



It's like shopping at Coles. Coles dictate which products are placed where in the supermarket, and dictate what products' packaging looks like. It's all designed to ensure maximum profit for Coles. The 'big' brands are placed where it suits Coles, whilst the small brands are tucked away where it suits Coles. Everyone wins - to a degree.

If Coles prosper, the small brands will still get a slice of the pie. But it's never going to be as big a slice as the big brands get - no matter what they do and no matter what decisions they make. It's out of their hands. Sure, the small brands can make things worse for themselves, but they will never be able to compete with the big brands as long as they continue to choose to operate in the same ballpark as the big brands.

The AFL is the same.


So drop your victim mentality and grasp reality. This isn't a school boy comp, or some small country comp. And it's certainly not the 1960s where you're mentality seems to have stalled.



And fair dinkum, if you don't see that the media pot the Saints unfairly, then you're not only a victim, you're a fool. Does it matter in the scheme of things, aside from pissing off Saints fans? No, not really. But it's as a clear as day that the Saints are a soft target and unfairly targeted.

[stinger]

"ban visible tattoos", "a sign of weakness", "tramp stamps"

You guys must be joking??

Judging people because they have tatts = pretty poor effort.

They are as such, a fashion statement. Just like long hair and sideburns in the 70's and earrings in the 90's. Were you against them as well??

yep...

[Viking3]

"ban visible tattoos", "a sign of weakness", "tramp stamps"

You guys must be joking??

Judging people because they have tatts = pretty poor effort.

They are as such, a fashion statement. Just like long hair and sideburns in the 70's and earrings in the 90's. Were you against them as well??

yep...

I'm struggling to think who you may have liked back in the 70's. Even Wayne Judson and Ian George had sidies.

[Sobraz]

I don't mind Caro, think she does a lot of good work and is nearly always on the money..

But, she is often very quiet about Richmond.. Even when she does go at them, it is restrained... This is a pretty standard story for Caro to tear to shreds.. As was the Dan Conners issues, Dustin Martin rumors etc... Not much has come of it.. She takes it very easy on them..

[skeptic]

"ban visible tattoos", "a sign of weakness", "tramp stamps"

You guys must be joking??

Judging people because they have tatts = pretty poor effort.

They are as such, a fashion statement. Just like long hair and sideburns in the 70's and earrings in the 90's. Were you against them as well??

To end this debate, I think we can all agree that anyone that has anything other than a small tattoo (and I include flamboyant piercings), is a morally corrupt individual, mostly likely a criminal.

[SAAD]

Caro's taking it easy on them now because they are a half decent team and she doesn't wanna cause too much trouble...when they were crap she would hammer them hard...

[BigMart]

Johnny

Oh my god... Or OMG as the kids say

I can't believe you wrote that, even if you think it?! That who post was screaming victim... We are not responsible for our failings... It's the system.

Oh no, it's the AFL who made us make bad decisions.... bulls***... We were actually the beneficiaries of the system, and rewarded for many years due to our incompetence... Just couldn't make the most of it!

Yes, it's not an even playing field, but if you want to be winners, you have to overcome adversity with resilience and fortitude... Both off and on field.... We use excuses like the ones you drudge out!!

When we finally stop whinging about what we don't get and stop whinging about others.... We just might actually become a club of stature.

[Johnny Member]

No we won't.

At best, we will become another middle of the road AFL club. Nothing more.


You are incredibly ignorant to the system.


I'm not complaining about our situation. Hence there is no victim mentality from me at all. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's the way the AFL operates. So I'm not fussed in the slightest.

[plugger66]

No we won't.

At best, we will become another middle of the road AFL club. Nothing more.


You are incredibly ignorant to the system.


I'm not complaining about our situation. Hence there is no victim mentality from me at all. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's the way the AFL operates. So I'm not fussed in the slightest.

Didnt the Hawks agree to merge a few years ago and now they are a huge club. it can happen but it takes a huge amount of skill from the people who work at the club and a hell of a lot of luck.

[Johnny Member]

The Hawks, during my lifetime, have always been a huge club.

They nearly necked themselves by managing themselves poorly during an era when the comp wanted to downsize.


This can't be confused with the fantasy that they've always been battlers and have magically come good recently due to astute decisions.

It's a myth.

Their president last month even stated that they need to continue to generate big revenue each year like recently to continue to do well off-field, but he doubts they will once they stop dominating on-field.


Myth.

[Johnny Member]

And it was nearly 20 years ago too, not a 'few' years back.

[plugger66]

The Hawks, during my lifetime, have always been a huge club.

They nearly necked themselves by managing themselves poorly during an era when the comp wanted to downsize.


This can't be confused with the fantasy that they've always been battlers and have magically come good recently due to astute decisions.

It's a myth.

Their president last month even stated that they need to continue to generate big revenue each year like recently to continue to do well off-field, but he doubts they will once they stop dominating on-field.


Myth.

It isnt a myth at all. They were a huge club as far as on field success but were never a huge club off the field. We may not understand but huge clubs dont agree to merge. Fitzroy was the only club ever to merge and they were the smallest club in the comp at the time. And if you are stating that they may struggle when they start losing. Doesnt that then make what you have been saying as rubbish. If they may struggle when losing why can a smaller club get bigger when winning. I didnt know there were rules like you are saying in the AFL. By the way the hawks wont struggle when losing. They are now a bigger club and are set up to well off the field to struggle. And yes it was a fair few years a go when they merged but it wasnt a fair few years ago when the club started growing to the size it is now.

[BigMart]

The Hawks have been well managed since 1998 not all of those years have they been successful ...... They did have direction though....

Real big clubs come from a foundation of successful culture from previous generations.... Collingwood, Carlton Essendon.... Still to this day most kids go for who heir parents do... Yesteryear it was almost a non negotiable.... Success breeds success..

Richmond and Hawthorn started their periods of success in the second half of las century.... Historically they aren't as big....

I would say Geelong and Hawthorn are the best run clubs off field in the AFL.... Collingwood, Adelaide and WCE are also well run but have a much easier task given their natural supporter base

Sydney, Hawthorn and Geelong have been run the best on field since 2003... Not just because of premierships, but the culture of siccess and successful decisions they have made......With StK 2003-2011 not far behind

Port demonstrated what a difference poor management vs good management can do in 2013