Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Sobraz wrote:Agree with the original post 100% Teflon... Spot on the money, and really does question the 'footy first' ticket...
I am als interested to know where Ross stands on the issue... Two major journo's have both stated he was against Cousins.. Whilst both P. Smith and C. Wilson are not loved on here, for them both the take this position means there must be some info re. Ross's reservations...
At the end of the day, our job is to win matches... If we dont, Ross gets the boot... Cousins wouldve helped the coaches cause, so his stated position in bizarre IMO...
We have missed a massive free kick in not picking up Ben...
As long as they didn't make these assumptions based upon Ross Lyon's general demeanour, as he is not exactly the emotional type. I highly doubt they know anymore than we do...
Why bring up his demeanour? Irrelevant.
RL is head coach and would be fully aware of the footy benefits of having BC, so if he was against it, I bet my house that he'd have a good reason.
The lid is off after Round 2! Enjoy the journey, coz you just don't know where we'll end up. Live for today and seize the moment.
JeffDunne wrote:Personally I would have said SFA and announced our position to the world on draft day. Can't understand why we didn't TBH
Sadly, that puts you in the minority JD. I agree it would have been the ideal way to handle the situation, but there seems to always be some knob in the inner circle (all clubs and sports, not just us) who just has to gob off to a reporter, usually as an "unnamed source". Once the story is written it gains its own momentum, and all of a sudden you have a circus ala Cousins.
WayneJudson42 wrote:
RL is head coach and would be fully aware of the footy benefits of having BC, so if he was against it, I bet my house that he'd have a good reason.
Teflon wrote: while St Kilda has a secret Board meeting that every media knew the starting time to.....
and to then come out with that reasoning from Archie.....it smacked as if they made it up in the lift on the way down from the Sofitel FFS....
Absolutely in no doubt that they made it up on the spot, policy on the run from spin doctors, to give the appearance that they actually know what they're doing, it's how Footy First do things, it's their modus operandi!
Your op was excellent, agree with every word, my feelings exactly!
I think the point that people keep forgetting is that this was a board decision.
The footy club had from what we have been told, reduced input.
And while iceman etc, have been supporting whole heartedly the boards' decision, I bleed for the club's lost opportunity.
One thing that really sticks in my throat about the "risk factor", is that from rookie to veteran, you are only ever one serious injury away from a career.
It doesnt add up.
I agree with the comments made on how this whole episode has been handled - inadequately at the least. The club failed to keep information flowing over such a lengthy period of time mainly to supporters but also to Cousins. Based upon the information Board has released (and I suspect subsequently leaked to the press) the decision should have been made far earlier than it was. The timing of the decision has clearly been at some cost to Cousins in terms of trying to attract alternative interest. As for an injection of pace to the midfield I cannot see anything that will help rectify the current problem until this new group of draftees comes through with the right experience - about one and a half to 2 seasons (30 to 40 games). The Board has to get a lot better on the processes it goes through to make decisions and the sooner it internally acknowledges what a stuff up it has made of this issue the better off it will be.
onlooker wrote:I agree with the comments made on how this whole episode has been handled - inadequately at the least. The club failed to keep information flowing over such a lengthy period of time mainly to supporters but also to Cousins. Based upon the information Board has released (and I suspect subsequently leaked to the press) the decision should have been made far earlier than it was. The timing of the decision has clearly been at some cost to Cousins in terms of trying to attract alternative interest. As for an injection of pace to the midfield I cannot see anything that will help rectify the current problem until this new group of draftees comes through with the right experience - about one and a half to 2 seasons (30 to 40 games). The Board has to get a lot better on the processes it goes through to make decisions and the sooner it internally acknowledges what a stuff up it has made of this issue the better off it will be.
Where did they ever say they would take Cousins......at no point did I read that or hear that from the club.....
How could they say they would take him until the Afl Commish passed him to play....which was one week before the club said sorry Benny......
Should they have said yes months ago "we will take you Benny Boy" and then find out that the Afl Commish put on so many conditions which the club would have had to manage.....now that would have been wrong..
We will never know the whole story, but why are you all now feeling sorry for Cousins......he is a 31 yr old self confessed rehabilitating drug addict with a few interesting mates rejected by 14 other clubs before us that would like to sell his documentary to the highest bidder.......
The club has made the right choice not to take him......get over it and move on.....
Sobraz wrote:Agree with the original post 100% Teflon... Spot on the money, and really does question the 'footy first' ticket...
I am als interested to know where Ross stands on the issue... Two major journo's have both stated he was against Cousins.. Whilst both P. Smith and C. Wilson are not loved on here, for them both the take this position means there must be some info re. Ross's reservations...
At the end of the day, our job is to win matches... If we dont, Ross gets the boot... Cousins wouldve helped the coaches cause, so his stated position in bizarre IMO...
We have missed a massive free kick in not picking up Ben...
As long as they didn't make these assumptions based upon Ross Lyon's general demeanour, as he is not exactly the emotional type. I highly doubt they know anymore than we do...
Why bring up his demeanour? Irrelevant.
RL is head coach and would be fully aware of the footy benefits of having BC, so if he was against it, I bet my house that he'd have a good reason.
I was being sarcastic WJ, I was making light of the fact that the guy is rarely anything beyond "pleased"
RBnW you are correct. At no stage did the Board state they would take him but by their very actions of meeting with him, assessing him, discussing the circumstances under which he would come to the Club if they selected him over 5 months you would be hard pressed (at thye least) to deny that the parties were in negotiation mode. That being the case their ARE obligations on both parties ie the Club on behalf of its members to let them know what is going on AND on Cousins to honestly discuss the current situation. I suggest to you that another of the Club's obligations was to make a timely decision so that if they decided not to proceed it gave Cousins real opportunity to look elsewhere. I think the Board's processes were inadequate on all counts.
onlooker wrote:RBnW you are correct. At no stage did the Board state they would take him but by their very actions of meeting with him, assessing him, discussing the circumstances under which he would come to the Club if they selected him over 5 months you would be hard pressed (at thye least) to deny that the parties were in negotiation mode. That being the case their ARE obligations on both parties ie the Club on behalf of its members to let them know what is going on AND on Cousins to honestly discuss the current situation. I suggest to you that another of the Club's obligations was to make a timely decision so that if they decided not to proceed it gave Cousins real opportunity to look elsewhere. I think the Board's processes were inadequate on all counts.
Do you seriuosly think that Nixon was not talking to anyone else.....please...
He would have been covering his bases with a few clubs.....
I cant remember Carlton telling everyone they were doing the deal with Judd before it was almost over......
Player managers cover all options and Nixon would have been talking to a few....we owe Cousins nothing....
RBnW I do not agree. From what I know about R Niixon he is a hard nosed negotiator who is close if not at the top of the tree as player managers go. In negotiations reputations are everything (IMO) otherwise they ultimately go nowhere. I would think that R Nixon had a very large slab of his reputation on the line with a Cousins deal and he would have been very serious with parties who were serious about getting him to their club. Nixon said prior to the StK decision that there were 2 clubs he was seriously talking with and we know who they were ; the rest of the enquiries he deflected (he says) because they were only routine and were not serious. I reckon this is right on the mark. Too much at stake For R Nixon to have other clubs waiting. On a personal level he would have been absolutely shattered by this decision.
WayneJudson42 wrote:
RL is head coach and would be fully aware of the footy benefits of having BC, so if he was against it, I bet my house that he'd have a good reason.
BAAAA BAAAAA
Please don't make this about me. Move on.
What is it with your obsession with me?
The lid is off after Round 2! Enjoy the journey, coz you just don't know where we'll end up. Live for today and seize the moment.
barks4eva wrote:Absolutely in no doubt that they made it up on the spot, policy on the run from spin doctors, to give the appearance that they actually know what they're doing, it's how Footy First do things, it's their modus operandi!
A bit like the infamous "we would have sacked him even if we won the premiership" line?
Or the "whiteanting" claim?
Or the "f*** Kingston" & the "we want to deal with Kingston" embarrassment.
If they are making policy on the run they've got a bit of catching up to do to surpass the previous administration.
barks4eva wrote:Absolutely in no doubt that they made it up on the spot, policy on the run from spin doctors, to give the appearance that they actually know what they're doing, it's how Footy First do things, it's their modus operandi!
A bit like the infamous "we would have sacked him even if we won the premiership" line?
Or the "whiteanting" claim?
Or the "f*** Kingston" & the "we want to deal with Kingston" embarrassment.
If they are making policy on the run they've got a bit of catching up to do to surpass the previous administration.
JD, just wanna acknowledge your balanced views on the whole saga.
The lid is off after Round 2! Enjoy the journey, coz you just don't know where we'll end up. Live for today and seize the moment.
WayneJudson42 wrote:
JD, just wanna acknowledge your balanced views on the whole saga.
No probs Wayne.
But seriously, I don't know how anyone with half a clue could accuse this board of policy on the run after what we saw from the previous administration.
Teflon wrote:One question I do have - given Archies comments about our new strategic longer term list view.....are we possibly acknowledging the window is just about shut?.......
But it was just one of the reasons Teffers, not the be-all.
It may well have been used to bolster the other reasons.
Maybe we'll never know the REAL reasons, maybe he's just bad to the bone and we don't want him. Maybe he's going to embarrass whoever picks him up.
Maybe, if, maybe......
He was never here, move on.
Its hard to knwo isnt it?
I mean we all agree its a nonsense excuse made up by the club so we are supposed to believe this "raft" of reasons that are a mystery?
Id prefer they also simply said nothing and left draft day speak for them.
Time will ultimately tell on this - as I said in my OP.......I just hope Jack Stevens can catch Joel Sellwood in an awful hurry prior to Nick Riewoldt turning 30.....
Yes I would have preferred them just say "St Kilda won't be pursuing blah blah blah"
To give their reasons just gives nu-nu supporters ammo to throw at them.
And if there's other reasons that are confidential, well FFS (not aimed at you Tef) "confidential" files are marked "CONFIDENTIAL", usually in BOLD RED, for a reason.
Because they're confidential...
Perhaps we can find out in a few years time under the FOI laws?
The lid is off after Round 2! Enjoy the journey, coz you just don't know where we'll end up. Live for today and seize the moment.
WayneJudson42 wrote:
JD, just wanna acknowledge your balanced views on the whole saga.
No probs Wayne.
But seriously, I don't know how anyone with half a clue could accuse this board of policy on the run after what we saw from the previous administration.
Agendas? Naivety? (spell) or simply spite?
The lid is off after Round 2! Enjoy the journey, coz you just don't know where we'll end up. Live for today and seize the moment.
It is not the policies or making policies on the run that seems to be the main problem. Every Board sooner or later (in this case later) must make decisions for the organisation to keep functioning. It is the lack of process and structured approach to consideration of issues so to make decisions that is standing out. To get to a decision in an efficient time. The Cousins issue is a prime example.
onlooker wrote:It is not the policies or making policies on the run that seems to be the main problem. Every Board sooner or later (in this case later) must make decisions for the organisation to keep functioning. It is the lack of process and structured approach to consideration of issues so to make decisions that is standing out. To get to a decision in an efficient time. The Cousins issue is a prime example.
This is what gets my goat...
What exactly is the "process" and "structured" approach for these matters?
Is it a case of doing whatever needs to be done... or doing things according to how some supporters think they should be done?
They took 5 months and left no stone unturned re BC.
Anything else you care to nominate?
The lid is off after Round 2! Enjoy the journey, coz you just don't know where we'll end up. Live for today and seize the moment.
onlooker wrote:This is straight forward business action. Nothing clever about it; it is just what happens in efficient organisations. I can't help you any further.
Not having a dig btw.
But how do you measure this? Surely, it varies depending on the situation?
BC wasn't a black and white decision IMO.
Seaford? Well given what happened... it was pretty decisive.
Where do you think we have not been "efficient"?
The lid is off after Round 2! Enjoy the journey, coz you just don't know where we'll end up. Live for today and seize the moment.
It is not the policies or making policies on the run that seems to be the main problem. Every Board sooner or later (in this case later) must make decisions for the organisation to keep functioning. It is the lack of process and structured approach to consideration of issues so to make decisions that is standing out. To get to a decision in an efficient time. The Cousins issue is a prime example.
This is garbage.
Ben was a moving target. His behaviour was changing, and his most recent activities created big concerns for the club. The club gave him every chance to get it right, to settle & show he is keen and ready to return to the game. The club, righty, left its final decision to as late as possible, and in the end things didn't stack up.
That's all there is. You are fabricating some fairy tale.
In regards to the public message, the club had little wiggle room. So it was either 'no comment', which isn't a good look, our a response full of generalities (which is what they gave). It would have been stupid & irresponsible to expose detailed confidential discussions on such a sensitive issue.
WayneJudson42 wrote:
JD, just wanna acknowledge your balanced views on the whole saga.
No probs Wayne.
But seriously, I don't know how anyone with half a clue could accuse this board of policy on the run after what we saw from the previous administration.
I think you're assigning a certain todger-tugging poster with half a fair dinkum clue too much.............. if you get my drift!
Hird... The unflushable one is now... just a turd...
From what I'm hearing, the hair shave spooked the board, also that he had missed a couple of urine tests.
Someone also mentioned salary cap difficulties, now to be honest if Ricky Nixon was expecting BC to get anywhere near what he was getting, he must be dreaming.
BC should expect a moderate wage with an immediate dismissal clause plus the threat of police involvement should he drag any other players into his (previous) addiction.
However, the thing that worried me most about him was that he WAS an elite midfielder who has not kicked a ball in anger since the first weekend of September 2007.
By March next year he would have been out of the game for 18 months, 30 years old and no where near the player he was.
In the long run he may end up being no more beneficial to us than Harv's was last year, which would mean we gained nothing except a lot of publicity.
3rd generation saint wrote:From what I'm hearing, the hair shave spooked the board, also that he had missed a couple of urine tests.
Someone also mentioned salary cap difficulties, now to be honest if Ricky Nixon was expecting BC to get anywhere near what he was getting, he must be dreaming.
BC should expect a moderate wage with an immediate dismissal clause plus the threat of police involvement should he drag any other players into his (previous) addiction.
However, the thing that worried me most about him was that he WAS an elite midfielder who has not kicked a ball in anger since the first weekend of September 2007.
By March next year he would have been out of the game for 18 months, 30 years old and no where near the player he was.
In the long run he may end up being no more beneficial to us than Harv's was last year, which would mean we gained nothing except a lot of publicity.
Maybe in relations to his ability to get back...most expert football pundits however, (including Harvey) havent doubted his fitness ability. Even Ross Lyon wanted that aspect of his game for others to see his work ethic (Gehrig has him as one of the hardest workers hes seen).
Aside from that Harvey was 37 - Cousins 30.....thats a fair gap.
Its all academic now - we move on.
I must say for me,.....with some concern on how St Kilda is gonna catch the Hawks/Cats midfields and stay ahead of those coming in 09.....hope Xavier Clarke stays fit.....again...
