Don't blame Lyon

saintsRrising · Tue 29 Dec 2009 11:50am

meher baba wrote:Ho ho (ho?). and now my good old mate sRr.

....

They all claim to be happy about Lyon, the state of the club, etc. Sigh.......

Well don't let facts stop you...

I have already posted that list wise that that after several years of out-performance list management wise that there have a been a few chinks with L Fisher's contract (which has wasted a slot in 2010), the handling of Ball in trade week (though Ball screwed as well)......and being a bit nervous of Lovet which now looks to have been a mistake.

TW looks to be a coup though.

So overall list mangement-wise this recent period is a bit disappointing...but overall since Lyon's appointment it is still very good list management. I look at our list and see depth and structure coming through..as well as on the field now.

PS: On Allen IMO his contract was he moral thing to do.

Coaching wise, player development wise, rookie wise, stability at the club-wise, player conditioning wise and lack of in-fighting wise there is simply no comparison with what has happened under RL's watch and the previous incumbent's tenure.

markp · Post: # 868692Post **markp** » Tue 29 Dec 2009 11:57am

Poor rodge has gone a bit feral since around the time of the passing of his violent stool.... he really jumped the shark with that one.

saintsRrising · Tue 29 Dec 2009 11:59am

meher baba wrote:
The mantra goes like this. Our team is successful now because we have a genius coach.
.......

Absolute rubbish...and a point that you and your mate RF are continuing to be wrong on.

MB it has NEVER been just about GT vs RL, BUT rather a change to a MODERN football department structure that GT was asked to adopt and REFUSED.

YES IMO RL is a much better coach...but this is only one piece of the puzzle.

GT refused Drain.

RL was hired to be part of the new structure....and a 100% coach.

GT was a part-time coach who wanted to waste time in areas such as player contracts etc (which he actually did poorly in). His ego had him wanting to control all, rather than to focus on coaching.

The change to a modern structure has been for the better.

Having a coach that can work with the President helps too.

Teflon · Post: # 868708Post **Teflon** » Tue 29 Dec 2009 1:35pm

rodgerfox wrote:
saint66au wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:
Milton66 wrote:Wow...

Dissected with the skill and precision of a first class forensic scientist and coroner.

Amazing JB, amazing.

I think the best option is as you say, to not feed the troll.

What's trully funny about this is that we are collectivelly accused of bullying, and regaled with a basic post expressed with prolix waffle by a poster trying to sound intelligent by using colourful language...

Yet that very same poster who accuses us of being unable to move on, finds himself unable to ignore this garbage to the point of feeling compelled to get on here and defend (as you put it) the indefensible.

That truly is too funny.

He reminds me of that avatar that Everton had of the cartoon where the guy trypes away in anger until he destroys himself.
You're not comfortable fighting your own battles are you Wayne?

Any chance of you posting something without trying to rally support?

Not a very confident guy are you?
For someone who refuses to answer questions posed to him, you ask a lot of them yourself
I guess the difference is that I don't sook like a child when they don't get answered.

LIAR!

Milton66 · Post: # 868711Post **Milton66** » Tue 29 Dec 2009 1:43pm

saintsRrising wrote:
meher baba wrote:
The mantra goes like this. Our team is successful now because we have a genius coach.
.......
Absolute rubbish...and a point that you and your mate RF are continuing to be wrong on.

MB it has NEVER been just about GT vs RL, BUT rather a change to a MODERN football department structure that GT was asked to adopt and REFUSED.

YES IMO RL is a much better coach...but this is only one piece of the puzzle.

GT refused Drain.

RL was hired to be part of the new structure....and a 100% coach.

GT was a part-time coach who wanted to waste time in areas such as player contracts etc (which he actually did poorly in). His ego had him wanting to control all, rather than to focus on coaching.

The change to a modern structure has been for the better.

Having a coach that can work with the President helps too.

Having a coach that doesn't owe the Prez $1mill helps too.

matrix · Post: # 868715Post **matrix** » Tue 29 Dec 2009 1:51pm

a million????

blimey im missing some serious goss here

barks4eva · Post: # 868721Post **barks4eva** » Tue 29 Dec 2009 2:18pm

Saints43 wrote: Perhaps those overseas development camps were worth something after all...

Might have been nice to prioritize actually getting the players fully fit for AFL football, instead of expensive overseas holidays!

FAIR DINKUM

barks4eva · Post: # 868723Post **barks4eva** » Tue 29 Dec 2009 2:29pm

gazrat wrote:having a go finally andrew ?

the post , obviously was directed to millie , after his little anti lyon dig

so , the purpose of the post , .....(surely, even u can figure that out)

millie has a go , shows he can actually think , so i communicate accordingly

with one trick ponies like your good self , well , its a struggle ....like boring

so, if you wanna play , and history shows that u shouldnt , quote my post (to millie) and have a go

u need to actually start respecting those who get outside and actually create something ...then you'd know the difference between leaders and 2ic's and complainers

still using my string and a brick line , after 7 and a half years .... create something new andrew , anything ....ffs

WTF are you on about?

I asked YOU direct questions, about YOUR views on the gameplan and what awareness upgrade you think Lyon needs or whatever!

I have not seen ANYWHERE where you have made this clear!

Just answer the question, is that too hard?

joffaboy · Post: # 868724Post **joffaboy** » Tue 29 Dec 2009 2:36pm

barks4eva wrote:
Saints43 wrote: Perhaps those overseas development camps were worth something after all...
Might have been nice to prioritize actually getting the players fully fit for AFL football, instead of expensive overseas holidays!

Well said Andrew, dont let these defenders of the indefensable get away with revisionist claptrap.

Milton66 · Post: # 868731Post **Milton66** » Tue 29 Dec 2009 3:14pm

With the benefit of hindight, I bet RB wishes he had lent that money to the club instead.

Milan Faletic · Tue 29 Dec 2009 3:19pm

Milton66 wrote:With the benefit of hindight, I bet RB wishes he had lent that money to the club instead.

Or drafted Judd instead of GT's choice of Ball.

Love your avatar pic, Milt.

Sorry. Off the topic but it's all about free speech isn't it

saintsRrising · Tue 29 Dec 2009 3:57pm

matrix wrote:a million????

blimey im missing some serious goss here

RB loaned GT $1 million (when they will still mates) so that GT could aquire his mansion...

But later GT was not that willing to pay it back (after they were no longer mates)....hence the legal action by RB on this.

rodgerfox · Post: # 868742Post **rodgerfox** » Tue 29 Dec 2009 4:04pm

saintsRrising wrote:
matrix wrote:a million????

blimey im missing some serious goss here
RB loaned GT $1 million (when they will still mates) so that GT could aquire his mansion...

But later GT was not that willing to pay it back (after they were no longer mates)....hence the legal action by RB on this.

Nice lies.

True to form which is good to see.

maverick · Post: # 868743Post **maverick** » Tue 29 Dec 2009 4:16pm

rodgerfox wrote:
saintsRrising wrote:
matrix wrote:a million????

blimey im missing some serious goss here
RB loaned GT $1 million (when they will still mates) so that GT could aquire his mansion...

But later GT was not that willing to pay it back (after they were no longer mates)....hence the legal action by RB on this.
Nice lies.

True to form which is good to see.

So if you know thats a lie, what's the truth then?

rodgerfox · Post: # 868744Post **rodgerfox** » Tue 29 Dec 2009 4:21pm

maverick wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:
saintsRrising wrote:
matrix wrote:a million????

blimey im missing some serious goss here
RB loaned GT $1 million (when they will still mates) so that GT could aquire his mansion...

But later GT was not that willing to pay it back (after they were no longer mates)....hence the legal action by RB on this.
Nice lies.

True to form which is good to see.

So if you know thats a lie, what's the truth then?[/quote

Are you for real??

maverick · Post: # 868745Post **maverick** » Tue 29 Dec 2009 4:24pm

rodgerfox wrote:
maverick wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:
saintsRrising wrote:
matrix wrote:a million????

blimey im missing some serious goss here
RB loaned GT $1 million (when they will still mates) so that GT could aquire his mansion...

But later GT was not that willing to pay it back (after they were no longer mates)....hence the legal action by RB on this.
Nice lies.

True to form which is good to see.

So if you know thats a lie, what's the truth then?[/quote

Are you for real??

Yeah, if you can keep arguing it, then I will keep it going

rodgerfox · Post: # 868747Post **rodgerfox** » Tue 29 Dec 2009 4:36pm

maverick wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:
maverick wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:
saintsRrising wrote:
matrix wrote:a million????

blimey im missing some serious goss here
RB loaned GT $1 million (when they will still mates) so that GT could aquire his mansion...

But later GT was not that willing to pay it back (after they were no longer mates)....hence the legal action by RB on this.
Nice lies.

True to form which is good to see.

So if you know thats a lie, what's the truth then?[/quote

Are you for real??
Yeah, if you can keep arguing it, then I will keep it going

f*** me, I can't believe the ignorance and stupidity of some people.

Thomas borrowed money off Butterss.

Thomas believed/claimed it to be an interest free loan, whereas Butterss wanted interest.

That was the argument. It wasn't about paying it back or not - it was about whether or not it was an interest free loan.

Fairly massive difference, one would think.

Fair dinkum.

joffaboy · Post: # 868748Post **joffaboy** » Tue 29 Dec 2009 5:00pm

rodgerfox wrote:
f*** me, I can't believe the ignorance and stupidity of some people.

Thomas borrowed money off Butterss.

Thomas believed/claimed it to be an interest free loan, whereas Butterss wanted interest.

That was the argument. It wasn't about paying it back or not - it was about whether or not it was an interest free loan.

Fairly massive difference, one would think.

Fair dinkum.

How much of the principle was paid back before the court proceedings?

saintly · Post: # 868749Post **saintly** » Tue 29 Dec 2009 5:01pm

matrix wrote:a million????

blimey im missing some serious goss here

that was all over the papers

Dr Spaceman · Tue 29 Dec 2009 5:03pm

rodgerfox wrote:
maverick wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:
maverick wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:
saintsRrising wrote:
matrix wrote:a million????

blimey im missing some serious goss here
RB loaned GT $1 million (when they will still mates) so that GT could aquire his mansion...

But later GT was not that willing to pay it back (after they were no longer mates)....hence the legal action by RB on this.
Nice lies.

True to form which is good to see.

So if you know thats a lie, what's the truth then?[/quote

Are you for real??
Yeah, if you can keep arguing it, then I will keep it going
f*** me, I can't believe the ignorance and stupidity of some people.

Thomas borrowed money off Butterss.

Thomas believed/claimed it to be an interest free loan, whereas Butterss wanted interest.

That was the argument. It wasn't about paying it back or not - it was about whether or not it was an interest free loan.

Fairly massive difference, one would think.

Fair dinkum.

Maybe, but not good for the club either way!

matrix · Post: # 868751Post **matrix** » Tue 29 Dec 2009 5:04pm

saintly wrote:
matrix wrote:a million????

blimey im missing some serious goss here
that was all over the papers

so whats that tell ya?
i dont buy the papers

Mr Magic · Post: # 868752Post **Mr Magic** » Tue 29 Dec 2009 5:17pm

joffaboy wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:
f*** me, I can't believe the ignorance and stupidity of some people.

Thomas borrowed money off Butterss.

Thomas believed/claimed it to be an interest free loan, whereas Butterss wanted interest.

That was the argument. It wasn't about paying it back or not - it was about whether or not it was an interest free loan.

Fairly massive difference, one would think.

Fair dinkum.
How much of the principle was paid back before the court proceedings?

Zero, and I believe that was partly the reason Butters launched the court action?
Not only was GT denying there was to be any interest, he was also apparently claiming that there was no agreement on when he was required to pay back the principle loan either.

So once again rodger/stool has managed to offer only a partial answer. Then again should we really expect more from this particular poster.

But I suppose it allowed him to use his favourite term which he's seemingly been angling for an opportunity to use over the past couple of days.

plugger66 · Post: # 868755Post **plugger66** » Tue 29 Dec 2009 5:31pm

The main question though is did RL stuff up in recruiting Lovett or should we change the title of the thread to "I know exactly what happened with RB and GT as well as I know exactly how much money the board allowed the footy club to spend in the early to mid 2000's compared to today". The thing that really amazes me is how many people know so much about the club and personal issues.

Mr Magic · Post: # 868757Post **Mr Magic** » Tue 29 Dec 2009 5:41pm

plugger66 wrote:The main question though is did RL stuff up in recruiting Lovett or should we change the title of the thread to "I know exactly what happened with RB and GT as well as I know exactly how much money the board allowed the footy club to spend in the early to mid 2000's compared to today". The thing that really amazes me is how many people know so much about the club and personal issues.

It's pretty hard not to know about something when the court case is widely reported on in the media.

As for 'the recruiting of Lovett' we will know in the fullness of time whether his recruitment was a stuff up or not.

Much like the recruiting of any player (new or recycled) can only be judged after the passage of enough time.

Ball wasn't a dud pick when the pick was made
X Clarke wasn't a dud pick when the pick was made
Dal Santo wasn't a dud pick when the pick was made
M Maguire wasn't a dud pick when the pick was made
Montagna wasn't a dud pick when the pick was made
Brookes wasn't a dud pick when the pick was made
Watts wasn't a dud pick when the pick was made
Heath Black wasn't a dud pick when the pick was made
Stephen Powell wasn't a dud pick when the pick was made
Gram wasn't a dud pick when the pick was made
C Gardiner wasn't a dud pick when the pick was made
M Gardiner wasn't a dud pick when the pick was made
etc, etc.

Some only proved to be dud picks when those players failed to perform (for varying reasons).

Hindsight might make you question whether those picks could have been better used, but the actual selections cannot be made with the benefit of hindsight.

As for inside knowledge, some have it and others don't.