you might wanna reread my post.
ie .. read whats written.
in answer to your question ...obviously , we paid the price for 'saying what needed to be said'.
BUT .... the 'bigger picture' demanded that it be said.
GT on Footy Classified yesterday
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
IcanKickit
- Club Player
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Sun 07 Mar 2010 2:54pm
- Location: mts
-
IcanKickit
- Club Player
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Sun 07 Mar 2010 2:54pm
- Location: mts
Yes I did read what you said. You claimed that we were already being penalised by the AFL 'prior' to Grant's comments. I don't agree with that. Prior to Thommo, we were a club low on the ladder and we had a fixture at the time that reflected that. There were no other issues such as 'siren gate' and the 'whispers in the sky' controversies. These were the direct results of comments by GT after he slammed the AFL and the umpires.IcanKickit wrote:you might wanna reread my post.
ie .. read whats written.
in answer to your question ...obviously , we paid the price for 'saying what needed to be said'.
BUT .... the 'bigger picture' demanded that it be said.
'Siren gate' ended up costing us a finals appearance. The umpiring in the 'whispers in the sky' game cost us a match as well. Glad you can sleep better because Grant had the 'intestinal fortitude' to say what needed to be said. Personally, I would have preferred that he kept his childish temper tantrums to himself and instead take his issues up with the relevant parties behind closed doors where they belong.
That said, I love watching him on FC (most of the time) and listening to his comments now that he is no longer directly associated with our club.
Fortius Quo Fidelius
-
IcanKickit
- Club Player
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Sun 07 Mar 2010 2:54pm
- Location: mts
Where did I post that? I clearly posted two clear examples of where his rantings directly impacted on us as a club. I am sure I could go back and find some earlier examples if it will help you sleep tonight.....IcanKickit wrote:i'm glad to see you agree that grant did/said nothing 'outside of the natural order of things' before round 21 (?) 2005.
Bottom line is, it doesn't matter how far into his tenure he was, he shouldn't have made the comments that he did in the public forum at all.
The AFL will make you pay if you paint them in light they find 'less than flattering'. They rule our league with an iron fist and you will suffer if you publicly name and shame. No different than the real world.
For the record, some of his comments had merit, but the way that he aired them and the strength of the language he used was not appropriate. The club is bigger than the ego of 1 individual. GT just never understood that concept. I am sure he felt better by slamming the umpires at the time of the comments. I wonder how much 'better' he felt after the repercussions.........
Fortius Quo Fidelius
-
barks4eva
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:39pm
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 92 times
And I thought you were banned?IcanKickit wrote:you might wanna reread my post.
ie .. read whats written.
in answer to your question ...obviously , we paid the price for 'saying what needed to be said'.
BUT .... the 'bigger picture' demanded that it be said.
DO THE MATHS AND THE SQUARES ARE ALL ROOTED.
-
Saints43
- Club Player
- Posts: 1826
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 1:01pm
- Location: L2 A38
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 11 times
I don't remember James Hirds' criticism of the umpires in 2004 having a negative effect on their match results or future fixtures.
We have tried it all ways - speak out like a big club - kowtow like a good club - be passive like a small club - it makes no difference to the way we are treated.
Sirengate would have happened to us no matter what. But Adrian Anderson would never have downgraded the result of an Essendon match by overriding the laws of the game.
We have tried it all ways - speak out like a big club - kowtow like a good club - be passive like a small club - it makes no difference to the way we are treated.
Sirengate would have happened to us no matter what. But Adrian Anderson would never have downgraded the result of an Essendon match by overriding the laws of the game.
-
IcanKickit
- Club Player
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Sun 07 Mar 2010 2:54pm
- Location: mts
-
IcanKickit
- Club Player
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Sun 07 Mar 2010 2:54pm
- Location: mts
is that a statement or a question ?And I thought you were banned?
although i see you've been hiding for nearly 3 months .
embarrassed yourself with your over the top, insipid GT tanty did you ?
found out as a snakeoil salesman, and just purpled away into the night!
saintsfooty : 'Nothing wrong with that. Infact, it is brilliant to have everyone embracing it.'
-
barks4eva
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:39pm
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 92 times
How are you allowed to post under another nic whilst banned?IcanKickit wrote:is that a statement or a question ?And I thought you were banned?
although i see you've been hiding for nearly 3 months .
embarrassed yourself with your over the top, insipid GT tanty did you ?
found out as a snakeoil salesman, and just purpled away into the night!
Banned three times in the past five months and now posting again while banned, impressive........ quite an achievement!
DO THE MATHS AND THE SQUARES ARE ALL ROOTED.
-
IcanKickit
- Club Player
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Sun 07 Mar 2010 2:54pm
- Location: mts
i gather from that classic long winded short on fact diatribe that it was a statement.
i am not na exa.
is this understandable you suckhole of the establishment ? <---------- 'question'
you always were a dobber's dobber ! <----------- 'statement'
i am not na exa.
is this understandable you suckhole of the establishment ? <---------- 'question'
you always were a dobber's dobber ! <----------- 'statement'
saintsfooty : 'Nothing wrong with that. Infact, it is brilliant to have everyone embracing it.'
I am sure that this is not the case in this instance, but for your information and to answer your question, the answer is Yes.barks4eva wrote:How are you allowed to post under another nic whilst banned?IcanKickit wrote:is that a statement or a question ?And I thought you were banned?
although i see you've been hiding for nearly 3 months .
embarrassed yourself with your over the top, insipid GT tanty did you ?
found out as a snakeoil salesman, and just purpled away into the night!
Banned three times in the past five months and now posting again while banned, impressive........ quite an achievement!
Read: SAINTSATIONAL ACCOUNTS
We do not actively discourage nor encourage multiple accounts. It all comes back to the RESPECT guideline. If you are acting in a harmless manner for a bit of fun, then everyone can laugh along. If you are acting with malicious intent, then this activity will be actioned by the Moderators under the Penalty System.
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
Did you hear James Hird's comments? Why do you think he made them?Saints43 wrote:I don't remember James Hirds' criticism of the umpires in 2004 having a negative effect on their match results or future fixtures.
Do you honestly believe that if Ross, Paul Roo's or any other coach that has a modicum of respect from the AFL would have received a similar outcome? We will never know. However, Andrew Demetriou could not WAIT to stick it to Grant Thomas. If you don't believe that, you are delusional.Saints43 wrote:We have tried it all ways - speak out like a big club - kowtow like a good club - be passive like a small club - it makes no difference to the way we are treated.
Sirengate would have happened to us no matter what. But Adrian Anderson would never have downgraded the result of an Essendon match by overriding the laws of the game.
Fortius Quo Fidelius
