Goddard to GWS??. 3AW Rumour !!

[SaintSimmo]

Atold of all the i's being dotted and t's being crossed

Thats were the rumour is wrong, cause brendan goddard has not i's or t's in his name, dont worry fellow saints bj is red, white and black through and through.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

In the interview last week I am sure he said he was contracted until the end of 2012.
GWs would need to recruit for 2012.

Unlike Gold Coast, GWS can take their 16 "uncontracted players" over two years.
So they can take someone who's out of contract at the end of this season, to play for them next year and at the end of next season they can also take someone who's out of contract then, as long as they haven't already taken someone from that club this year.
The word is that they won't be able to lure many at the end of this season (so they could be much worse next year than Gold Coast are this year), but that they'll be going hard to get some who are out of contract at the end of 2012, to play for them in 2013.
One bonus for them doing it this way is that anyone they take this year they could put on a massively "front-ended" contract, I imagine (ie. $2mil for next season (2012) and then say $200,000 for the next 3 years (2013 -2015), so that they then have plenty of room in their salary cap for 2013, to lure more "big names".

[meher baba]

Is Roo handling it though?

The pressure, expectation and scrutiny was only going to multiply this year.

Usually the 'Roo has to play well for the Saints to win' was reserved for the final series.

Yet it's already dominating the headlines in April, I knew it was going to be tough for him, but not even I thought it was be so intense this early.

I still think the timing was perfect for a fresh start for the club, a new campaign, a new facility, new leadership.

People were confident he could handle it, that it was disloyal to suggest otherwise, that it was somehow slurring his character to question if it was best for Roo was to stand aside.

I'm sure he wants to lead, wants to pull this club out of the hole it's in, wants to lead.

I just think that after the season he had, on and off the field, it's not fair to expect him to.

As I said elsewhere, I'm actually quite worried for him.

So after all his trouble we then sack him at captain. That would do wonders for his mental side. And then we replace him with a very angry man who is struggling this year anyway. Makes no sense at all. Rooy isnt struggling because he is captain. It may be how we are playing, the GF losses or personal issues but the captaincy isn't an issue.

I totally agree with this.

But, p66, what do you think about the actual rumour?

My view, FWIW, is that - if the list of names in the OP isn't correct - that a fairly similar list of other names would be being put together.

The AFL cannot afford to have the GWS experience a series of 200 point thrashings like the Suns are fated to enjoy over the next year or two. At least the Suns have some sort of inherent fan base on the Gold Coast (albeit that I think it has been overestimated), but the GWS is effectively starting with zilch.

The GWS therefore needs to hit the ground running or it might as well be written off as a joke right now.

I've always believed that where there's a will, there's a way. The AFL (misguidedly IMO) wants the GWS to have the best possible chance, so they will make sure it does.

So if it isn't going to be BJ, Murphy, Mitchell, Thomas, etc, then it's going to be Cooney, Montagna, Betts, Wellingham, etc.

And I wouldn't have thought it would matter if all the fingered players were contracted to 2050. The AFL would talk to the clubs, the clubs would put them on the trade table and the deal would be done. In this era of TV rights-subsidised football, clubs have very little power.

[Dr Spaceman]

Is Roo handling it though?

The pressure, expectation and scrutiny was only going to multiply this year.

Usually the 'Roo has to play well for the Saints to win' was reserved for the final series.

Yet it's already dominating the headlines in April, I knew it was going to be tough for him, but not even I thought it was be so intense this early.

I still think the timing was perfect for a fresh start for the club, a new campaign, a new facility, new leadership.

People were confident he could handle it, that it was disloyal to suggest otherwise, that it was somehow slurring his character to question if it was best for Roo was to stand aside.

I'm sure he wants to lead, wants to pull this club out of the hole it's in, wants to lead.

I just think that after the season he had, on and off the field, it's not fair to expect him to.

As I said elsewhere, I'm actually quite worried for him.

So after all his trouble we then sack him at captain. That would do wonders for his mental side. And then we replace him with a very angry man who is struggling this year anyway. Makes no sense at all. Rooy isnt struggling because he is captain. It may be how we are playing, the GF losses or personal issues but the captaincy isn't an issue.

I totally agree with this.

But, p66, what do you think about the actual rumour?

My view, FWIW, is that - if the list of names in the OP isn't correct - that a fairly similar list of other names would be being put together.

The AFL cannot afford to have the GWS experience a series of 200 point thrashings like the Suns are fated to enjoy over the next year or two. At least the Suns have some sort of inherent fan base on the Gold Coast (albeit that I think it has been overestimated), but the GWS is effectively starting with zilch.

The GWS therefore needs to hit the ground running or it might as well be written off as a joke right now.

I've always believed that where there's a will, there's a way. The AFL (misguidedly IMO) wants the GWS to have the best possible chance, so they will make sure it does.

So if it isn't going to be BJ, Murphy, Mitchell, Thomas, etc, then it's going to be Cooney, Montagna, Betts, Wellingham, etc.

And I wouldn't have thought it would matter if all the fingered players were contracted to 2050. The AFL would talk to the clubs, the clubs would put them on the trade table and the deal would be done. In this era of TV rights-subsidised football, clubs have very little power.

Regardless of what GWS wants, or the AFL wants, the players still have to want to go otherwise it doesn't happen.

[meher baba]

Is Roo handling it though?

The pressure, expectation and scrutiny was only going to multiply this year.

Usually the 'Roo has to play well for the Saints to win' was reserved for the final series.

Yet it's already dominating the headlines in April, I knew it was going to be tough for him, but not even I thought it was be so intense this early.

I still think the timing was perfect for a fresh start for the club, a new campaign, a new facility, new leadership.

People were confident he could handle it, that it was disloyal to suggest otherwise, that it was somehow slurring his character to question if it was best for Roo was to stand aside.

I'm sure he wants to lead, wants to pull this club out of the hole it's in, wants to lead.

I just think that after the season he had, on and off the field, it's not fair to expect him to.

As I said elsewhere, I'm actually quite worried for him.

So after all his trouble we then sack him at captain. That would do wonders for his mental side. And then we replace him with a very angry man who is struggling this year anyway. Makes no sense at all. Rooy isnt struggling because he is captain. It may be how we are playing, the GF losses or personal issues but the captaincy isn't an issue.

I totally agree with this.

But, p66, what do you think about the actual rumour?

My view, FWIW, is that - if the list of names in the OP isn't correct - that a fairly similar list of other names would be being put together.

The AFL cannot afford to have the GWS experience a series of 200 point thrashings like the Suns are fated to enjoy over the next year or two. At least the Suns have some sort of inherent fan base on the Gold Coast (albeit that I think it has been overestimated), but the GWS is effectively starting with zilch.

The GWS therefore needs to hit the ground running or it might as well be written off as a joke right now.

I've always believed that where there's a will, there's a way. The AFL (misguidedly IMO) wants the GWS to have the best possible chance, so they will make sure it does.

So if it isn't going to be BJ, Murphy, Mitchell, Thomas, etc, then it's going to be Cooney, Montagna, Betts, Wellingham, etc.

And I wouldn't have thought it would matter if all the fingered players were contracted to 2050. The AFL would talk to the clubs, the clubs would put them on the trade table and the deal would be done. In this era of TV rights-subsidised football, clubs have very little power.

Regardless of what GWS wants, or the AFL wants, the players still have to want to go otherwise it doesn't happen.

I'm not sure. I reckon the AFL can push the point if it wants to. Perhaps this is why BJ is grumpy and out of sorts ATM.

[plugger66]

Is Roo handling it though?

The pressure, expectation and scrutiny was only going to multiply this year.

Usually the 'Roo has to play well for the Saints to win' was reserved for the final series.

Yet it's already dominating the headlines in April, I knew it was going to be tough for him, but not even I thought it was be so intense this early.

I still think the timing was perfect for a fresh start for the club, a new campaign, a new facility, new leadership.

People were confident he could handle it, that it was disloyal to suggest otherwise, that it was somehow slurring his character to question if it was best for Roo was to stand aside.

I'm sure he wants to lead, wants to pull this club out of the hole it's in, wants to lead.

I just think that after the season he had, on and off the field, it's not fair to expect him to.

As I said elsewhere, I'm actually quite worried for him.

So after all his trouble we then sack him at captain. That would do wonders for his mental side. And then we replace him with a very angry man who is struggling this year anyway. Makes no sense at all. Rooy isnt struggling because he is captain. It may be how we are playing, the GF losses or personal issues but the captaincy isn't an issue.

I totally agree with this.

But, p66, what do you think about the actual rumour?

My view, FWIW, is that - if the list of names in the OP isn't correct - that a fairly similar list of other names would be being put together.

The AFL cannot afford to have the GWS experience a series of 200 point thrashings like the Suns are fated to enjoy over the next year or two. At least the Suns have some sort of inherent fan base on the Gold Coast (albeit that I think it has been overestimated), but the GWS is effectively starting with zilch.

The GWS therefore needs to hit the ground running or it might as well be written off as a joke right now.

I've always believed that where there's a will, there's a way. The AFL (misguidedly IMO) wants the GWS to have the best possible chance, so they will make sure it does.

So if it isn't going to be BJ, Murphy, Mitchell, Thomas, etc, then it's going to be Cooney, Montagna, Betts, Wellingham, etc.

And I wouldn't have thought it would matter if all the fingered players were contracted to 2050. The AFL would talk to the clubs, the clubs would put them on the trade table and the deal would be done. In this era of TV rights-subsidised football, clubs have very little power.

Regardless of what GWS wants, or the AFL wants, the players still have to want to go otherwise it doesn't happen.

I'm not sure. I reckon the AFL can push the point if it wants to. Perhaps this is why BJ is grumpy and out of sorts ATM.

I reckon we are stretching things if you think that could be the reason. BJ aint going anywhere next year due to a contract. The year after may be a different story. I certainly dont go for this crap the he or nearly any player is a player for life at any club but I do believe in contracts.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Is Roo handling it though?

The pressure, expectation and scrutiny was only going to multiply this year.

Usually the 'Roo has to play well for the Saints to win' was reserved for the final series.

Yet it's already dominating the headlines in April, I knew it was going to be tough for him, but not even I thought it was be so intense this early.

I still think the timing was perfect for a fresh start for the club, a new campaign, a new facility, new leadership.

People were confident he could handle it, that it was disloyal to suggest otherwise, that it was somehow slurring his character to question if it was best for Roo was to stand aside.

I'm sure he wants to lead, wants to pull this club out of the hole it's in, wants to lead.

I just think that after the season he had, on and off the field, it's not fair to expect him to.

As I said elsewhere, I'm actually quite worried for him.

So after all his trouble we then sack him at captain. That would do wonders for his mental side.

Why don't you just exaggerate things a little?
I don't remember anyone saying he should be "sacked", if you're referring to what was being debated on here after the GF's (which is what K looks to be talking about). That implies that he be brutally given the ass and I don't remember anyone suggesting that. Far from it. K certainly wasn't. Twisting words again, I see. No surprise. And you reckon others are talking "crap"!
Telling him that you believe it was in the best interests of the club, and him, that someone else do it, (to which I expect he would gracefully step aside) which is what was believed may be best by some of us, is a far cry from the "sacking" that you're suggesting was suggested.
And you reckon it's best to have someone who is so mentally fragile, that if the club did tell him they wanted someone else to do the role, (in the best interests of the club and him) that it would "do wonders for his mental side", captain an AFL team?
How can he be so mentally fragile that being asked to do something that the club believed was best would have the effect on his mental state that you're implying, yet be mentally strong enough to captain an AFL team? How the hell does that work?
Surely it's best to have someone who was man enough to take a decision like that on the chin captain the club and not someone who you reckon would take it the way you're suggesting Nick would.

[InkerSaint]

The word is that they won't be able to lure many at the end of this season (so they could be much worse next year than Gold Coast are this year), but that they'll be going hard to get some who are out of contract at the end of 2012, to play for them in 2013.

It's still going to be hard for Goddard to line up for GWS in 2013 if he has signed with the Saints as reported.

[plugger66]

Is Roo handling it though?

The pressure, expectation and scrutiny was only going to multiply this year.

Usually the 'Roo has to play well for the Saints to win' was reserved for the final series.

Yet it's already dominating the headlines in April, I knew it was going to be tough for him, but not even I thought it was be so intense this early.

I still think the timing was perfect for a fresh start for the club, a new campaign, a new facility, new leadership.

People were confident he could handle it, that it was disloyal to suggest otherwise, that it was somehow slurring his character to question if it was best for Roo was to stand aside.

I'm sure he wants to lead, wants to pull this club out of the hole it's in, wants to lead.

I just think that after the season he had, on and off the field, it's not fair to expect him to.

As I said elsewhere, I'm actually quite worried for him.

So after all his trouble we then sack him at captain. That would do wonders for his mental side.

Why don't you just exaggerate things a little?
I don't remember anyone saying he should be "sacked", if you're referring to what was being debated on here after the GF's (which is what K looks to be talking about). That implies that he be brutally given the ass and I don't remember anyone suggesting that. Far from it. K certainly wasn't. Twisting words again, I see. No surprise. And you reckon others are talking "crap"!
Telling him that you believe it was in the best interests of the club, and him, that someone else do it, (to which I expect he would gracefully step aside) which is what was believed may be best by some of us, is a far cry from the "sacking" that you're suggesting was suggested.
And you reckon it's best to have someone who is so mentally fragile, that if the club did tell him they wanted someone else to do the role, (in the best interests of the club and him) that it would "do wonders for his mental side", captain an AFL team?
How can he be so mentally fragile that being asked to do something that the club believed was best would have the effect on his mental state that you're implying, yet be mentally strong enough to captain an AFL team? How the hell does that work?
Surely it's best to have someone who was man enough to take a decision like that on the chin captain the club and not someone who you reckon would take it the way you're suggesting Nick would?

Are you actually serious? If he wants to be captain and is replaced then he is sacked. I have never read or never heard anything to suggest he wants to stand down.

And could you imagine the publicity if he was replaced before the start of the year after the photograph stuff. The club would have copped so much s***.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

The word is that they won't be able to lure many at the end of this season (so they could be much worse next year than Gold Coast are this year), but that they'll be going hard to get some who are out of contract at the end of 2012, to play for them in 2013.

It's still going to be hard for Goddard to line up for GWS in 2013 if he has signed with the Saints as reported.

Where has that been reported? That's the first I've heard of it and great news if true.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Are you actually serious? If he wants to be captain and is replaced then he is sacked. I have never read or never heard anything to suggest he wants to stand down.

And could you imagine the publicity if he was replaced before the start of the year after the photograph stuff. The club would have copped so much s***.[/quote]Well, you can word it any way you want, but "sacking" implies something much stronger than what was being suggested by the likes of SainterK.
And I don't give a toss about the publicity. If we're not able to handle some negative publicity we aren't made of much tough stuff, even if we've had a lot already. And clubs are allowed to change who leads them, without it being seen as a negative thing. Having read a lot of the stuff on the main board on bigfooty lately, there seem to be plenty who follow other clubs who reckon Roo is definitely not our best option for that role, anyway, so many may quietly praise us, not ridicule us.
And you haven't answered my question.
How is someone, who would be so mentally hurt by being replaced in a role, at the same time mentally strong enough to captain an AFL team and be able to handle things like being drowned out when he's giving a speech, or when he has his pants pulled down by a Heath Shaw in the goalsquare, on top of things like the yips when he kicks for goal?
Or are you suggesting, by not answering that, that it's better to have someone you reckon is this mentally fragile captain a team, that hopes to win the premiership, than have some more "negative publicity"?

[plugger66]

Are you actually serious? If he wants to be captain and is replaced then he is sacked. I have never read or never heard anything to suggest he wants to stand down.

And could you imagine the publicity if he was replaced before the start of the year after the photograph stuff. The club would have copped so much s***.

Well, you can word it any way you want, but "sacking" implies something much stronger than what was being suggested by the likes of SainterK.
And I don't give a toss about the publicity. If we're not able to handle some negative publicity we aren't made of much tough stuff, even if we've had a lot already. And clubs are allowed to change who leads them, without it being seen as a negative thing. Having read a lot of the stuff on the main board on bigfooty lately, there seem to be plenty who follow other clubs who reckon Roo is definitely not our best option for that role, anyway, so many may quietly praise us, not ridicule us.
And you haven't answered my question.
How is someone, who would be so mentally hurt by being replaced in a role, at the same time mentally strong enough to captain an AFL team and be able to handle things like being drowned out when he's giving a speech, or when he has his pants pulled down by a Heath Shaw in the goalsquare, on top of things like the yips when he kicks for goal?
Or are you suggesting, by not answering that, that it's better to have someone you reckon is this mentally fragile captain a team, that hopes to win the premiership, than have some more "negative publicity"?[/quote]

I reckon mentally most players are struggling unless of course you have other reasons for their poor form. He has also had all that photo stuff on top of that so yes I think sacking him would hurt his mental side even more. Does that mean he shouldnt be captain now. No not all. He is human like any other person and like others he is mentally struggling because of the GF's. Why do you think BJ is struggling at the moment. Would love a reason for that if you have one.

[InkerSaint]

The word is that they won't be able to lure many at the end of this season (so they could be much worse next year than Gold Coast are this year), but that they'll be going hard to get some who are out of contract at the end of 2012, to play for them in 2013.

It's still going to be hard for Goddard to line up for GWS in 2013 if he has signed with the Saints as reported.

Where has that been reported? That's the first I've heard of it and great news if true.

Reported in the Herald Sun, go back a page for the link and quote.