Oh come on you know you're just bursting to expand, all the inner secrets, but yeah best to just keep the gang guessing I think.
Bruce Requests trade to Dogs
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: Mon 27 Jun 2005 1:27pm
- Location: Abiding
- Has thanked: 173 times
- Been thanked: 385 times
Re: Bruce Requests trade to Dogs
so now we get a pile on of rubbish comments
"some things best unsaid"
"unsavoury incident"
"not buying into culture"
yes an anonymous forum attracting effluence
"some things best unsaid"
"unsavoury incident"
"not buying into culture"
yes an anonymous forum attracting effluence
" A few will never give up on you. When you go back out on the field, those are the people I want in your minds. Those are the people I want in your hearts."
— Coach Eric Taylor - Friday Night Lights
— Coach Eric Taylor - Friday Night Lights
- evertonfc
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7262
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 9:11pm
- Location: 'Quietly Confident' County
- Has thanked: 115 times
- Been thanked: 267 times
- Contact:
Re: Bruce Requests trade to Dogs
Bruce's kicking got me down a bit at times, but hell - what a warrior, and what a heart-and-soul player.
You couldn't accuse him of giving any less than 110% every time he played.
I am extremely disappointed to lose him. His physical presence was enormous, and seldom did he let a pack go without being crashed and getting it to ground level. Milne would have LOVED playing next to him.
I can't really see the value we are getting here. He's worth a top 10-15 pick to us, but the Dogs will probably get him for much less. It's a fantastic deal for them, no matter which way you cut it.
I really can't figure out what we're gaining from the deal. They're going to get a guy who will kick 150 goals for them - he can definitely get to 40 goals per year with the service their midfield provides.
You couldn't accuse him of giving any less than 110% every time he played.
I am extremely disappointed to lose him. His physical presence was enormous, and seldom did he let a pack go without being crashed and getting it to ground level. Milne would have LOVED playing next to him.
I can't really see the value we are getting here. He's worth a top 10-15 pick to us, but the Dogs will probably get him for much less. It's a fantastic deal for them, no matter which way you cut it.
I really can't figure out what we're gaining from the deal. They're going to get a guy who will kick 150 goals for them - he can definitely get to 40 goals per year with the service their midfield provides.
Last edited by evertonfc on Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:29am, edited 1 time in total.
Clueless and mediocre petty tyrant.
- DownAtTheJunction
- Club Player
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Sat 16 Feb 2008 10:24pm
- Location: Dark Side Of The Moon
- Has thanked: 17 times
- Been thanked: 87 times
Re: Bruce Requests trade to Dogs
Agreed. I actually think Hanneberry can play (but he's given us so little due to ongoing injuries) and he's 29 in February. We just can't attract quality players, especially younger ones. It's a pressing issue for the AFL. I think we'd all love Billings to become a star, but he still looks like an elite schoolboy player. Regrettably I can't see that changing. He may be the icing on the cake for a Top 4 team but that's not what we need. That draft was extremely costly - missing both Bontempelli and Cripps was shattering.saintkid wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:09amHe sure is. We've watched him closely at games and he is definitely soft and overrated. No physical presence, no inspirational leadership play and regularly fails to nail goals from 35m or more out. Downhill skier when the team is going well.
Against Carlton,to see him and then see Cripps from the same draft, the footy ability difference was massive, regardless of the height/size difference. They sure have struck gold with Cripps. Can do pretty much anything on the ground and is fast becoming one of the top players in the comp and is probably in the top 3-4 already.
Billings still looks like a boy out there 6 years on and plays like one too. The fact that he and Hanneberry are on $800k plus each, as we try to build a team again going forward, is mind boggling.
- saintkid
- Club Player
- Posts: 1804
- Joined: Tue 16 Sep 2008 12:30am
- Has thanked: 143 times
- Been thanked: 312 times
Re: Bruce Requests trade to Dogs
We all feel the same way too. Either one of Bontempelli or Cripps would certainly have propelled us forward because they are the type of young players we desperately needed. The following year we also did not get a win with McCartin (there were red flags with his Type 1 diabetes). Recruitment has and continues to be poor. Hanneberry has proven he can play but we took him on a large contract when his body was already failing and yes, is turning 29 in February (as I also mentioned in a previous post). A number of very costly decisions.DownAtTheJunction wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:35amAgreed. I actually think Hanneberry can play (but he's given us so little due to ongoing injuries) and he's 29 in February. We just can't attract quality players, especially younger ones. It's a pressing issue for the AFL. I think we'd all love Billings to become a star, but he still looks like an elite schoolboy player. Regrettably I can't see that changing. He may be the icing on the cake for a Top 4 team but that's not what we need. That draft was extremely costly - missing both Bontempelli and Cripps was shattering.saintkid wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:09amHe sure is. We've watched him closely at games and he is definitely soft and overrated. No physical presence, no inspirational leadership play and regularly fails to nail goals from 35m or more out. Downhill skier when the team is going well.
Against Carlton,to see him and then see Cripps from the same draft, the footy ability difference was massive, regardless of the height/size difference. They sure have struck gold with Cripps. Can do pretty much anything on the ground and is fast becoming one of the top players in the comp and is probably in the top 3-4 already.
Billings still looks like a boy out there 6 years on and plays like one too. The fact that he and Hanneberry are on $800k plus each, as we try to build a team again going forward, is mind boggling.
- The Fireman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13329
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:54pm
- Has thanked: 680 times
- Been thanked: 1966 times
Re: Bruce Requests trade to Dogs
if Tony gives out too much he may have to hide in an embassyterry smith rules wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:25am so now we get a pile on of rubbish comments
"some things best unsaid"
"unsavoury incident"
"not buying into culture"
yes an anonymous forum attracting effluence
PS I will refrain from calling your posts rubbish...although I'd like to
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1832
- Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2011 5:54pm
- Has thanked: 119 times
- Been thanked: 383 times
Re: Bruce Requests trade to Dogs
Sheesh. I can't understand the looking back and what ifs. Every club would have similar stories. Billings has turned out pretty well. A lot missed Cripps, Fyfe, etc. We had Baldock and Stewart from Tassie, why didn't we push harder for Hudson? Flag in '71 then.saintkid wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:54amWe all feel the same way too. Either one of Bontempelli or Cripps would certainly have propelled us forward because they are the type of young players we desperately needed. The following year we also did not get a win with McCartin (there were red flags with his Type 1 diabetes). Recruitment has and continues to be poor. Hanneberry has proven he can play but we took him on a large contract when his body was already failing and yes, is turning 29 in February (as I also mentioned in a previous post). A number of very costly decisions.DownAtTheJunction wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:35amAgreed. I actually think Hanneberry can play (but he's given us so little due to ongoing injuries) and he's 29 in February. We just can't attract quality players, especially younger ones. It's a pressing issue for the AFL. I think we'd all love Billings to become a star, but he still looks like an elite schoolboy player. Regrettably I can't see that changing. He may be the icing on the cake for a Top 4 team but that's not what we need. That draft was extremely costly - missing both Bontempelli and Cripps was shattering.saintkid wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:09amHe sure is. We've watched him closely at games and he is definitely soft and overrated. No physical presence, no inspirational leadership play and regularly fails to nail goals from 35m or more out. Downhill skier when the team is going well.
Against Carlton,to see him and then see Cripps from the same draft, the footy ability difference was massive, regardless of the height/size difference. They sure have struck gold with Cripps. Can do pretty much anything on the ground and is fast becoming one of the top players in the comp and is probably in the top 3-4 already.
Billings still looks like a boy out there 6 years on and plays like one too. The fact that he and Hanneberry are on $800k plus each, as we try to build a team again going forward, is mind boggling.
- DownAtTheJunction
- Club Player
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Sat 16 Feb 2008 10:24pm
- Location: Dark Side Of The Moon
- Has thanked: 17 times
- Been thanked: 87 times
Re: Bruce Requests trade to Dogs
You're right - Hudson would have been a good gettakeaway wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 12:08pmSheesh. I can't understand the looking back and what ifs. Every club would have similar stories. Billings has turned out pretty well. A lot missed Cripps, Fyfe, etc. We had Baldock and Stewart from Tassie, why didn't we push harder for Hudson? Flag in '71 then.saintkid wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:54amWe all feel the same way too. Either one of Bontempelli or Cripps would certainly have propelled us forward because they are the type of young players we desperately needed. The following year we also did not get a win with McCartin (there were red flags with his Type 1 diabetes). Recruitment has and continues to be poor. Hanneberry has proven he can play but we took him on a large contract when his body was already failing and yes, is turning 29 in February (as I also mentioned in a previous post). A number of very costly decisions.DownAtTheJunction wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:35amAgreed. I actually think Hanneberry can play (but he's given us so little due to ongoing injuries) and he's 29 in February. We just can't attract quality players, especially younger ones. It's a pressing issue for the AFL. I think we'd all love Billings to become a star, but he still looks like an elite schoolboy player. Regrettably I can't see that changing. He may be the icing on the cake for a Top 4 team but that's not what we need. That draft was extremely costly - missing both Bontempelli and Cripps was shattering.saintkid wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:09amHe sure is. We've watched him closely at games and he is definitely soft and overrated. No physical presence, no inspirational leadership play and regularly fails to nail goals from 35m or more out. Downhill skier when the team is going well.
Against Carlton,to see him and then see Cripps from the same draft, the footy ability difference was massive, regardless of the height/size difference. They sure have struck gold with Cripps. Can do pretty much anything on the ground and is fast becoming one of the top players in the comp and is probably in the top 3-4 already.
Billings still looks like a boy out there 6 years on and plays like one too. The fact that he and Hanneberry are on $800k plus each, as we try to build a team again going forward, is mind boggling.
- mad saint guy
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7087
- Joined: Tue 26 Jul 2005 9:44pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 52 times
- Been thanked: 367 times
Re: Bruce Requests trade to Dogs
I'm very disappointed to read this. However the reality is that he's contracted and he's worth far more than two mediocre picks. Pick 12 for Bruce and a future 3rd rounder I would accept. Or Bruce for Toby McLean and one of the Dogs' third rounders.
- saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30098
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1235 times
Re: Bruce Requests trade to Dogs
Please no.mad saint guy wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 12:34pm Or Bruce for Toby McLean and one of the Dogs' third rounders.
McClean is not really any better than what we have. What would be the point, as that is just going shuffle one average mid in our best 22 for another?
Anyone we gain needs to be a clear upgrade or addresses a need that we do not adequately cover.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
- SaintPav
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 19156
- Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
- Location: Alma Road
- Has thanked: 1609 times
- Been thanked: 2030 times
Re: Bruce Requests trade to Dogs
Exactly!BarryGrogan wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 10:00amThat's exactly my point.SaintPav wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 9:08amLol.BarryGrogan wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 8:37amI don't think a single person that is making these decisions has been at St Kilda for more than a year or two have they?
If anything, it's very 'un-St Kilda'. These are not St Kilda decisions. These are decisions made by non-St Kilda people.
Maybe that's not a bad thing.
What ”St Kilda people”? They're not run like community clubs anymore; they are a commercial enterprises. I think you're about 15 years behind.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
- SaintPav
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 19156
- Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
- Location: Alma Road
- Has thanked: 1609 times
- Been thanked: 2030 times
Re: Bruce Requests trade to Dogs
Bruce is contracted so we hold all the cards.
Your pick 12 thanks and no less so pay up Shitscray aka Dullbogs or ya can f*** off.
Your pick 12 thanks and no less so pay up Shitscray aka Dullbogs or ya can f*** off.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
- Linton Lodger
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2467
- Joined: Mon 18 Aug 2014 2:07pm
- Has thanked: 86 times
- Been thanked: 256 times
Re: Bruce Requests trade to Dogs
The Bulldogs certainly need him more than we do, so do Collingwood.
Its sad to see him go, however even if McCartin never plays again, we have enough tall forwards. We need outside speed and skill.
Then there's Max King.
Its sad to see him go, however even if McCartin never plays again, we have enough tall forwards. We need outside speed and skill.
Then there's Max King.
- Linton Lodger
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2467
- Joined: Mon 18 Aug 2014 2:07pm
- Has thanked: 86 times
- Been thanked: 256 times
- SaintPav
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 19156
- Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
- Location: Alma Road
- Has thanked: 1609 times
- Been thanked: 2030 times
Re: Bruce Requests trade to Dogs
I'm loving your tough talk LL.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 17048
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3663 times
- Been thanked: 2927 times
- SaintPav
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 19156
- Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
- Location: Alma Road
- Has thanked: 1609 times
- Been thanked: 2030 times
Re: Bruce Requests trade to Dogs
They must have read my trade idea.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3266
- Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2007 4:05pm
- Been thanked: 390 times
Re: Bruce Requests trade to Dogs
Well Peter Hudson did come to St Kilda.
With Ken Sheldon.
Then, off the back of an under performing season, the Board of the time did not know where responsibility lay, so both were gone.
Is John Beverage still advising the Club in any way?
Recruitment is what it is these days.
Initially you line up in the (compromised as always seems to be the case in some form or other and which continues) Draft, basically selecting from an Under 18 Competition (and sometimes, but rarely, those players have show-cased at League level in SA and WA, noting those Leagues have been savaged by the AFL including now mid-season Drafting).
So there will be a failure rate because these kids (and they are kids) are coming from Under 18 Competitions (basically except as above).
To say "We should have drafted ..........." is a nonsense because success is not guaranteed.
The presentation of some can come down to body size, so the collateral assessment as to improvement in prospect can be written down because the bigger body sees dominance at Under-age level.
The Draft was meant to be an "equalization" audit, but is now further demeaned by trading including "Free Agency", rule changes that benefit the Cartel Clubs, Clubs which dominate the AFL including the scheduling fixture.
The question in all this is has the Draft, compromised as it is and always has been, past its use by date - and should the competition resort to Clubs scouring the Nation for players with ability.
Times have changed, but the Club of my youth owned the freehold of a residential property where kids as young as 14 boarded from the Country and were schooled at a particular private College, for whom they played at under-age levels.
They first appeared at Under 17 level (there were then the Under 17's and Under 19's competitions, each Club participating) then working their way to League level.
Some fell by the wayside, but there were very significant successes with some Champion players.
So do we go back to putting responsibility with the AFL Clubs and not "feeding" them thru a disassociated Under 18 competition with all the rules and regulations that attach, such as under-age?
You do not now see 16 year olds debuting because they are good enough, with the attaching excitement.
And I would add that, given some of these kids debut immediately after being Drafted from Under 18 competitions, the standard of the competition has decayed.
To support that, a kid from Adelaide can play at Under 18 level for his home Club, not considered for a SANFL debut (or even a Seconds game) but then appearing in Round 1 of the next AFL season.
There are not that many, so good at Under 18 level that they are fixtures at SANFL level ahead of being Drafted (so playing SANFL at 16 or 17, noting that competition is not now what it once was).
The current Draft is, to me, a part of the constant PR the AFL relies upon, so it is never out of the headlines.
So there you go.
With Ken Sheldon.
Then, off the back of an under performing season, the Board of the time did not know where responsibility lay, so both were gone.
Is John Beverage still advising the Club in any way?
Recruitment is what it is these days.
Initially you line up in the (compromised as always seems to be the case in some form or other and which continues) Draft, basically selecting from an Under 18 Competition (and sometimes, but rarely, those players have show-cased at League level in SA and WA, noting those Leagues have been savaged by the AFL including now mid-season Drafting).
So there will be a failure rate because these kids (and they are kids) are coming from Under 18 Competitions (basically except as above).
To say "We should have drafted ..........." is a nonsense because success is not guaranteed.
The presentation of some can come down to body size, so the collateral assessment as to improvement in prospect can be written down because the bigger body sees dominance at Under-age level.
The Draft was meant to be an "equalization" audit, but is now further demeaned by trading including "Free Agency", rule changes that benefit the Cartel Clubs, Clubs which dominate the AFL including the scheduling fixture.
The question in all this is has the Draft, compromised as it is and always has been, past its use by date - and should the competition resort to Clubs scouring the Nation for players with ability.
Times have changed, but the Club of my youth owned the freehold of a residential property where kids as young as 14 boarded from the Country and were schooled at a particular private College, for whom they played at under-age levels.
They first appeared at Under 17 level (there were then the Under 17's and Under 19's competitions, each Club participating) then working their way to League level.
Some fell by the wayside, but there were very significant successes with some Champion players.
So do we go back to putting responsibility with the AFL Clubs and not "feeding" them thru a disassociated Under 18 competition with all the rules and regulations that attach, such as under-age?
You do not now see 16 year olds debuting because they are good enough, with the attaching excitement.
And I would add that, given some of these kids debut immediately after being Drafted from Under 18 competitions, the standard of the competition has decayed.
To support that, a kid from Adelaide can play at Under 18 level for his home Club, not considered for a SANFL debut (or even a Seconds game) but then appearing in Round 1 of the next AFL season.
There are not that many, so good at Under 18 level that they are fixtures at SANFL level ahead of being Drafted (so playing SANFL at 16 or 17, noting that competition is not now what it once was).
The current Draft is, to me, a part of the constant PR the AFL relies upon, so it is never out of the headlines.
So there you go.
- avid
- Club Player
- Posts: 1645
- Joined: Tue 11 Mar 2008 1:54am
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 95 times
Re: Bruce Requests trade to Dogs
I so agree.evertonfc wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:28am Bruce's kicking got me down a bit at times, but hell - what a warrior, and what a heart-and-soul player.
You couldn't accuse him of giving any less than 110% every time he played.
I am extremely disappointed to lose him. His physical presence was enormous, and seldom did he let a pack go without being crashed and getting it to ground level. Milne would have LOVED playing next to him.
I can't really see the value we are getting here. He's worth a top 10-15 pick to us, but the Dogs will probably get him for much less. It's a fantastic deal for them, no matter which way you cut it.
I really can't figure out what we're gaining from the deal. They're going to get a guy who will kick 150 goals for them - he can definitely get to 40 goals per year with the service their midfield provides.
Unless we get a 10-15 pick I'll be gutted.
Even if we do I'll still be gutted at losing the Brooster.
Our forward half will be gutted too.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10598
- Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2005 7:04pm
- Location: North
- Has thanked: 1011 times
- Been thanked: 1055 times
Re: Bruce Requests trade to Dogs
I think for the club, it’s not just about his value as a player. It seems that the club wants to ship him out based on his attitude as much as needing to give to get re draft picks. I reckon there’s more to it than just a valuation based on his on field contributions. If Ratts and football management don’t want him on the list because of his attitude or behaviour, then they may be willing to let him go for less than it would appear on the surface, that he’s worth. Reckon pick 12 is well over par and if that kind of deal was on offer would snap it up.avid wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 2:35pmI so agree.evertonfc wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:28am Bruce's kicking got me down a bit at times, but hell - what a warrior, and what a heart-and-soul player.
You couldn't accuse him of giving any less than 110% every time he played.
I am extremely disappointed to lose him. His physical presence was enormous, and seldom did he let a pack go without being crashed and getting it to ground level. Milne would have LOVED playing next to him.
I can't really see the value we are getting here. He's worth a top 10-15 pick to us, but the Dogs will probably get him for much less. It's a fantastic deal for them, no matter which way you cut it.
I really can't figure out what we're gaining from the deal. They're going to get a guy who will kick 150 goals for them - he can definitely get to 40 goals per year with the service their midfield provides.
Unless we get a 10-15 pick I'll be gutted.
Even if we do I'll still be gutted at losing the Brooster.
Our forward half will be gutted too.
- Linton Lodger
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2467
- Joined: Mon 18 Aug 2014 2:07pm
- Has thanked: 86 times
- Been thanked: 256 times
Re: Bruce Requests trade to Dogs
That's utterly pointless given we've got Ryder. I imagine we made enquiries before we knew we had Ryder.
It certainly makes it clear what our forward structure will be next year.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: Mon 27 Jun 2005 1:27pm
- Location: Abiding
- Has thanked: 173 times
- Been thanked: 385 times
Re: Bruce Requests trade to Dogs
So in 5 pages of posts this topic has swung from a debate about whether Bruce should stay or go based on opinions about his abilty and value to the teamst.byron wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 3:00pm
I think for the club, it’s not just about his value as a player. It seems that the club wants to ship him out based on his attitude as much as needing to give to get re draft picks. I reckon there’s more to it than just a valuation based on his on field contributions. If Ratts and football management don’t want him on the list because of his attitude or behaviour, then they may be willing to let him go for less than it would appear on the surface, that he’s worth. Reckon pick 12 is well over par and if that kind of deal was on offer would snap it up.
to he has an attitude problem and is not liked and therefore needs to go
Based on one poster starting this ball rolling (back on page 3)
This is exactly how social media is used to deflect and create "truth"
Probably by tomorrow there will be a mainstream story on how Bruce created a toxic culture at St Kilda
" A few will never give up on you. When you go back out on the field, those are the people I want in your minds. Those are the people I want in your hearts."
— Coach Eric Taylor - Friday Night Lights
— Coach Eric Taylor - Friday Night Lights
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10598
- Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2005 7:04pm
- Location: North
- Has thanked: 1011 times
- Been thanked: 1055 times
Re: Bruce Requests trade to Dogs
It's not the first time I've heard that Josh is not the greatest influence in and around the playing group. It's speculation indeed suggesting that the club may be willing to accept less for him because they want him out. But it does seem that maybe he's not well regarded within the club and if that's the case there must be a reason for that. Tony74 wouldn't post that without reason. I also heard similar info from a fella I know who worked with the playing group for a couple of years.terry smith rules wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 3:37pmSo in 5 pages of posts this topic has swung from a debate about whether Bruce should stay or go based on opinions about his abilty and value to the teamst.byron wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 3:00pm
I think for the club, it’s not just about his value as a player. It seems that the club wants to ship him out based on his attitude as much as needing to give to get re draft picks. I reckon there’s more to it than just a valuation based on his on field contributions. If Ratts and football management don’t want him on the list because of his attitude or behaviour, then they may be willing to let him go for less than it would appear on the surface, that he’s worth. Reckon pick 12 is well over par and if that kind of deal was on offer would snap it up.
to he has an attitude problem and is not liked and therefore needs to go
Based on one poster starting this ball rolling (back on page 3)
This is exactly how social media is used to deflect and create "truth"
Probably by tomorrow there will be a mainstream story on how Bruce created a toxic culture at St Kilda
My take on it is that we are not just reshaping the list but reshaping the culture as well. There's a distinctly Hawthorn influence and that can't be a bad thing given the success they've had.
Last edited by st.byron on Fri 27 Sep 2019 4:36pm, edited 1 time in total.