Gardner OK - Cousins NOT

[sunsaint]

He's a junkie, for christ's sake. A new jumper and a great CV ain't gonna change that. And until he proves to anyone that he can operate like something more than a smug untouchable outlaw, then I suspect no one will show much interest. We gave him FIVE months to prove he was up to the standard we required. He wasn't. He's not right for us. Decision's made. Get over it.

And MG was a drunk, & we gave him a lifeline, thats' the point of the OP

[WayneJudson42]

He's a junkie, for christ's sake. A new jumper and a great CV ain't gonna change that. And until he proves to anyone that he can operate like something more than a smug untouchable outlaw, then I suspect no one will show much interest. We gave him FIVE months to prove he was up to the standard we required. He wasn't. He's not right for us. Decision's made. Get over it.

And MG was a drunk, & we gave him a lifeline, thats' the point of the OP

True, MG was sacked coz he smashed a car whilst drunk.

However, he did everything asked of him to prove himself.

[SainterK]

He's a junkie, for christ's sake. A new jumper and a great CV ain't gonna change that. And until he proves to anyone that he can operate like something more than a smug untouchable outlaw, then I suspect no one will show much interest. We gave him FIVE months to prove he was up to the standard we required. He wasn't. He's not right for us. Decision's made. Get over it.

And MG was a drunk, & we gave him a lifeline, thats' the point of the OP

True, MG was sacked coz he smashed a car whilst drunk.

However, he did everything asked of him to prove himself.

Did we? Did we give due dilligence, and a 5 month investigation as to the company he kept, his behaviour etc etc?

[Capricornia]

He's a junkie, for christ's sake. A new jumper and a great CV ain't gonna change that. And until he proves to anyone that he can operate like something more than a smug untouchable outlaw, then I suspect no one will show much interest. We gave him FIVE months to prove he was up to the standard we required. He wasn't. He's not right for us. Decision's made. Get over it.

And MG was a drunk, & we gave him a lifeline, thats' the point of the OP

True, MG was sacked coz he smashed a car whilst drunk.

However, he did everything asked of him to prove himself.

He wasnt sacked JUST because he smashed his car whilst pissed in Scarborough. He was sacked after that event because it was the final straw that broke the camels back. He had been up to no good for years and didnt look like changing his ways. West Coast simply had enough, could you really blame them at the time?

MG did everything asked of him because it is all he can do. He doesnt have any other skill sets that would allow him to have the success football could allow him to have. Ben Cousins is different, he's smart, he's educated (has uni degrees and part MBA apparently), he has alot more going for him than football and has the ability to succeed in other careers should he want to or need to.

Its like comparing apples with oranges...they're both great fruit but thats where it stops.

[WayneJudson42]

He's a junkie, for christ's sake. A new jumper and a great CV ain't gonna change that. And until he proves to anyone that he can operate like something more than a smug untouchable outlaw, then I suspect no one will show much interest. We gave him FIVE months to prove he was up to the standard we required. He wasn't. He's not right for us. Decision's made. Get over it.

And MG was a drunk, & we gave him a lifeline, thats' the point of the OP

True, MG was sacked coz he smashed a car whilst drunk.

However, he did everything asked of him to prove himself.

Did we? Did we give due dilligence, and a 5 month investigation as to the company he kept, his behaviour etc etc?

No, but then aagin he didn't (publicly) have the same baggage as Ben.

I can see your point and that's fair enough.

The thing is that BC has had 12 months to get this right. But he hasn't exactly done enough to endear himself to the doubters.

Who knows? Maybe if the club believed having BC was 100% needed, they would have taken him.

It would appear that ruckmen were a top priority when RL came in. Which is why he got M Clarke and then MG.

I guess your only true worth to an organisation depends on how indespensible you ultimately are. HAd McEvoy stepped up this year, I reckon MG would have been shown the door.

If the club believes that is has the midfield covered for the next few years, then I can see why they didn't bother.

[Capricornia]

He's a junkie, for christ's sake. A new jumper and a great CV ain't gonna change that. And until he proves to anyone that he can operate like something more than a smug untouchable outlaw, then I suspect no one will show much interest. We gave him FIVE months to prove he was up to the standard we required. He wasn't. He's not right for us. Decision's made. Get over it.

And MG was a drunk, & we gave him a lifeline, thats' the point of the OP

True, MG was sacked coz he smashed a car whilst drunk.

However, he did everything asked of him to prove himself.

Did we? Did we give due dilligence, and a 5 month investigation as to the company he kept, his behaviour etc etc?

No, but then aagin he didn't (publicly) have the same baggage as Ben.

Thats debate WJ, very debatable. When the rumours and innuendo and scuttlebutt first started about BC and MG, the word was that BC had been corrupted by MG and that MG was pure evil. Theres enough incidents/ true stories to fill a sordid book about MG in Perth from the late 1990s/early to mid 2000s.

They're both as bad as one another. St Kilda should have done a 5 month investigation into MG if the whole off field issue thing is so important (which it should be).

Agree also that ruckmen were seen as being highly valuable and important at the time hence the reason to draft MG and the Saints midfield does look good hence the reason why BC wasnt a MUST have.

[skeptic]

They did their due diligence with MG just because it didn't require a 5 month investigation doesn't mean they didn't get what they needed.

[joffaboy]

They did their due diligence with MG just because it didn't require a 5 month investigation doesn't mean they didn't get what they needed.

Oh snap!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[skeptic]

i wonder if we're doing a 5mth investigation for getting Carrol?

[joffaboy]

i wonder if we're doing a 5mth investigation for getting Carrol?

Has he been banned for a year after confessing to being a 10 year drug addict and for bringing the game into disrepute?

[BigMart]

Brad Howard - He has ZERO to do with this, and if it a crack at my credibility - news flash.....I was RIGHT......he should NOT have been drafted as a second round pick - he was NOT good enough....It was a MISTAKE

Ben Cousins
4 times B&F
6 Time All Aust
6 Seasons AFL Captain
Premiership player
4 times top 3 in B'Low
1 Brownlow
AFLPA MVP
Modern Day Great

up until two years ago Better thna any player on our list.

Shane Woewodin
A couple of good years
Snagged a brownlow

do not compare the two.....

Just because I question decisions out of Moorabbin does not make me wrong....I do not follow blindly, and cannot tolerate mediocrity like some because I must be LOYAL.......the great saying on our jumper, is that the excuse we use to keep supporters accepting rubbish.....open both F****ing eyes.....we aren't called the AINTS for nothing.....we have won ZERO.....IMO this was our chance to be BOLD....

[Devilhead]

Shane Woewodin
A couple of good years
Snagged a brownlow

do not compare the two.....

BM you asked the question and I quote

"...how often do you get the chance to take a brownlow medallist??????"

and I answered your question by citing Shane Woewodin as example of a Brownlow medallist who entered the draft a few seasons after he won / snagged/ stole ...whatever his brownlow

Absolutely nowhere in your initial question did you say " a brownlow medallist the equivalent of Ben Cousins"

So before you start arcing off about comparing the two (which i never did) maybe you should be a little more careful phrasing your questions in the future

Woewodin was an exact answer to the question you originally posed

Other examples could include Chris Judd, Jason Akermanis, Tony Lockett, Greg Williams, Gavin Wanganeen, Brad Hardie, Ross Glendinning, Brian Wilson, Peter Moore who all swapped clubs after winning a Brownlow Medal (of course a lot of these nominated a preferred club before being traded)

That said that is still 11 Brownlow Medallists in the last 30 years (1 in 3) who have actually gone on to play with different clubs (or have been available but haven't been drafted) after they have won their Brownlows - in Moore and Williams case they actually went on to win another Brownlow with their new clubs

[starsign]

couldn't agree more with you devilhead
You have completely and logically sunk him here!

I, like many, are dissappointed we will not see, what we remember of the brilliant player BC manifesting itself again in the R,W&B.....but in real terms it's merely a wish, desire.... hope ...nothing more and when that is weighed up against, what one would have to think, were a combination very significant complex issues that are a reality and held in the knowledge of those that made the final decision...... a decision that has been almost entirely ratified throughout the brains trusts of 15 out of the 16 AFL clubs to date!

What gets me are the number of shallow thinking supporters, (and our topic poster here typifies them) who purely let this same wish, hope desire held by many of us as I acknowledge, dominate their thinking on this issue to the extent of all the other facts ( which, granted, we don't know the full extent of, but would be foolish to think didn't exist)

IMHO this is totally and literally unreasonable ie purely emotive thinking! and thank heavens these fans have no say in running the club

[Moccha]

couldn't agree more with you devilhead
You have completely and logically sunk him here!

I, like many, are dissappointed we will not see, what we remember of the brilliant player BC manifesting itself again in the R,W&B.....but in real terms it's merely a wish, desire.... hope ...nothing more and when that is weighed up against, what one would have to think, were a combination very significant complex issues that are a reality and held in the knowledge of those that made the final decision...... a decision that has been almost entirely ratified throughout the brains trusts of 15 out of the 16 AFL clubs to date!

What gets me are the number of shallow thinking supporters, (and our topic poster here typifies them) who purely let this same wish, hope desire held by many of us as I acknowledge, dominate their thinking on this issue to the extent of all the other facts ( which, granted, we don't know the full extent of, but would be foolish to think didn't exist)

IMHO this is totally and literally unreasonable ie purely emotive thinking! and thank heavens these fans have no say in running the club

I agree 100%. Everyone is a genius in hindsight. Being bold is such a lame answer. If you want to be bold, put your jocks on the outside of your pants and go to work.

[BigMart]

Sometimes you need to read between the lines....maybe I should have said SUPERSTAR....

Star sign......do not pretend to know me, this is my opinion, you have yours.....but don't jump on a bandwagon and attempt to discredit someone with arrogance.....

Your first paragraph mentions that 15 others passed, 15 other clubs are in entirely different list development stages, with different weaknesses, different leadership strength, SC constraints etc....it is irrelevant what other clubs do!
it also mentions those who made the decision KNOW BEST.......is that always true....is every decision made by our administration correct, because they are supposedly in the KNOW?
100 years of less than mediocrity and a history of turmoil suggests NOT

You last paragraph says 'shallow thinking' but then says held by most of us.....does that mean most are 'shallow thinker' including you....

We are all armchair supporters......we have opinions....some like to believe their opinion is right because it toes the club line, and makes them loyal to the cause........not me.

[rodgerfox]

Did we? Did we give due dilligence, and a 5 month investigation as to the company he kept, his behaviour etc etc?

If we did - we've certainly dropped the ball on that one since then.

[Mr Magic]

Sometimes you need to read between the lines....maybe I should have said SUPERSTAR....

Star sign......do not pretend to know me, this is my opinion, you have yours.....but don't jump on a bandwagon and attempt to discredit someone with arrogance.....

Your first paragraph mentions that 15 others passed, 15 other clubs are in entirely different list development stages, with different weaknesses, different leadership strength, SC constraints etc....it is irrelevant what other clubs do!
it also mentions those who made the decision KNOW BEST.......is that always true....is every decision made by our administration correct, because they are supposedly in the KNOW?
100 years of less than mediocrity and a history of turmoil suggests NOT

You last paragraph says 'shallow thinking' but then says held by most of us.....does that mean most are 'shallow thinker' including you....

We are all armchair supporters......we have opinions....some like to believe their opinion is right because it toes the club line, and makes them loyal to the cause........not me.

Maybe if your opinion was posted as opinion and not stated as apparent fact then others might share your pov instead of taking exception.

You castigated 'the suits' for ignoring the coaching panel and other football parts of the Club in making that decision. How do you know that is fact?

You stated that the 'AFL community' wanted us to take Cousins as a fact - how do you know that?

And if it's true, are you now suggesting that we should draft somebody because 'the AFL community' wants us to?

You stated the decision 'goes against the want of the members and coaches and players...' as a fact - how do you know that is true?

All you can state with authority is that a microcosm of Saints supporters, yes a vocal group, here on Saintsational seem to be aginst the decision.
But if there are over 1000 posters on saintsational, how many of them need to post on this subject for you to claim 'against members wishes'?
10, 20, 30, 40, 50?
How many of those who are vocally against the decision are actually members?
All of them?
75%?
50%
25%
10%

The fact is you have absolutely no idea?

Yes you wrote that op in a highly emotional state and you're just as entitled as anyone else to voice your opinion.

But when you return to the thread and use your emotional post containing no provable facts as a basis to support your argument and to castigate other posters for not agreeing with your pov, then IMHO you're going too far.

[joffaboy]

Brad Howard - He has ZERO to do with this, and if it a crack at my credibility - news flash.....I was RIGHT......he should NOT have been drafted as a second round pick - he was NOT good enough....It was a MISTAKE

....

No it was not a crack at your credibility, it was more a crack at the vicifivorous nature of the attacks on the kid and on John Beveridge on that Saturday morning.

First there was the wringing of hands about "taking another Queenslander" (like Riewoldt and Max have been real duds) then the carry on about taking Howard at 27.

I dont see much junior football so I couldn't comment on Howard, but the combination of egoism and critisism of both the kid and of JB was way way over the top.

I am sure if we go back and have a look there would have been major critisism on picking Fisher at #53, but that has been a success.

Gwilt has also been relatively successful and Allen could make a player, both picks in their fifties and sixties.

So yes after two years you have been vindicated - about Howard, not about the critisism of JB though.

Well done, hope you are proud and vindicated.

[Eastern]

First there was the wringing of hands about "taking another Queenslander" (like Riewoldt and Max have been real duds)

I hate having to correct you great man BUT; Max a Queenslander??????

Grew up in Greensborough and moved to Queensland 18 months before he got drafted.

And thats without mentioning that Riewoldt played rep footy as a junior in Van Diemens Land before moving to Queensland !!

[skeptic]

i wonder if we're doing a 5mth investigation for getting Carrol?

Has he been banned for a year after confessing to being a 10 year drug addict and for bringing the game into disrepute?

My point exactly... Has Michael Gardiner?

What makes u suggest that they didn't due their homework with MG???

[WayneJudson42]

Did we? Did we give due dilligence, and a 5 month investigation as to the company he kept, his behaviour etc etc?

If we did - we've certainly dropped the ball on that one since then.

Well, for someone who is ranting on about the board being disohnest, and how they should either tell us the truth, or say nothing...

A comment like the one above is laced with insinuation and innuendo.

You hypocrite!

What do you know about MG, Rodge?

Either say nothing or tell the truth.

[SainterK]

Did we? Did we give due dilligence, and a 5 month investigation as to the company he kept, his behaviour etc etc?

If we did - we've certainly dropped the ball on that one since then.

Well, for someone who is ranting on about the board being disohnest, and how they should either tell us the truth, or say nothing...

A comment like the one above is laced with insinuation and innuendo.

You hypocrite!

What do you know about MG, Rodge?

Either say nothing or tell the truth.

People are missing my point, conduct a 5 month review on any currently listed AFL player and see what you find out. I simply asked the question of due dilligence regarding MG, because people are finding it so easy to make moral decisions on who is more worthy of a lifeline in this circumstance.

A lifeline is just that....

[bob__71]

Does MG get paid above base sallary? Was BC requesting more than base sallary? Maybe this is the difference between somone who is asking for a lifeline, and someone who is still just full of himself.

Does someone who requires a specific club sponsored management plan to help them with their drug problems deserve more than base pay?

There is only one club in the competition who may owe BC anything and it isnt StKilda.

And maybe just maybe the club is proud of what MG has achieved, and they are looking after his best interests, after all he is actually a StKilda listed player.

Reading some of the threads over the last few days has shown one thing. There are lots of supporters in here who share a very similar spoilt brat attitude to life that BC would appear to have.

Good luck Ben, but I'm guessing in your dissappointment you may show the football world why no one wants ya.

[joffaboy]

i wonder if we're doing a 5mth investigation for getting Carrol?

Has he been banned for a year after confessing to being a 10 year drug addict and for bringing the game into disrepute?

My point exactly... Has Michael Gardiner?

What makes u suggest that they didn't due their homework with MG???

I think we are in furious agreement skeptic. I agree that M Gardiner didn't need the type of scrunity that Cousins did.

He stuffed up a few times but is not a self confessed drug addict (and a ten year one at that) and was not banned by the AFL for bringing the game into disrepute.

Why should there be the same scrutiny on Gardiner?

Two different scenarios.

[joffaboy]

Did we? Did we give due dilligence, and a 5 month investigation as to the company he kept, his behaviour etc etc?

If we did - we've certainly dropped the ball on that one since then.

Well, for someone who is ranting on about the board being disohnest, and how they should either tell us the truth, or say nothing...

A comment like the one above is laced with insinuation and innuendo.

You hypocrite!

What do you know about MG, Rodge?

Either say nothing or tell the truth.

People are missing my point, conduct a 5 month review on any currently listed AFL player and see what you find out. I simply asked the question of due dilligence regarding MG, because people are finding it so easy to make moral decisions on who is more worthy of a lifeline in this circumstance.

A lifeline is just that....

He stuffed up a few times but is not a self confessed drug addict (and a ten year one at that) and was not banned by the AFL for bringing the game into disrepute.

Why should there be the same scrutiny on Gardiner?

Two different scenarios.