Roast The $$Dump$$ Thread
- Thread starter Keys
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Aug 16, 2019
- 947
- 1,773
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Why would you do that ?
Just stop mate. You started saying it would be hypocritical if the club asked Gaff if he would consider a move after it was dissappointed with Rioli. Thats what you said.
So now you are saying that only applies to Gaff going to the Suns.
Does that mean you think the club is fine to have the same discussion with Darling or another 30 year old? That isnt being hypocritical? Its only hypocritical to talk with Gaff? Come on!
Is it fine then if the discussion is Gaff goes to a Melbourne club near his family? All of a sudden the club aren't hypocrits?
Bottom line is circumstances change over time for both clubs and players. Sometimes a player under contract wants to move and asks. Sometimes the club reassesses the situation and will ask / enquire if a player is interested in moving.
This happens all the time. I just dont understand why you think its hypocritical of a club and is poor management if done in a mature and respectful manner. We are not like Collingwood.
Last edited:
Miguel Sanchez
(Unique injury) TBC
Point out where I said that and whether it’s before or after you saying we should be talking to all players over the age of 30 about moving on.
Hint: it’ll be after.
To test for myself the view that most on BF and in the media is baseless speculation and headlines, void of any factual basis, that are crafted to attract attention. And the plebs gobble it up. You sir/madam/it are smart enough to ask why?Why would you do that ?
- Aug 16, 2019
- 947
- 1,773
- AFL Club
- West Coast
It's a chat forum. Nothing more, nothing less.
Why even have a football forum?
Might as well just wait for the media to publish finalised trades and mutter to ourselves in agreement or disappointment.
Nah mate. Not playing silly games..
Its easier for you to confirm your view. So.
Is it hypocritical for the club to politly enquire / ask any player 30 or over if they would be interested in moving?
Yes or no?
Please confirm what you view is?
Miguel Sanchez
(Unique injury) TBC
Nah. Answer my question or leave me alone.
One post later:
Oh good.
No wait. Same post. Three more ****ing questions:
I love this board.
pantskyle
Angry Ape
- Oct 1, 2007
- 128,819
- 135,152
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Storm-Man Utd-Heart-Luton-Patriots
Can you two kiss already.
Miguel Sanchez
(Unique injury) TBC
Fail. So you now refuse to clarify your view.
Wonder why that is.
End of discussion then. I'll take that as you conceed.
Fine. So we’ve established, in the absence of you providing any evidence to the contrary, that I was responding simply to the Gaff to Gold Coast scenario and you’re the one who decided to make it about every player over 30. Despite your insisting otherwise.
My position is nuanced, which is probably why you’re struggling with it.
Yes, telling Gaff he should be assessing other options when he’s contracted for two more years is inappropriate, given the Rioli statement and given he showed loyalty to re-sign.
No, it will not necessarily be inappropriate to tell another veteran player to assess their options.
Yes, it will be inappropriate to tell every veteran player to assess their options.
Got it? Now bugger off, I’m done with this.
Only when one concedes to being the sub.
In the interests of nuance, instead of 'telling' a contracted, aging player he 'should' explore his options, where do you sit on 'asking' a contracted, aging player if he 'would be interested' in exploring his options?
Miguel Sanchez
(Unique injury) TBC
Depends on the circumstances.
Okay. Gaffs circumstances, then.
Miguel Sanchez
(Unique injury) TBC
Depends on the circumstances.
“Would you be interested in exploring your options to go back to Victoria again?” might be alright.
“Would you be interested in exploring your options because we’re looking at swapping you for a Gold Coast player” wouldn’t be.
My scenario wouldn't have the club encouraging the player to go anywhere in particular. I don't think Gaff and GC is a good fit, for the record. Equally I don't think Gaff is off limits from sensible conversations around whether he is open to continue playing elsewhere. And if he isn't, then we honour the paperwork, as it would damage the culture of the club not to.
pantskyle
Angry Ape
- Oct 1, 2007
- 128,819
- 135,152
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Storm-Man Utd-Heart-Luton-Patriots
Im working on it.
I have been liking several of Miguels posts and agree with most things he comes up with. Just not this point.
That Miguel is a blow hard.
- Aug 14, 2019
- 1,262
- 2,312
- AFL Club
- West Coast
So because we released a public statement that included a section saying we were disappointed that Rioli has chosen to leave that now means that forever and a day from now on we can no longer have honest conversations with other players on our list where we tell them that they are not in our best 22 nor our future plans and there is unlikely to be any contract extensions for them and leave it with them if they want to think about their options? Are we obligated to lie to our players from now on if they are contracted but no longer in our best 22 lest we be labelled hypocrites for saying we are disappointed when Rioli left?
And the Rioli and Gaff situations are hardly comparable. Rioli let the club down every badly, we paid all his legal bills through all his troubles, he would likely have gotten a ban that would have ended his career totally had it not been for the club saving him by throwing all it's political capital into lobbying for a lighter sentence and giving him QC representation. He occupied a spot on our list and continued to get paid through the whole saga also. So the Rioli saga is hardly a garden variety situation of a player leaving a club. The club is entitled to point out what an immature ingrate he is.
