- Oct 3, 2009
- 2,349
- 3,672
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Re: Doggies Sue Akker
OK, Firstly I apologise for the insults as you have posted above without doing so in a considered manner but I still disagree on a number of points.
Originally Posted by Spanish_Fly
A few points.
1. Learn to read properly before you so dogmatically categorise my post as wrong. Nowhere did I say you sacked him for nothing. Even Smorgan and Rose said it was for a cumulation of events over time. None of which happenned in the public eye in the 2-3 weeks preceeding his sacking, reread my post to confirm this is what I was saying.
You said "There was no "external" problems from Aker for the previous few weeks before his sacking, well not compared to what has happened since where every comment he makes is magnified because of the sacking." I think you need to go back and have read of the papers leading up to the time he was let go, and perhaps get some transcripts of his radio work to that point. The reason why we sacked him was not because of the way he was behaving amongst the group, it was the way he was behaving away from it.
My recollection of the events is that after the gay article and the mistruths he told the club the only public issue was approx 2 weeks after that after his first reserves game where he called the player he was playing on a name (not good but not really a huge deal IMO). we then heard nothing controversial from him until the sacking and the issue that brought this to a head was BJ being upset about things that were supposedly written in the book, so he confronted the rest of the playing group about this. This was not a public issue and occurred approx 5 weeks after the lies. There was the "leaking" of sensitive information but if you think he is the only player to divulge such infomation to friends you are deluded and he was castagated for this because Sam Newman bought this up when he shouldn't have on the footy show.
2. "Apart from the last 2 weeks", so these last 2 weeks don't mean anything is that what your saying, not important, somehow not relevant to the conversation, idiot.
Of course these last two weeks mean something. Our team is in terrible form and in case you haven't noticed copping injuries left right and centre. Leading up to the game against Geelong we played significantly better football than what we did when Aker was playing.
My point was that you seemed to just discount the previous 2 weeks as though they werent relevant for some reason when they obviously are, your poor form also coincided with Jasons comments re BJ and the Darcy/Wallace spat.
3. You had far more control of him when he was still employed than you do now, that is fact, you just didn't know how to deal with him.
I think after you researched the radio transcripts and read through the papers leading up to his sacking you would agree that lied to the club, let go of club information to his two great mates Sam and Steve, "in confidence" (those bastards betrayed him.....jerks) and took pot shots at a listed AFL rookie for playing closely to him. Oh, he was also writing "brutally honest" tales about his current team mates. Sure, we didn't know how to handle that. Can you categorically name a club that could have handled him? Arguably the best team of the modern era couldn't handle this twerp.
The point about him lying to the club is an issue I agree but that happened 5 weeks before he got sacked he didn't release publicy the leaked information so the only public issue he created in the last 5 weeks he was there was his slagging of the reserve player. Compare that to the issues you have had since he left and which one would you choose. I stand by my comment that you could have controlled him far more effectivly as an employee than by sacking him and comparing the issues immediately before and after support my point.
4. "Just because the media blows every comment Aker makes out of proportion it doesn't mean the Bulldogs do", another idiotic comment, what did you honestly expect, of coarse he was going to say more when he left and of coarse the media was going to blow it all out of proportion. If your administration didn't anticipate this they are incompetant.
The club would have expected him to say a number of things about it and its players, as well as anyone else that he thought could get him a headline. Doesn't mean it affects us, and if you re-read my post you'll realise that the situation where we're not accountable for his crap anymore has to be better than the alternative.
I disagree, see points above.
5. The last couple of weeks would indicate that the club might not have all its focus on these "other things".
If you think our current form, recent illness and mounting injury toll is due to Aker's comments then good luck to you.
If you are saying you can catagorically state its had no effect then good luck to you
Your football department should not have renewed his contract after last year, you have plenty of good young kids that could do his role but your FD didn't have the balls to play the young kids instead and kept an injury riddled older player with a big mouth on instead of giving the younger guys an opportunity.
I think if you had a little look at our season you'd realise our young kids, particularly those that could fulfill a forward role have been given extended opportunities. If you didn't think Aker deserved another year after his 2009 season, then fair enough, but you would without the benefit of hindsight be a very lonely figure in the "say no to Aker 2010 column".
Apart from Grant your younger kids have been given opportunities in those roles since Acker has not been played, he was given games even with poor form for half a season ahead of these guys until the "gay article" came out (pun intented). My opinion is you should have backed the younger guys in earlier and got games into them from the start of the season. I had stated this to friends numerous times from the end of last season but don't have any posts to back this up. For the record I also thought that getting Hall was a mistake and you should have backed a younger player in for that position as well.
You reap what you sow and all but Bulldogs supporters in this thread agree that your club has handled this whole situation atrocioulsy.
OK, Firstly I apologise for the insults as you have posted above without doing so in a considered manner but I still disagree on a number of points.
