Mega Thread Miscellaneous Freo Discussion thread

[Grape Bear]

 

[freo_leo29]

I really wish he had moved

I like him as a bloke but I hate that we are playing him over Sturt

 

[s_wd6]

I really wish he had moved

I like him as a bloke but I hate that we are playing him over Sturt

We're playing him over sturt because he's better than sturt

 

[nurries]

We're playing him over sturt because he's better than sturt

This

 

[freo_leo29]

We're playing him over sturt because he's better than sturt

absolutely not

 

[gaskin]

We're playing him over sturt because he's better than sturt

He is not a better player than Sturt. He was playing over Sturt because he was doing what the coach wanted.

 

[Taylor]

How many goals did Banfield kick at AFL levels as the most used sub compared with the number of Sturt WAFL goals?

Banfield kicked 18 goals from 23 games of which 10 were sub.

Sturt kicked 13 goals from his last ten games of the year, from my short look.

I leave it to you to make up your own mind

 

[drxce]

Sturt has a higher ceiling (obviously up for debate) but Banfield's selection this season was completely warranted ahead of Sturt. Form goes further than isolating individual statistics. If you think otherwise you're kidding yourself.

 

[s_wd6]

He is not a better player than Sturt. He was playing over Sturt because he was doing what the coach wanted.

If Sturt was a better player he would be getting games. Banfield got coaches votes in a couple games. Sturt couldn't even break the team. You're judging on potential not on output.

 

[s_wd6]

Banfield very well spoken in his media conference. Some tough questions about racism, and the woodside partnership and he navigated them really well.

 

[G Mus]

Maybe wce supporters base is different but I guarantee you ask your members the wouldn't be disgusted by severing ties. Working class people work at miners and gas companies.

Also it's not hard to defend them. Talk about how they pay their employees and graduates the most. It's a labor position and how they don't exploit their employees. Imagine picking another sponser who is ripping off there employees.

So I ask you why do you hate employees getting paid good?

Lucky you’re not a CEO because sticking your neck out like that and aligning yourself with any other criticism of the company would be a dog awful play, all for a bit of boot licking!

 

[gaskin]

If Sturt was a better player he would be getting games. Banfield got coaches votes in a couple games. Sturt couldn't even break the team. You're judging on potential not on output.

I am judging on what I have seen. JLo said publicly early in the season why Sturt wasn't playing and it was all to with effort and intensity rather than ability.

 

[s_wd6]

I am judging on what I have seen. JLo said publicly early in the season why Sturt wasn't playing and it was all to with effort and intensity rather than ability.

If his ability was good enough then his lack of intensity wouldn't matter

 

[gaskin]

If his ability was good enough then his lack of intensity wouldn't matter

At the top level it does.

 

[Purple Suit]

Sturt has a higher ceiling (obviously up for debate) but Banfield's selection this season was completely warranted ahead of Sturt. Form goes further than isolating individual statistics. If you think otherwise you're kidding yourself.

Agreed but Banfield isn't the answer in the forward line. Sometimes it's short term pain for long term gain, we need to keep trying till we find someone who can impact more than just 1 quarter every 3rd game. Banners as a permanent sub or injury forward doesn't really help us win a flag imo.

 

[s_wd6]

At the top level it does.

Ok so he's clearly not good enough...as opposed to banfield who featured 18 times this year

 

[King Tenz]

Another club actually interested in Bailey Banfield? Wow.

Does explain the 2 year contract when clearly it should've been 1 year.

Give me 2 years or I'm gone, probably how it went down.

 

[CakeEater]

Banfield very well spoken in his media conference. Some tough questions about racism, and the woodside partnership and he navigated them really well.

Banfield is a smart cookie.

Does Management Consulting in his spare time.

Id expect navigating a press conference to be a cakewalk for him.

 

[Purple_Turtle]

 

[Purple Jesus]

Any ideas when the fixture for next year will drop? I'm wanting to book flights home soon and if I have to watch another Eagles game at Optus instead, I may self combust.

 

[gaskin]

Finally someone speaking sense in this whole ridiculous debate.

 

[ignoramus]

I think the reason activists don't want big business to engage in public relations like that is because it does benefit the community.

They need the guerilla war style instead, where small actions can matter, because when it comes to community impact the big businesses do bring good with their programs.

The activists just stop traffic or try and get government to do their bidding, usually paying for it too.

Activists can pool their resources and make a difference too, but they haven't. They can play the game, but they don't.

They are just a loud voice in a large crowd trying to convince the masses that there are more agreeing voices than reality.

I'm going to admit that I have no idea the reasons of "the activists" are. There being more more than a handful of activists about the world, I'm going to guess that there's at least a handful of different reasons.

I agree that (e.g.) Woodside's sponsorship of Fremantle does benefit the community in those sites/activities where they've invested in programs. It wouldn't be all that effective as PR if it didn't. What I question is the (varying) understandings of politics, social responsibility and public debate that underpin a range of different responses to this particular issue.

E.g. you say that the activists can play the game but they don't, whereas I think the open letter is precisely a move in the game. The rules of the game that you've described are stacked in favour of those with the greatest and most ready access to capital (seeming to imply that there's something underhand about people with little access to such trying to play by different rules), but "the activists", in my view, are playing a different game. Their goal may well be for Freo to ditch Woodside as a sponsor, but that is not necessarily the letter's only or immediate effect. The letter serves to initiate a public conversation, in the same way that (e.g.) Freo council helped to initiate a national conversation about changing the date when it decided not to host fireworks and citizenship ceremonies on Jan 26. Within five years a significant proportion of the Australian population has come to support a change of date.

Whether you agree with the principle or like that result or not, that's playing the game, and winning it, in my view. And the activists in this case have already made a decent start, if Alcock's response is anything to go by. On my read, he's highlighted the potential for ending the association at end of next year, and all but begged for any non-resource related corporation to reach out if they're interested in sponsoring ("Clearly half of our economy in Western Australia is resource related. It’s hard to avoid having relationships with resource companies"). The activists have countered the corporate PR with their own PR. That's playing the game. Sure, a lot of people here have reacted negatively to it — possibly out of a heightened loyalty to the club, maybe out of a a prior antipathy towards "the activists" or "environmentalists", maybe for other reasons. But how the move plays out in the weeks, months and years to come is something we can only wait to see. That's politics.

All of that doesn't even begin to address the rather odd (in my view) conception of social responsibility underpinning the various accusations of hypocrisy, among other criticisms of the letter. But I usually prefer not to engage in online argument, it almost always amounting to little more than a war of attrition. No one who has already expressed a conviction on this issue will be swayed by anything I write here. Tim Winton writing an open letter to an audience with no prior opinion, on the other hand ...

 

[Taylor]

I'm going to admit that I have no idea the reasons of "the activists" are. There being more more than a handful of activists about the world, I'm going to guess that there's at least a handful of different reasons.

I agree that (e.g.) Woodside's sponsorship of Fremantle does benefit the community in those sites/activities where they've invested in programs. It wouldn't be all that effective as PR if it didn't. What I question is the (varying) understandings of politics, social responsibility and public debate that underpin a range of different responses to this particular issue.

E.g. you say that the activists can play the game but they don't, whereas I think the open letter is precisely a move in the game. The rules of the game that you've described are stacked in favour of those with the greatest and most ready access to capital (seeming to imply that there's something underhand about people with little access to such trying to play by different rules), but "the activists", in my view, are playing a different game. Their goal may well be for Freo to ditch Woodside as a sponsor, but that is not necessarily the letter's only or immediate effect. The letter serves to initiate a public conversation, in the same way that (e.g.) Freo council helped to initiate a national conversation about changing the date when it decided not to host fireworks and citizenship ceremonies on Jan 26. Within five years a significant proportion of the Australian population has come to support a change of date.

Whether you agree with the principle or like that result or not, that's playing the game, and winning it, in my view. And the activists in this case have already made a decent start, if Alcock's response is anything to go by. On my read, he's highlighted the potential for ending the association at end of next year, and all but begged for any non-resource related corporation to reach out if they're interested in sponsoring ("Clearly half of our economy in Western Australia is resource related. It’s hard to avoid having relationships with resource companies"). The activists have countered the corporate PR with their own PR. That's playing the game. Sure, a lot of people here have reacted negatively to it — possibly out of a heightened loyalty to the club, maybe out of a a prior antipathy towards "the activists" or "environmentalists", maybe for other reasons. But how the move plays out in the weeks, months and years to come is something we can only wait to see. That's politics.

All of that doesn't even begin to address the rather odd (in my view) conception of social responsibility underpinning the various accusations of hypocrisy, among other criticisms of the letter. But I usually prefer not to engage in online argument, it almost always amounting to little more than a war of attrition. No one who has already expressed a conviction on this issue will be swayed by anything I write here. Tim Winton writing an open letter to an audience with no prior opinion, on the other hand ...

The activists in this case are the people who featured in the expensive legal exercises against Woodside expanding operations and then when they lost that in court they moved to give Woodside a black eye in the court of public opinion by pressuring Fremantle to take a hit.

Couldn't win by the law so went for reputation.

I agree that if our administration is being given added credit they would have engaged these people for the public relations side to kick off, letting the push to move to a new sponsor (and the availability of the place) be driven by the public and not by Fremantle pushing out a sponsor. It would be very smart from them to do that.

If another sponsor is lined up really fast it would be very interesting..

 

[Freo Shark]

It wasnt exactly a glowing endorsement of Woodside by Alcock. Actually opposite. Its ****ing madness kicking them out the door!!

I dont think we should be pushing any sponsor especially Woodside who has deep pockets out the door. Its the total value not the individual size of sponsors that matter.

I dont think we will get another sponsor providing the $$ that Woodside does, especially where our economy might be next year.

 

[Bigger]

This isn't a schoolyard spat. This is not a bunch of peeved lefties sneaking in a sly whack in a fit of pique after not getting their way.

Whether you like it or not, the Overton window is being shifted.