Toast The Cusp of Empire

[Williamc99]

You know what? While this year may have been a lost oppurtunity, I think next year will be our year. Look what a new coach did to Geelong? Other sides have found out how to get around our press and that's how we lost the Grand Final. Buckley has said he will be tinkering with the game plan and if we have a better year in terms of less injuries and less suspensions then I definitely think we can do it. We have a very good list that's only getting better.

 

[no_remorse28]

Let's be fair, had our season not been derailed by injury and suspension over the second half you and I would probably be toasting back to back flags. Those things always require a bit of luck but the opportunity to be there does not. There is no luck about how our club has gone about rebuilding itself and putting the structures in place to ensure continued success. Look at Geelong as an example. Just because they were the best team in the comp in 2008 didn't net them the big prize but it did get them on the dancefloor. Sure we can't expect a threepeat or even back to back but what we can expect is a fairly full dance card IMO. The odds tell you that ought to translate to some silverware at least.

Im not trying to troll, or criticize, but did Geelong not beat you early in the year, later in the year and then in the GF, to me I wouldn't of thought any one was convinced it was to do with injuries, suspensions and distractions, if they won 3 from 3 it may suggest they were just better.

on another note, I read that A.Krakouer will be seeking a $400,00 pay rise, I am genuinely curious to know if this fits in to your future plans well, he had a solid year yes, but at 28 and seemingly being a role player who has flashes of brilliance, is this the sort of money that you would want to pay him. I cant even understand how, when The Pies gave him this second chance he and his manager can even justify such a hefty demand. Should he not be happy to get the raise the Pies are willing to give considering they are the reason he is even in a position to earn this sort of money in the first place after extending there arm to him ??

 

[Ed D]

Im not trying to troll, or criticize, but did Geelong not beat you early in the year, later in the year and then in the GF, to me I wouldn't of thought any one was convinced it was to do with injuries, suspensions and distractions, if they won 3 from 3 it may suggest they were just better.

on another note, I read that A.Krakouer will be seeking a $400,00 pay rise, I am genuinely curious to know if this fits in to your future plans well, he had a solid year yes, but at 28 and seemingly being a role player who has flashes of brilliance, is this the sort of money that you would want to pay him. I cant even understand how, when The Pies gave him this second chance he and his manager can even justify such a hefty demand. Should he not be happy to get the raise the Pies are willing to give considering they are the reason he is even in a position to earn this sort of money in the first place after extending there arm to him ??

They beat us round 8 when we were coming off the bye and had Wood ruck solo the entire night. We were missing players, had players injured during the game and just had a really off night. I know that sounds like excuses but the fact was we were really flat and nowhere near full strength that game and we lost by 3 points. Geelong played a much better game, but you could argue the Pies should have won if the umpire didn't call back Pendlebury's goal.

As for Krakouer, I think that's media hype saying he wants that much.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Surely your just taking the piss out on this one. If not go see your Dr.

Basing it on the info that mcarthy and Toovey are probably being traded, and Marty Clarke is back.

That's an improvement for me.

 

[Jelly Bean]

They beat us round 8 when we were coming off the bye and had Wood ruck solo the entire night. We were missing players, had players injured during the game and just had a really off night. I know that sounds like excuses but the fact was we were really flat and nowhere near full strength that game and we lost by 3 points. Geelong played a much better game, but you could argue the Pies should have won if the umpire didn't call back Pendlebury's goal.

As for Krakouer, I think that's media hype saying he wants that much.

No it isn't the media hype, it is his manager... Absolutely transparent 'high-ball' opening bid, and ws on SEN this morning back away from it a little saying the likes of he wanted to start high as it would be negotiated down.

 

[Krueger]

Basing it on the info that mcarthy and Toovey are probably being traded, and Marty Clarke is back.

That's an improvement for me.

Agree on McCarthy will never be in our best 22 but depends on what we get in return. Toovey is easily in our current best 22. Only possible replacement I see is Goldsack. With Leon and Johnson set to retire in a year or so our depth will be tested.

Marty Clark was not free - pick 25 is a high price to pay so I hope he performs. Our strength in 2010 was our depth and we should not dismantle our team in our premiership window.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Agree on McCarthy will never be in our best 22 but depends on what we get in return. Toovey is easily in our current best 22. Only possible replacement I see is Goldsack. With Leon and Johnson set to retire in a year or so our depth will be tested.

Marty Clark was not free - pick 25 is a high price to pay so I hope he performs. Our strength in 2010 was our depth and we should not dismantle our team in our premiership window.

That's all well and good in theory, but when you have players like Toovey and Krakouer asking for hefty pay rises, when you have superstars taking far less than they're worth, the Tooveys will be the first to go.

Some dismantling has to happen when you don't have the Geelong/Brisbane situation where players are willing to play for less money to stay in a good team.

 

[Krueger]

That's all well and good in theory, but when you have players like Toovey and Krakouer asking for hefty pay rises, when you have superstars taking far less than they're worth, the Tooveys will be the first to go.

Some dismantling has to happen when you don't have the Geelong/Brisbane situation where players are willing to play for less money to stay in a good team.

True. I hope we dont get into a dog eat dog situation where all the players are only interested in themselves. Krakouer was lucky we gave him another opportunity in the AFL and he no spring chicken. If Tooves is chasing the big bucks then yeh going to be hard to retain him.

 

[Ed D]

No it isn't the media hype, it is his manager... Absolutely transparent 'high-ball' opening bid, and ws on SEN this morning back away from it a little saying the likes of he wanted to start high as it would be negotiated down.

Walsh said today it was the first he had heard of it and he hasn't spoken to Krakouer's manager. He also said the Pies would be open to extending his contract. It's all hype and it was caused by Krak's manager. If it was fact Walsh would have known about it.

 

[Dundalis]

So much proverbial self-backslapping in the OP, it was a cringe-worthy read.

Sure we do a lot of things right as a footy club, but lets not go overboard with the BS empire talk. We could EASILY fall over next year and be a mid range side.

Don't count the chickens before they hatch because it tends to bite you on the arse. Like all the clowns that thought back to back was a given. Just be happy that we've still got a pretty good team that should be within their window to challenge for a flag.

 

[PieNSauce]

So much proverbial self-backslapping in the OP, it was a cringe-worthy read.

Sure we do a lot of things right as a footy club, but lets not go overboard with the BS empire talk. We could EASILY fall over next year and be a mid range side.

Don't count the chickens before they hatch because it tends to bite you on the arse. Like all the clowns that thought back to back was a given. Just be happy that we've still got a pretty good team that should be within their window to challenge for a flag.

Yes but of course some people take things way too seriously. The OP was obviously intended to be OTT. Cringe all you like, it says more about you than me. The point was always about pushing back on all the negative stuff that gets spouted by the media and the BF trolls about Collingwood. It's not really for their consumption, it's for ours and it does put into focus the positives about our club whether or not you think it bears saying. Does anybody really care about all their negativity when we have so many positives?

 

[Dundalis]

Yes but of course some people take things way too seriously. The OP was obviously intended to be OTT. Cringe all you like, it says more about you than me. The point was always about pushing back on all the negative stuff that gets spouted by the media and the BF trolls about Collingwood. It's not really for their consumption, it's for ours and it does put into focus the positives about our club whether or not you think it bears saying. Does anybody really care about all their negativity when we have so many positives?

It doesn't say less about you than me, it says an equal amount about both.

I love reading objective pieces, even if they don't favour Collingwood. I dislike reading pieces that are heavily biased either against or for us. And contrary to what you are saying there are plenty of Collingwood fluff pieces that gets written in the papers, they don't call the HS the Collingwood newsletter for nothing. So I don't really get what exactly you are balancing out.

Write what you think not a bunch of bs to "balance" out negativity.

 

[PieNSauce]

It doesn't say less about you than me, it says an equal amount about both.

I love reading objective pieces, even if they don't favour Collingwood. I dislike reading pieces that are heavily biased either against or for us. And contrary to what you are saying there are plenty of Collingwood fluff pieces that gets written in the papers, they don't call the HS the Collingwood newsletter for nothing. So I don't really get what exactly you are balancing out.

Write what you think not a bunch of bs to "balance" out negativity.

Like I said, some people take this stuff way too seriously and frankly, blind freddy knows that the HUN publishes way more negativity about Collingwood that fluff pieces.

In the end you have to laugh about those who suggest they aren't biased toward the club they follow. It's a bit like sitting on the fence. Personally I have no problem showing my allegiance. If that means I'm biased then as far as I'm concerned that's the nature of supporting one club over all of the others. If I were unbiased I'd probably follow a different club with every change of the wind.

Write what you feel, not a lot of bs to make the fence sitters feel happy!

 

[Jelly Bean]

It doesn't say less about you than me, it says an equal amount about both.

I love reading objective pieces, even if they don't favour Collingwood. I dislike reading pieces that are heavily biased either against or for us. And contrary to what you are saying there are plenty of Collingwood fluff pieces that gets written in the papers, they don't call the HS the Collingwood newsletter for nothing. So I don't really get what exactly you are balancing out.

Write what you think not a bunch of bs to "balance" out negativity.

I agree Dundalis, objectivity is probably the characteristic I value most about posters on this board, and probably the one characteristic missing from all but probably 4-5 regular posters here.

It is the lack of objectivity that compels posters to think the AFL / Herald Sun / Mike Shehan / All Australian selectors / umpires / everyone else is actively and deliberately compromising their paid positions to specific bring doom onto the Collingwood Football Club. Ludicrous.

 

[jonbe54]

I agree Dundalis, objectivity is probably the characteristic I value most about posters on this board, and probably the one characteristic missing from all but probably 4-5 regular posters here.

It is the lack of objectivity that compels posters to think the AFL / Herald Sun / Mike Shehan / All Australian selectors / umpires / everyone else is actively and deliberately compromising their paid positions to specific bring doom onto the Collingwood Football Club. Ludicrous.

JB while I agree in principle with what you say, Pies are now and always have been the most hated team in the land, so people have made their living in the media off that for years.

 

[PieNSauce]

JB while I agree in principle with what you say, Pies are now and always have been the most hated team in the land, so people have made their living in the media off that for years.

Precisely, not to mention the fact that stories about Collingwood sell newspapers. Only the naive would think that journos go out of their way to harm the Collingwood brand but it is just as naive to believe that Collingwood does not get more than its fair share of damaging stories purely by virtue os that saleability.

As far as objectivity goes it's true that this is important but the fact is there's a time and place for it. Obviously if you are having a discussion about a specific issue with divided opinions then it makes sense to remain objective to whatever extent possible but to suggest that one cannot express their feelings subjectively under certain circumstances is utterly absurd.

 

[Dundalis]

JB while I agree in principle with what you say, Pies are now and always have been the most hated team in the land, so people have made their living in the media off that for years.

Precisely, not to mention the fact that stories about Collingwood sell newspapers. Only the naive would think that journos go out of their way to harm the Collingwood brand but it is just as naive to believe that Collingwood does not get more than its fair share of damaging stories purely by virtue os that saleability.

As far as objectivity goes it's true that this is important but the fact is there's a time and place for it. Obviously if you are having a discussion about a specific issue with divided opinions then it makes sense to remain objective to whatever extent possible but to suggest that one cannot express their feelings subjectively under certain circumstances is utterly absurd.

This IMO says plenty about the mentality of you and many other Collingwood supporters, particularly a large contingent of posters on this board.

I disagree completely, and so do many out there. The difference is you see anything that doesn't paint Collingwood in a favourable light as something horribly offensive and biased against the club and hence develop a siege, defensive mentality.

I and many whom are like minded would probably classify 50% of what you regard as horribly anti Collingwood bias as a mostly well thought out article (most articles are rarely factually perfect) that simply points out areas our club hasn't been successful and can improve.

Hence the posting of threads like this to balance some apparent anti Collingwood bias that you percieve as being too widespread for your liking.

 

[jonbe54]

This IMO says plenty about the mentality of you and many other Collingwood supporters, particularly a large contingent of posters on this board.

I disagree completely, and so do many out there. The difference is you see anything that doesn't paint Collingwood in a favourable light as something horribly offensive and biased against the club and hence develop a siege, defensive mentality.

I and many whom are like minded would probably classify 50% of what you regard as horribly anti Collingwood bias as a mostly well thought out article (most articles are rarely factually perfect) that simply points out areas our club hasn't been successful and can improve.

Hence the posting of threads like this to balance some apparent anti Collingwood bias that you percieve as being too widespread for your liking.

Errrrrmmmm. . . . riiiiiighttt. . . . whatever

 

[PieNSauce]

This IMO says plenty about the mentality of you and many other Collingwood supporters, particularly a large contingent of posters on this board.

I disagree completely, and so do many out there. The difference is you see anything that doesn't paint Collingwood in a favourable light as something horribly offensive and biased against the club and hence develop a siege, defensive mentality.

I and many whom are like minded would probably classify 50% of what you regard as horribly anti Collingwood bias as a mostly well thought out article (most articles are rarely factually perfect) that simply points out areas our club hasn't been successful and can improve.

Hence the posting of threads like this to balance some apparent anti Collingwood bias that you percieve as being too widespread for your liking.

WTF? Seriously, I think you should take a becks and lie down!

 

[Dundalis]

It's ok lads. Your complete inability to respond says it all.

 

[jonbe54]

It's ok lads. Your complete inability to respond says it all.

I'm sooo happy for you. . .

Now toddle off and peddle your wares to someone who cares munchkin

 

[PieNSauce]

It's ok lads. Your complete inability to respond says it all.

lol. Now I guess if there was something remotely logical to respond to...

 

[TheLip]

This IMO says plenty about the mentality of you and many other Collingwood supporters, particularly a large contingent of posters on this board.

I disagree completely, and so do many out there. The difference is you see anything that doesn't paint Collingwood in a favourable light as something horribly offensive and biased against the club and hence develop a siege, defensive mentality.

I and many whom are like minded would probably classify 50% of what you regard as horribly anti Collingwood bias as a mostly well thought out article (most articles are rarely factually perfect) that simply points out areas our club hasn't been successful and can improve.

Hence the posting of threads like this to balance some apparent anti Collingwood bias that you percieve as being too widespread for your liking.

It seems to me you're reading an awful lot into what's being said here. I don't see anything remotely offensive about someone talking up the positives of his own club on its own board. Now if this was in the main forum then I suppose everyone would have a problem with it but it seems like a perfectly valid post to me if just a tad over the top.

 

[Dundalis]

It seems to me you're reading an awful lot into what's being said here. I don't see anything remotely offensive about someone talking up the positives of his own club on its own board. Now if this was in the main forum then I suppose everyone would have a problem with it but it seems like a perfectly valid post to me if just a tad over the top.

It's not offensive at all, it's just insubstantial.

This thread is just one of many over the years on this board. What I'm talking about is certainly not made via this thread in isolation.

Anyone who's been around for a while can see the heavy handed apologists mentality that thrives on the forum. Seeing a genuinely objective thread made is like finding a needle in a haystack.

 

[PremierPie13]

This IMO says plenty about the mentality of you and many other Collingwood supporters, particularly a large contingent of posters on this board.

I disagree completely, and so do many out there. The difference is you see anything that doesn't paint Collingwood in a favourable light as something horribly offensive and biased against the club and hence develop a siege, defensive mentality.

I and many whom are like minded would probably classify 50% of what you regard as horribly anti Collingwood bias as a mostly well thought out article (most articles are rarely factually perfect) that simply points out areas our club hasn't been successful and can improve.

Hence the posting of threads like this to balance some apparent anti Collingwood bias that you percieve as being too widespread for your liking.

You were being reasonable up until this post. Not at any point did the OP develop this "siege, defensive mentality"; he was simply refuting your points with his opinion and your response was to categorize him in a group, use that group as the antagonist for your argument and then essentially decide upon a different set of circumstances what his opinion would be towards an anti-Collingwood newspaper article.

You were right beforehand. We need to have less fluff about Collingwood and more about what we can do better. But this thread was simply created to cheer people up from what I gather and seek the positives coming out of a wasted 2011.