by JK » Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:35 am
by mal » Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:02 pm
by Punk Rooster » Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:20 pm
mal wrote:C/PERM spot on, can you convince PUNKY.
Let me re-iterate I think North have done the RIGHT thing.
BUT the ovrwhelming concensus amongst many people is
they have BOUGHT there way to success.
Ralph Wiggum wrote:That's where I saw the leprechaun. He told me to burn things
by mal » Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:33 pm
Punk Rooster wrote:mal wrote:C/PERM spot on, can you convince PUNKY.
Let me re-iterate I think North have done the RIGHT thing.
BUT the ovrwhelming concensus amongst many people is
they have BOUGHT there way to success.
How have they "bought" their way to success?
1st of all, their "off-field success" can be attributed to a lot of hardwork, wise managment & prudent investments.
The Board/Management of the NAFC have turned a club that was allegedly/approximately 7k from having to shut it's doors- permanantly, into a club that is trading successfully, & in control of 2 income streams, outside of the football operations.
Yes Robert Gerrard was a huge help to the club, but not in the way most people assume (ie giving money freely to the NAFC, like a wealthy parent would a child). He was involved more from a management/negotiator/advisor point of view. I believe the SANFL were the ones to go Guarantor on North's loans, as they guarenteed a North dividend annually.
So in answer, we've traded our way to financial success off the field.
Secondly, North's on-field success has been limited thus far to being a consistent (at League level) finals performer (the club on a whole has won the Stanley Lewis Memorial Trophy back to back now). Also, the U 15's, 17's, 19's & Reserves were Premiers last year- was this success bought? No it was not.
However, we as a club, have not achieved the ultimate yet, & that is a League Premiership.
So as I have provided facts to back up my answer, which is NO, can you provide any facts to support your claim?
I will be interested to see what facts you supply.
by locky801 » Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:39 pm
by am Bays » Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:05 pm
by Punk Rooster » Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:00 pm
Ralph Wiggum wrote:That's where I saw the leprechaun. He told me to burn things
by mal » Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:24 pm
by Wedgie » Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:30 pm
by mal » Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:33 pm
Punk Rooster wrote:mal wrote:Peter Falconia wrote:mal wrote:Glenelg have educated some juniors greatly as well, this will be in
evidence at this years draft.
I can think of two players at Glenelg who will get drafted this year. At North, there are three certainties, maybe four or five. Strange how the Bays are the only SANFL club developing young players according to you Mal.
PF the big difference between GL/NA is that North Melbourne supplement
thier list with the cheque book, Glenelg tend to promote from within.
Mal-informed..... North won the U15's,U17's, U19's, Reserves last year- & we're not developing our juniors? This year, we have blooded (at league level) Shane Edwards, Todd Pfeiffer, Andrew McIntyre, Tim Martin, Ricky Ebert & Matt Down. These players have been developed within North's junior ranks (albeit Down was from Norwood as a junior, yet still developed by us), & these players have been allowed to grow into a league role- not thrown to the wolves.
It would appear the only way the NAFC could appease you, would be to play 10 juniors who are not ready, then get flogged every week for 2 years, then start winning games. But guess what has happened in the meantime? We've lost the cream of those juniors to the AFL. We decide to recruit, to replace them- no, not in Mal's book, we'd be buying a Premiership. Much better to get some U17's with undeveloped bodies & throw them to the wolves.
I really don't care what your view of the NAFC is Mal, as the Board is reponsible to it's Members, & not message board forum members, who support other clubs, yet take continued cheap shots at the NAFC for being pro-active in many areas (especially recruiting).
Your time would be better spent questioning your own Board, & asking them why they are recruiting known trouble-makers from another club (Culpitt), & asking them to explain not only the poor results this year, but their whole mis-management of the Clubrooms debacle.
by mal » Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:40 pm
Wedgie wrote:Just on that Mal, if Glenelg wanted Nick Gill all they had to do was treat him like a person, not just as another of a group when they flew him over, he was ripe for signing, money had nothing to do with Gill nor many other of North's recruits.
by Punk Rooster » Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:42 pm
Ralph Wiggum wrote:That's where I saw the leprechaun. He told me to burn things
by Wedgie » Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:43 pm
mal wrote:Wedgie wrote:Just on that Mal, if Glenelg wanted Nick Gill all they had to do was treat him like a person, not just as another of a group when they flew him over, he was ripe for signing, money had nothing to do with Gill nor many other of North's recruits.
Irrelevant Wedgie, the relevance is the number of OBTAINED[a better word] players
the Roosters have obtained from other clubs.
I am not saying its wrong Wedgie, I am saying it is a good way to improve your club.
My whole ORIGINAL inference is that Glenelg should do something similar.
by Wedgie » Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:45 pm
Punk Rooster wrote:Mal,
I'll provide a list- note Daniel Motlop played for North prior to entering the AFL, but I have counted him as a Power player, even though he's "ours".
Also, you are choosing questions which give you the answers that you want, hence my going "broader". You are also trying to put words in my mouth, which again, you choose to benefit your side of the argument.
I briefly brought up Norwood (for comparison), you keep bringing them up.
Why should Glenelg have any "rights" to these players? North have been in the same boat, & at the end of the day, they are not our players, so to North's credit, we've developed a team not reliant on those part-time players. Glenelg will have to do this also, should they want long-term success (develop a team does not equal buying a team)
* I have counted Ben Hart as a "Zone", as he came up through the Juniors prior to going to the Crows.
Notice how I have done research throughout my replies, yet you keep slinging mud, hoping it sticks.
by mal » Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:15 pm
by Peter Falconia » Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:16 pm
Wedgie wrote:Just on that Mal, if Glenelg wanted Nick Gill all they had to do was treat him like a person, not just as another of a group when they flew him over, he was ripe for signing, money had nothing to do with Gill nor many other of North's recruits.
by Peter Falconia » Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:21 pm
mal wrote:PUNK have a look at this P/FALCONIA brought up North Adelaide NOT ME
I then said about NA using the cheque book.[ yes or no ?]
THIS IS THE ARGUMENT youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu brought up the North objections not me!!
by panther » Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:25 pm
by BPBRB » Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:15 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |