Page 1 of 3
Rushby Christmas Rumours
Posted:
Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:58 pmby Rushby Hinds
a: Which team has insisted that anyone training league or reserves in the pre-season must bring their own footy (!!) (with their name on it). No footy, no training with the main bunch. The presumption is a "cash" issue.
b: Which (other) team is currently having their gym renovated, and the word on the street is that the playing group themselves have chipped in to fund the work. (Or so the story goes on this one). Good effort if I have the story correct.
Neither a or b are Glenelg.
Re: Rushby Christmas Rumour's
Posted:
Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:59 pmby Dogwatcher
A) Magpies.
B) Glenelg.
??????
Re: Rushby Christmas Rumour's
Posted:
Wed Dec 26, 2007 3:42 amby mighty_tiger_79
a) port
b) sturt
Re: Rushby Christmas Rumour's
Posted:
Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:31 amby Ian
Rushby Hinds wrote:Neither a or b are Glenelg.
Dogwatcher wrote:B) Glenelg.
Re: Rushby Christmas Rumour's
Posted:
Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:22 amby Dogwatcher
Whoops. Xmas drinks.
Re: Rushby Christmas Rumour's
Posted:
Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:31 amby johntheclaret
c) Glenelg
Re: Rushby Christmas Rumour's
Posted:
Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:54 amby Sam_goUUUdogs
B) would have to be Centrals, not sure of any other teams that are having their gym renovated/re-built, doubt the players would have had to chip in their own $'s though.
Re: Rushby Christmas Rumour's
Posted:
Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:43 pmby G
A. Crap
B. Sturt, with question marks re the players chipping in.
Re: Rushby Christmas Rumour's
Posted:
Wed Dec 26, 2007 1:59 pmby TroyGFC
A few years back a few Glenelg player's chipped in to do gym reno's.
Re: Rushby Christmas Rumour's
Posted:
Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:48 pmby Rushby Hinds
No correct answers so far.
Source for a: is a player's Dad who was narked at having to spend $130 to pay for a footy..
Re: Rushby Christmas Rumour's
Posted:
Wed Dec 26, 2007 3:03 pmby bay boy
Rushby Hinds wrote:a: Which team has insisted that anyone training league or reserves in the pre-season must bring their own footy (!!) (with their name on it). No footy, no training with the main bunch. The presumption is a "cash" issue.
b: Which (other) team is currently having their gym renovated, and the word on the street is that the playing group themselves have chipped in to fund the work. (Or so the story goes on this one). Good effort if I have the story correct.
Neither a or b are Glenelg.
A) South
B) Westies
Re: Rushby Christmas Rumour's
Posted:
Wed Dec 26, 2007 3:50 pmby FlyingHigh
(a) Norwood.
Re: Rushby Christmas Rumour's
Posted:
Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:38 pmby Inside 50
a) STURT
Re: Rushby Christmas Rumour's
Posted:
Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:57 pmby Rushby Hinds
Bun to inside 50, and to Bay's Boy.
Re: Rushby Christmas Rumour's
Posted:
Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:01 pmby smac
Dogs players have been supplying their own footy for years.
Whilst the players haven't chipped in on the cost of the renovations at Centrals, they clambered over the temporary fence to assist in the demolition (pushed a wall over).
Re: Rushby Christmas Rumour's
Posted:
Wed Dec 26, 2007 10:23 pmby Dutchy
Rushby Hinds wrote:Bun to inside 50
Unfair!
$130- lighter in the pocket Inside 50?
Re: Rushby Christmas Rumour's
Posted:
Thu Dec 27, 2007 4:31 amby mighty_tiger_79
[quote="smac"]Dogs players have been supplying their own footy for years.
quote]
we know especially on GF day
Re: Rushby Christmas Rumour's
Posted:
Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:49 amby Jimmy
smac wrote:Dogs players have been supplying their own footy for years.
aha, must be a rick thing then if he brought it with him from the dogs.
Re: Rushby Christmas Rumour's
Posted:
Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:32 amby smac
Jimmy wrote:smac wrote:Dogs players have been supplying their own footy for years.
aha, must be a rick thing then if he brought it with him from the dogs.
Most likely, was an Alan Stewart innovation at Elizabeth, Rick was there when it started and would understand why it was introduced.
Re: Rushby Christmas Rumours
Posted:
Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:46 amby Wedgie
It was only when I read your post smac that I remembered hearing some theory about this, it may have been footy, it may have not, but I can remember hearing/reading a long time ago about the theory behind it. IIRC it was to ensure a footy is in a player's hands as often and long as possible making the player's ball skills better with the ball being an extension of his body. Is that correct or is it something else?