by Booney » Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:56 pm
by whufc » Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:57 pm
Booney wrote:It really seems to be quite trivial that a player who is not assured a league game at his current club creates so much debate when moving clubs. Are Westies shitty they lost him?
______________________________________________________
Nice signature whufc.
St George won 11 premierships in a row, by the way.
by Brodlach » Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:59 pm
Booney wrote:It really seems to be quite trivial that a player who is not assured a league game at his current club creates so much debate when moving clubs. Are Westies shitty they lost him?
______________________________________________________
Nice signature whufc.
St George won 11 premierships in a row, by the way.
Brodlach wrote:Rory Laird might end up the best IMO, he is an absolute jet. He has been in great form at the Bloods
by topsywaldron » Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:24 pm
Booney wrote:It really seems to be quite trivial that a player who is not assured a league game at his current club creates so much debate when moving clubs. Are Westies shitty they lost him?
by whufc » Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:27 pm
topsywaldron wrote:Booney wrote:It really seems to be quite trivial that a player who is not assured a league game at his current club creates so much debate when moving clubs. Are Westies shitty they lost him?
The irony in all of this is that the two AFL clubs have nothing but naked contempt for the current SANFL set up yet are desperate for their reserves teams to play in it.
Weird.
by topsywaldron » Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:32 pm
by whufc » Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:36 pm
topsywaldron wrote:The other irony is the AFL flogs who post here, they know who they are, bleat on endlessly about 'protecting their club' yet when a supporter of the SANFL does the same thing or dares to defend their competition they get accused of being 'living in the past' or worse.
Sometimes you don't get exactly what you want and maybe the two AFL clubs here, who've been given advantages clubs like Melbourne or Footscray can only dream of, need to suck it up a bit more.
by topsywaldron » Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:37 pm
whufc wrote:Its only the control or lack of with their own players
by Booney » Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:39 pm
topsywaldron wrote:whufc wrote:Its only the control or lack of with their own players
Which constitutes a massive failure of the AFL coaches, if they can't develop a player when given total control of a player for 166 hours a week out of 168 then they're obviously not worth the obscene amounts they get paid.
by Booney » Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:42 pm
topsywaldron wrote:The other irony is the AFL flogs who post here, they know who they are, bleat on endlessly about 'protecting their club' yet when a supporter of the SANFL does the same thing or dares to defend their competition they get accused of being 'living in the past' or worse.
Sometimes you don't get exactly what you want and maybe the two AFL clubs here, who've been given advantages clubs like Melbourne or Footscray can only dream of, need to suck it up a bit more.
by topsywaldron » Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:02 pm
by Mr Beefy » Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:12 pm
by Hazydog » Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:18 pm
by SANFLnut » Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:24 pm
by dedja » Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:25 pm
by smac » Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:04 pm
dedja wrote:Only West have a recruiting ban ...
by Psyber » Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:43 pm
I'd take the Fuego, they handled reasonably well.Long live SAnFL wrote:A choice of either 10,000 shares in My ATM or a 1980 Renault Feugo.Brodlach wrote:Anyone know what compensation West will get?
by StrayDog » Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:27 am
topsywaldron wrote:The other irony is the AFL flogs who post here, they know who they are, bleat on endlessly about 'protecting their club' yet when a supporter of the SANFL does the same thing or dares to defend their competition they get accused of being 'living in the past' or worse.
by Booney » Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:48 am
StrayDog wrote:topsywaldron wrote:The other irony is the AFL flogs who post here, they know who they are, bleat on endlessly about 'protecting their club' yet when a supporter of the SANFL does the same thing or dares to defend their competition they get accused of being 'living in the past' or worse.
Such as being accused of supposedly having no empathy for those that have "significant" interest in more than one level of the game, perhaps?
by CENTURION » Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:29 am
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |