Page 1 of 4

Cupido Cupido, where for art thou Cupido?

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:18 am
by Dissident
A friend of mine, well, lets call him an aquaintence, spied D. Cupido training with West Adelaide.

Apparently he has South's permission, too....

Ok, so the Shakespeare is wrong, technically.
(Where for art thou is "why are you" not "where are you")

Re: Cupido Cupido, where for art thou Cupido?

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:23 am
by topsywaldron
Dissident wrote:Ok, so the Shakespeare is wrong, technically.
(Where for art thou is "why are you" not "where are you")


'Why are you Cupido' works for me.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:26 am
by Jimmy
he is just hanging out for those famous steak sangers at richmond :D

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:35 am
by Booney
LMAO,South would be chuffed to hear that.Cupido training in November.

WHAT ABOUT DOING IT IN JULY!

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:08 am
by MightyEagles
How about training all year round.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:30 am
by Punk Rooster
Training= running backwards & forwards to Villi's!

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:33 am
by Wedgie
Be a shame as I thought Westies were back on track with the sort of recruits they'd got so far this year.
Luckily if its true I have an "insider" in the BBQ stand at Westies who can put some food to the side for me before Cupido gets there. ;)
Also ties in nicely with BRPBPRbPBPRPBPBs comment about Port not doing much more recruiting since Cupido first was alligned with them in the rumours.
That'll be half of Westie's 137k profit almost gone in one fell swoop though.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:25 am
by redandblack
Good profit news for the Bloods.

I doubt that Cupido would cost much for whoever he signs with.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:30 am
by Wedgie
redandblack wrote:I doubt that Cupido would cost much for whoever he signs with.


roflmao@redandblack.
Yeah, Cupido would just play for the love of the game!
Good one!
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:30 am
by -
Have i missed somthing?

Cupido signed with port ages ago.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:32 am
by Wedgie
- wrote:Have i missed somthing?

Cupido signed with port ages ago.

By the sounds of things Port pulled out because of the price as they wouldn't have had much room under the cap after recruiting Hargs especially with the prices that were floated around for Cupido.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:34 am
by redandblack
You can ROFLMAO as much as you like, I didn't say he would play for the love of the game, I said he wouldn't cost much for whoever he signs with.

Read between the lines, given his recent history.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:36 am
by Coorong
Excellent profit, given two spoons in a row.

I said publicly several weeks ago, Cupido is a talent and if managed correctly would be a very valuable asset.

If the "rumours" are true, any flak from opposition supporters would be out of envy. But bet no one will admit it.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:38 am
by Wedgie
redandblack wrote:You can ROFLMAO as much as you like, I didn't say he would play for the love of the game, I said he wouldn't cost much for whoever he signs with.

Read between the lines, given his recent history.

Come on mate, you and I both well know he wouldn't be sticking around in SA especially looking at his recent history for anything less than top dollar.
I have no doubt he'll be on something very similar to what South paid him especially looking at the figures Port were throwing at him.

Im assuming this rumour is correct with your defensive mode r&b??:D

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:42 am
by westcoastpanther
Coorong wrote:I said publicly several weeks ago, Cupido is a talent and if managed correctly would be a very valuable asset.


And what makes you think the Weed would be any better than Pyes. I'd say he'll do what he wants at Westies and go down hill quicker. Couple that with the fact he only played well when we were quilting sides which West won't, I can't see it working. Give Snowy Rowsell a run!!

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:42 am
by JK
First thought would tend to agree with you Wedgie, however if South offered the most last season and he's out of the running there and Port have come in with a successful bud only to have a change of heart, surely his price is decreasing with his options?

I wouldn't have thought he'd be able to get the same $$ he was on at South across the border(s) anywhere, so perhaps now his price tag would be significantly reduced??

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:43 am
by Coorong
Try and think of the dicipline expected by Wash and Brodie alone. There is the difference.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:49 am
by redandblack
Constance_Perm wrote:First thought would tend to agree with you Wedgie, however if South offered the most last season and he's out of the running there and Port have come in with a successful bud only to have a change of heart, surely his price is decreasing with his options?

I wouldn't have thought he'd be able to get the same $$ he was on at South across the border(s) anywhere, so perhaps now his price tag would be significantly reduced??


You've always been a wise poster, CP.

On top of that, there may be other factors to be taken into account.

Why would I be defensive, Wedgie? I'd be rapt to pick up a 55 goal a year player cheaply, if we do.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:49 am
by westcoastpanther
Coorong wrote:Try and think of the dicipline expected by Wash and Brodie alone. There is the difference.


Robert Pyman has taken our underperforming club into the finals for the first time since 92 including a finals win. If that isn't someone with their finger on the pulse on how to manage players and a football side I don't know what is. He is one of our few losses, everyone else is more than happy. Cupido needs to manage Cupido, something he's failed at with his last three clubs.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:49 am
by JK
Coorong wrote:Try and think of the dicipline expected by Wash and Brodie alone. There is the difference.


"Brodie" and "discipline" are two words not have appeared in the same sentence in the past