radical ideas

[gazza]

how about this scenario.
IMMEDIATE RETIREMENT. doyle,fixter, james,(wasting space on our list)
o'loughlin (the one legged player)
schauble(unfit and far too slow for todays game)
and take our chances with who is left on the list

[Charlie]

Re: radical ideas

Originally posted by gazza
how about this scenario.
IMMEDIATE RETIREMENT. doyle,fixter, james,(wasting space on our list)
o'loughlin (the one legged player)
schauble(unfit and far too slow for todays game)
and take our chances with who is left on the list

How about you tell us what the actual benefit of doing this in round seven would be?

[stellation]

We need an emoticon for "sarcastic clap".

[midaro]

Re: radical ideas

Doyle, Fixter, James - Yes, they're headed the same way as Fitzgerald, Chapman and Lawson, so if it's possible, why no retire them now? (Salary cap issues?). Then we could promote Grundy, Vogels and Campbell.

O'Loughlin, Schauble - A bit silly. They're still in the team ATM. No point throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[BonBon]

Yes, this really is some radical idea.

[footyhead]

do it

[ScottH]

Originally posted by footyhead
do it

I doubt they'd have the balls to do it mid season. It would be a huge call to get rid of all 3. Unless they retired, which I doubt unless there injuries are that chronic.

[Charlie]

Re: Re: radical ideas

Originally posted by midaro
Doyle, Fixter, James - Yes, they're headed the same way as Fitzgerald, Chapman and Lawson, so if it's possible, why no retire them now? (Salary cap issues?). Then we could promote Grundy, Vogels and Campbell.

Yawn. Two of them can be promoted regardless. One as a result of Doyle's long term injury, and the other because we have only 39 players.

If the club saw Vogels or Campbell as a better option than, say, James... they would have picked them up in the national draft rather than relisting James.

These 'radical ideas' are more like 'reactionary ideas'. Reaction for reaction's sake. Scapegoating. Call them what you will. Thankfully, the club is not quite so stupid.

[Matt79]

Re: Re: Re: radical ideas

Originally posted by Charlie
Yawn. Two of them can be promoted regardless. One as a result of Doyle's long term injury, and the other because we have only 39 players.

If the club saw Vogels or Campbell as a better option than, say, James... they would have picked them up in the national draft rather than relisting James.

These 'radical ideas' are more like 'reactionary ideas'. Reaction for reaction's sake. Scapegoating. Call them what you will. Thankfully, the club is not quite so stupid.

Well said Charlie!

Just wondering did you happen to be the "Charlie" that rang White Line Fever (I think Monday night?) to talk about the Swans?

[Charlie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: radical ideas

Originally posted by Matt79
Well said Charlie!

Just wondering did you happen to be the "Charlie" that rang White Line Fever (I think Monday night?) to talk about the Swans?

Depends. What did he say?

[Matt79]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: radical ideas

Originally posted by Charlie
Depends. What did he say?

I actually can't remember but nothing too dramatic...he was definately a swan's supporter though!

[sharpie]

Re: Re: Re: radical ideas

Originally posted by Charlie
If the club saw Vogels or Campbell as a better option than, say, James... they would have picked them up in the national draft rather than relisting James.

To be pedantic, that statement may not necessarily be true.

If they wanted to keep James, the swans had to pick him in the november draft as he is too old to be on the rookie list.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Re: Re: Re: radical ideas

Originally posted by Charlie
Yawn. Two of them can be promoted regardless. One as a result of Doyle's long term injury, and the other because we have only 39 players.

If the club saw Vogels or Campbell as a better option than, say, James... they would have picked them up in the national draft rather than relisting James.

These 'radical ideas' are more like 'reactionary ideas'. Reaction for reaction's sake. Scapegoating. Call them what you will. Thankfully, the club is not quite so stupid.

Charlie, how is it scapegoating to single out three blokes who are permanently injured or lack the confidence of the senior team's coaches, regardless of the rights or wrong of their circumstances?

Charlie, how is it stupid to single out three blokes who have been on the list four or five years and offered nothing more than a couple of good games here and there?

Charlie, single out the flaw in the posts original proposition - that is, promote one or two rookies to replace a couple of permanently injured players.

Who's scapegoating and who's stupid?

[robbieando]

Re: Re: Re: Re: radical ideas

Originally posted by i'm-uninformed2
Charlie, how is it scapegoating to single out three blokes who are permanently injured or lack the confidence of the senior team's coaches, regardless of the rights or wrong of their circumstances?

Charlie, how is it stupid to single out three blokes who have been on the list four or five years and offered nothing more than a couple of good games here and there?

Charlie, single out the flaw in the posts original proposition - that is, promote one or two rookies to replace a couple of permanently injured players.

Who's scapegoating and who's stupid?

You are, because Charlie already pointed out that we can promote two of our rookie listed players right now if we wanted to, without the need to "sack" anyone.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: radical ideas

Originally posted by robbieando
You are, because Charlie already pointed out that we can promote two of our rookie listed players right now if we wanted to, without the need to "sack" anyone.

Read my post. It was about flicking injured crocks. I still dont see a rebuttal to the argument