Why not Cousins?

[givekidsakick]

What reputation.....

His habit cost us the 2007 flag, let's not let him cost us our reputation.

We didn't mind recruiting Plugger after his demolition of Caven. We have taken on players with "problems" eg Bazza and turned their careers around. At the end of the day, if he's kicking goals and winning games for us who cares.....

[AnnieH]

The failure of any club to pick up Cuz, so far, means that all but the Cats & Hawks think they have teams that measure up to the real challenge of a Grand Final win in 2009. My personal assessment is that our team is just not good enough. I'm not putting them down . We need CUZ......its a risk....but look what Judd has done for Carlton....made them more competitive. CUZ could be our edge.....the spark....the difference between competing in a grand final or just being ALSO RANS . I'm greedy enough to want to experience another 2005. (Row R. Seat 10 middle of goals) We would be fools to bypass the opportunity to seize the chance of grabbing him.

Let's look at this from "any" club's point of view ...

Whether or not you have a problem with any of your players, do you really want the drug testers setting up an office at your club? We are all very naive if we all believe that players don't take drugs - recreationally or otherwise. A percentage of greater society take drugs, so it's only logical that a percentage of footballers would be into it as well.

Who pays for this drug testing? The Club, the AFL, the "ex"-junkie? If it's the latter, at approximately $170,000 a year worth of testing, he'll be playing for free. If it's the AFL ... great, they can afford it. If it's my club ... well, hell no - that expense shouldn't be coming out of my pockets, I'd rather they spent the money on flashier printing expenses - the portfolio wasn't waxy enough.

What about the other players - do you think they'll trust the "ex"-junkie? What about the 17 year olds in the squads? You're indirectly saying to these kids that's it's ok to take drugs or admit to taking drugs (albeit not be positively tested for them), and if you're good enough, we'll overlook it and you can be suspended and then come back as if nothing happened. What if you're not that "good" a player? What happens to your career then?

What about the media? I've mentioned it before ... do you really need Caro setting up a desk at your office?

At the end of the day, there is more to footy than a grand final win.

[AnnieH]

We didn't mind recruiting Plugger after his demolition of Caven. We have taken on players with "problems" eg Bazza and turned their careers around. At the end of the day, if he's kicking goals and winning games for us who cares.....

There are huge differences between a "ex"-thug and an "ex"-junkie.

[CureTheSane]

There are huge differences between a "ex"-thug and an "ex"-junkie.

Yes, one used to shash in faces, the other did himself harm through an addiction.

[Vonsteinman]

We didn't mind recruiting Plugger after his demolition of Caven. We have taken on players with "problems" eg Bazza and turned their careers around. At the end of the day, if he's kicking goals and winning games for us who cares.....

FFS, Ben Cousins, admittedly along with one or two teammates - but for the most part by his own actions, brought a top club with a list the envy of every other team in the league and at the peak of its powers virtually to its knees by his actions.

You can't even start to compare Lockett and Hall's problems at St Kilda with the issues Cousins brought to his club.

I couldn't give a stuff if he was able to reproduce his peak form, his sort is not welcome at the Swans. And if you can't see that, you're ignorant, uninformed or not a true fan of the club.

[CureTheSane]

FFS, Ben Cousins, admittedly along with one or two teammates - but for the most part by his own actions, brought a top club with a list the envy of every other team in the league and at the peak of its powers virtually to its knees by his actions.

You can't even start to compare Lockett and Hall's problems at St Kilda with the issues Cousins brought to his club.

I couldn't give a stuff if he was able to reproduce his peak form, his sort is not welcome at the Swans. And if you can't see that, you're ignorant, uninformed or not a true fan of the club.

Really?
That's a pretty big statement.

There must be an 'ist' word for people who are unable to accept recovering drug users.

Comparing Lockett to Cousins is easy.
Both were players that Swans fans hated.
Lockett for his agression and injuries he inflicted (particularly on Caven) and Cousins (seemingly) because he has personal issues with drugs.

How are you gonna be if Cousins does end up at the Swans?
Many would say that a fan who hated a Swans player was not a true fan.
And if you disowned the Swans because of your personal condemnation on Cousins actions, many would say..... not a fan.

Seems you have way more potential in being 'not a true fan'

[AnnieH]

Really?
That's a pretty big statement.

There must be an 'ist' word for people who are unable to accept recovering drug users.

Comparing Lockett to Cousins is easy.
Both were players that Swans fans hated.
Lockett for his agression and injuries he inflicted (particularly on Caven) and Cousins (seemingly) because he has personal issues with drugs.

How are you gonna be if Cousins does end up at the Swans?
Many would say that a fan who hated a Swans player was not a true fan.
And if you disowned the Swans because of your personal condemnation on Cousins actions, many would say..... not a fan.

Seems you have way more potential in being 'not a true fan'

I hate Davo ... does that make me not a fan?

Dead-set, if that piece of "ex"-junkie white trash comes anywhere near the swans, I'll make it look like Davo was my best friend.

[goswannie14]

FFS, Ben Cousins, admittedly along with one or two teammates - but for the most part by his own actions, brought a top club with a list the envy of every other team in the league and at the peak of its powers virtually to its knees by his actions.

Rubbish, they had and still fail, to have a forward line. If you think every other club wanted their list you are denying reality. If it really was the case they would have won more than one premiership.

I couldn't give a stuff if he was able to reproduce his peak form, his sort is not welcome at the Swans. And if you can't see that, you're ignorant, uninformed or not a true fan of the club.

You have just proved that you have no substance to your argument by using personal attacks. People could similarly claim that because you are not a member of the club then....

you're ignorant, uninformed or not a true fan of the club.

Now.....take a deep breath.....and see if you can actually come up with a valid argument as to why you think Cousins shouldn't be at the club. No insults, no personal attacks at those that disagree with you, facts.

[ScottH]

Besides his addiction issues, many clubs turned him down after he attended funerals of known underworld figures.

So I think the clubs might be seeing more baggage, than the obvious.

[liz]

Now.....take a deep breath.....and see if you can actually come up with a valid argument as to why you think Cousins shouldn't be at the club. No insults, no personal attacks at those that disagree with you, facts.

- because he's played barely any footy for two years, has barely trained in a team environment in that time (eg contact training), is over 30 and last time he did play he ripped his hamstring quite badly

- because we have a list age profile such that 5-7 players are expected to retire within the next 2 (or at an outside chance, 3 years). Maybe more. And because during that time there will be lower than normal access to depth of quality 17 and 18 year olds. So adding another in that age range doesn't make a huge amount of sense unless he's pretty low risk to make an onfield contribution. How many on here already whinge consistently about our ageing list? Which kid would you sacrifice to give Cousins a chance to resurrect his career?

- because it's impossible to say that we're one (fit and inform) Ben Cousins away from a premiership. Our largely blue collar midfield proved itself good enough in the past when we had an efficiently functioning forward line. So the return to form and fitness of Hall and O'Loughlin and finding someone to fill the 2005 contribution of Davis is far more pertinent to our 2009 prospects than one midfielder, even one as good as Cousins was in his prime.

Lots and lots of reasons for the Swans not to recruit Cousins, before you take any account of the off-field risk.

[Pace To Burn]

B]

FFS, Ben Cousins, admittedly along with one or two teammates - but for the most part by his own actions, brought a top club with a list the envy of every other team in the league and at the peak of its powers virtually to its knees by his actions.

You can't even start to compare Lockett and Hall's problems at St Kilda with the issues Cousins brought to his club.

I couldn't give a stuff if he was able to reproduce his peak form, his sort is not welcome at the Swans. And if you can't see that, you're ignorant, uninformed or not a true fan of the club.

Let's look at this from "any" club's point of view ...

Whether or not you have a problem with any of your players, do you really want the drug testers setting up an office at your club? We are all very naive if we all believe that players don't take drugs - recreationally or otherwise. A percentage of greater society take drugs, so it's only logical that a percentage of footballers would be into it as well.

Who pays for this drug testing? The Club, the AFL, the "ex"-junkie? If it's the latter, at approximately $170,000 a year worth of testing, he'll be playing for free. If it's the AFL ... great, they can afford it. If it's my club ... well, hell no - that expense shouldn't be coming out of my pockets, I'd rather they spent the money on flashier printing expenses - the portfolio wasn't waxy enough.

What about the other players - do you think they'll trust the "ex"-junkie? What about the 17 year olds in the squads? You're indirectly saying to these kids that's it's ok to take drugs or admit to taking drugs (albeit not be positively tested for them), and if you're good enough, we'll overlook it and you can be suspended and then come back as if nothing happened. What if you're not that "good" a player? What happens to your career then?

What about the media? I've mentioned it before ... do you really need Caro setting up a desk at your office?

At the end of the day, there is more to footy than a grand final win.

I dont think Cousins and his mates bought the club to its knees. It has been well documented that every man and his dog knew what was going on over there but the club and its management chose to ignore it as long as they got results on the field. If it was happening at our club it would have been nipped in the bud real early and the players dealt with and then all the REAL FANS would have been screaming blue murder about why the players had been stood down .

Your opinion is hes not welcome at this club, you dont speak for me or any other fan, so if anyones ignorant its you you goose.

Annie, the testing would be paid for by the AFL i would think, i doubt it would cost that much as they were very clever in the way they worded by saying he had to make himself available to testing up to 4 times a week, to give that impression to all the punters but didnt say he would be tested 4 times a week.

Secondly, i dont think that anyone could say he has come through this and has come back as nothing has happened. He will forever be remembered for this part of his life and not as one of the best players of his time. IMHO i think that this was the wake up call that the AFL needed as with Andrew Johns in the NRL and that hopefully it will stop alot of the young kids getting involved in that side of life thinking that they can control it.

[AnnieH]

- because he's played barely any footy for two years, has barely trained in a team environment in that time (eg contact training), is over 30 and last time he did play he ripped his hamstring quite badly

- because we have a list age profile such that 5-7 players are expected to retire within the next 2 (or at an outside chance, 3 years). Maybe more. And because during that time there will be lower than normal access to depth of quality 17 and 18 year olds. So adding another in that age range doesn't make a huge amount of sense unless he's pretty low risk to make an onfield contribution. How many on here already whinge consistently about our ageing list? Which kid would you sacrifice to give Cousins a chance to resurrect his career?

- because it's impossible to say that we're one (fit and inform) Ben Cousins away from a premiership. Our largely blue collar midfield proved itself good enough in the past when we had an efficiently functioning forward line. So the return to form and fitness of Hall and O'Loughlin and finding someone to fill the 2005 contribution of Davis is far more pertinent to our 2009 prospects than one midfielder, even one as good as Cousins was in his prime.

Lots and lots of reasons for the Swans not to recruit Cousins, before you take any account of the off-field risk.

Thanks.

[goswannie14]

- because he's played barely any footy for two years, has barely trained in a team environment in that time (eg contact training), is over 30 and last time he did play he ripped his hamstring quite badly

- because we have a list age profile such that 5-7 players are expected to retire within the next 2 (or at an outside chance, 3 years). Maybe more. And because during that time there will be lower than normal access to depth of quality 17 and 18 year olds. So adding another in that age range doesn't make a huge amount of sense unless he's pretty low risk to make an onfield contribution. How many on here already whinge consistently about our ageing list? Which kid would you sacrifice to give Cousins a chance to resurrect his career?

- because it's impossible to say that we're one (fit and inform) Ben Cousins away from a premiership. Our largely blue collar midfield proved itself good enough in the past when we had an efficiently functioning forward line. So the return to form and fitness of Hall and O'Loughlin and finding someone to fill the 2005 contribution of Davis is far more pertinent to our 2009 prospects than one midfielder, even one as good as Cousins was in his prime.

Lots and lots of reasons for the Swans not to recruit Cousins, before you take any account of the off-field risk.

Thanks Liz. I was, however, trying to get the original poster to think about these things, rather than calling people who disagree with him ignorant and not real fans. A rather stupid assertion, that holds no substance. Now you have given him some answers.

[Pace To Burn]

- because he's played barely any footy for two years, has barely trained in a team environment in that time (eg contact training), is over 30 and last time he did play he ripped his hamstring quite badly

- because we have a list age profile such that 5-7 players are expected to retire within the next 2 (or at an outside chance, 3 years). Maybe more. And because during that time there will be lower than normal access to depth of quality 17 and 18 year olds. So adding another in that age range doesn't make a huge amount of sense unless he's pretty low risk to make an onfield contribution. How many on here already whinge consistently about our ageing list? Which kid would you sacrifice to give Cousins a chance to resurrect his career?

- because it's impossible to say that we're one (fit and inform) Ben Cousins away from a premiership. Our largely blue collar midfield proved itself good enough in the past when we had an efficiently functioning forward line. So the return to form and fitness of Hall and O'Loughlin and finding someone to fill the 2005 contribution of Davis is far more pertinent to our 2009 prospects than one midfielder, even one as good as Cousins was in his prime.

Lots and lots of reasons for the Swans not to recruit Cousins, before you take any account of the off-field risk.

He is every bit the match winner Davis ever was. Davis won us one game, Cousins has single handedly won West Coast alot more than one

[CureTheSane]

- because he's played barely any footy for two years, has barely trained in a team environment in that time (eg contact training), is over 30 and last time he did play he ripped his hamstring quite badly

- because we have a list age profile such that 5-7 players are expected to retire within the next 2 (or at an outside chance, 3 years). Maybe more. And because during that time there will be lower than normal access to depth of quality 17 and 18 year olds. So adding another in that age range doesn't make a huge amount of sense unless he's pretty low risk to make an onfield contribution. How many on here already whinge consistently about our ageing list? Which kid would you sacrifice to give Cousins a chance to resurrect his career?

- because it's impossible to say that we're one (fit and inform) Ben Cousins away from a premiership. Our largely blue collar midfield proved itself good enough in the past when we had an efficiently functioning forward line. So the return to form and fitness of Hall and O'Loughlin and finding someone to fill the 2005 contribution of Davis is far more pertinent to our 2009 prospects than one midfielder, even one as good as Cousins was in his prime.

Lots and lots of reasons for the Swans not to recruit Cousins, before you take any account of the off-field risk.

You can find a million reasons not to pick up any player.
They can all be offset with contract conditions.
performance based.
Behavioral clauses
etc
etc

To me the potential gain far outweighs the risk.