She wrote biased garbage with no point. You don't have to be a genius to see that.Originally Posted by DamY
Swans and GWS HATE each other? Turn it up. The AFL wishes.
She also stated that the Swans 'made a mockery' of free agency....and if I have to point out everything that's wrong with that article to you then I can't really bring myself to pay too much attention to what you're saying on this topic.
And all I have to say to that is to each their own
I didn't say there was no hyperbole, there is some OTT-ness to it. But it's in The Age. It's pandering to the VIC market to an extent. The Swans and the Giants DO hate each other. The Swans have on the record stated that they don't believe that there is a need for a second NSW-based team when the first NSW-based team can't even crack 40k members. The Giants have been trying to gain traction with their "Battle of the Bridge" malarky but the Swans still call it the Sydney Derby because the "Bridge" implies it's east sydney v west sydney and the Swans disagree with that assessment. The Giants HAVE been supremely embarrassed by the Swans trumping them by Buddy.
To be fair, Buddy HAS thumbed his nose at the Indigenous All Stars team. He hasn't trained with the rest of them, which is pretty slack. He's lost the captaincy which was mooted prior to the international rules series.
Caro mentions that the offer "isn't real". We all know that the 9 years was to blow the other clubs out of the water. That was why it was hush-hush. No-one could know that the Swans were making a play and also the terms of the agreement. That is why the AFL have forced the Swans to hold Buddy's allocation of funds aside regardless of whether he retires or plays the full term. That is in fairness to the other clubs and to stop other clubs from doing the same in the future saying "Well I'll take Gary Ablett for 15 years!!" etc.
You can agree to disagree, but I see different points in the article stated. And I'm sorry that you can't "bring yourself to pay too much attention" to what I have to say on the topic because it's not what you want to hear.
Note that I did not denigrate your point of view when you made yours, as that is what forums and debates are all about.
Who cares if Buddy has thumbed his nose at it it's a Mickey Mouse game.
I was not comparing getting buddy to the bombers supplements scandal, I was however comparing the tone and language used i. some of the comments in this thread to those of the contemptible Bombers faithful's.
And no, I dont think I overreacted, I do not see: "Ignorant twit" "The woman is a nightmare." "worthless degenerate puppet." and especially "##### you Caroline Wilson and ##### you other teams." as being worthwhile additions to any discussion.
Such comments don't refute her argument, they just demonstrate ones own limitations. I also suspect that if those comments had been directed at another RWOer they would probably have been deleted by the moderators under rule 6 "Play the ball, not the man".
Regardless of your evaluation of my intelligence, I have no hesitation in 'defending' the author herself from comments such as your intial post.
I am not however, defending what she wrote (I have criticised her writing on several previous occasions in this very forum), I simply suggest you refute her argument, identify factual errors in the article, etc. etc. It's so much more convincing to people reading your post than intemperate personal comments.
Last edited by Ruck'n'Roll; 20th October 2013 at 08:02 AM.
This is exactly how I see it. I cannot for the life of me see how anyone can accuse us of impropriety of any kind. We have taken a big risk with the length and size of the contract, a risk that other clubs could have taken but chose not to take, so we have to live with the consequences of that choice and they don't. I truly believe that the real problem commentators like Wilson have with this deal is that we got him and their team didn't, and that it shouldn't be possible because we're already strong. But it is possible, purely because of good management and our preparedness to take a risk.
Last edited by Bloods05; 20th October 2013 at 08:25 AM.
Victorians have a warped view on most things, but this issue they have with the swans buying a superstar that came to us intially and all above board is just one of the most bizarre and childish things i have witnessed.
After you peel all the layers, the behaviour to us signing buddy has been immature and the conversations and hurt is something i would have heard and expected from 5th graders in the playground.
There may also be a bit of "why didn't we think of that first" from some clubs. IMO, our club should never have to apologise for being excellent list managers.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Does buddy qualify as a veteran after 7 years?. So the last 2 years we get cap relief?
The childish and manipulative squarkings are coming from only a few areas of Victoria. Malthouse, Eddy and Caro, slightly seasoned by a bit of GWS. Noone else seems all that fussed.
If you've never jumped from one couch to the other to save yourself from lava then you didn't have a childhood
I know people are critical of Caro for writing about football politics rather than football, but she does know a bit about the game. And while the article is, imho, written in highly coloured prose and shows a failure to understand the nature of the bid for Buddy, I think the main thing bothering her is that the game has gone further down the corporatisation track. It took some smooth and practised business heads, especially Andrew Ireland, to put the deal together and think through the possible consequences. It is a high risk step that offers high gains - a bit like borrowing to invest - and we could come unstuck, but I trust the club on this one to foresee what needs to happen so that we make the most of our opportunity.
On Marx's view that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce, here's Jake Niall's take on the situation, though I think he is dealing with the same issues as Caro, i.e. corporatisation:
Sydney's Buddy big problem
He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)
This club goes on about two cities one team but the vitriol directed at ALL Victorian supporters in this thread is shameful. Do those of you labelling us all warped etc ever stop to think about those of us who love the swans but happen to be from Melbourne? Whether you like it or not the club loves its Melbourne heritage and its Vic supporters. Hate to think a great of South would ever read rubbish like some of the above and think its a true indication of what the club and its fans think of its South Melbourne heritage.
Alot of us speak about the bloods culture well sorry to inform those who think nothing worth praising happens outside of NSW but the players went back and embraced once being South Melbourne and have shown great respect for their clubs history. I get the hate of the melbourne media and some supporters but alot of the comments in here are just so broad seemingly everyone who loves footy in Melbourne is tarnished with the same brush.
Just on the media as well yes they are shocking down here but it goes both ways ever heard channel 9 do a Storm game? The vitriol and bias is astounding, and it happens in the print media as well, so its not mutually exclusive to melbourne journos.
Last edited by On-Baller; 20th October 2013 at 07:03 PM.
That's one of the more enjoyable Swans articles I've read in a while. The mind boggles at the thought of Malcolm Turnbull as the prez
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks