The Swans Recruiting policy

[footyhead]

Don't fall down the ladder no matter what the cost, even if you end up only getting middle picks each year.
Draft as many midfielders as you can, try and pick up a couple of overlooked late picks or kids from NSW or Ireland or what not. Then when that does not work, once every 5 years or so, trade your early draft picks to poach another teams really good KPP, (preferably one who is searching for a little extra cash and glory)
And hey presto ! Instant mediocrity !
Result, a team that is firmly lodged in the middle to upper echelons of the Ladder who look like they might be able to be a real chance at a flag, but who in fact are just Flag pretenders/ also rans.
But at least the Sponsors are happy cos the Swans have the appearance of being contenders, and lets not forget that appearance is everything in the corporate world!
Oh and of course the administration is happy cos they can keep on patting themselves on the back that the crowds are coming to the footy, and that they are doing a good job in a difficult market.
If the Swans are ever to break this dead lock, some of the best footballing brains and most dominant people in football who truely understand the dynamics of the moodern era, will need to take over this club and give us the chance to win. Cos we sure don't have it in the medium term . The competition is just too good.
I had hoped that that would be Andrew Ireland, but it seems that the fiscal junkies have got there way again.

[liz]

Originally posted by footyhead

If the Swans are ever to break this dead lock, some of the best footballing brains and most dominant people in football who truely understand the dynamics of the moodern era, will need to take over this club and give us the chance to win.

You planning on standing for the board then?

[ugg]

This article in The Australian this morning clearly explains Roos's position on the draft. After reading it, I had no doubt we were going to draft Spriggs.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11438738%255E2722,00.html

[footyhead]

Originally posted by liz
You planning on standing for the board then?

No , the problems seem to me to be bigger than one man on the board could tackle, especially someone with a comparatively small footballing profile. it is easy to understand where they are coming from they see themselves as the guardians of the club, and we have been in a lot of dire financial straights, and they are certainly to be lauded for their achievements their in, but the footballing dept needs to be dominated by a visionary. I think a Mathews or a Malcolm Blight or Sheedy or MM, Pagan. Someone who's moral authority on all things "football" ( as opposed to business) could not be questioned and who's plans had to be implemented without tempering. We did have that in Barrasii, but he is hardly a man of the modern era (at least in footballing terms). Ron did a good job at linking us to the modern era, but now we need a genius of the modern era.
Cos we will not win the flag in the next 5 years, just look at what the other teams above us on the ladder have just done in the draft compared to us.
Look especially at Saint Kilda's drafting and trading and ports and the cats ! we are screwed.

[footyhead]

Originally posted by ugg
This article in The Australian this morning clearly explains Roos's position on the draft. After reading it, I had no doubt we were going to draft Spriggs.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11438738%255E2722,00.html
Well there are some good pionts therein, but Sprigss, and pick fifteen in what has been considerd a very even draft- being describe as "not giving up that much" ?? I think You are a little bit wrong P. Roos.

[liz]

Originally posted by footyhead
Look especially at Saint Kilda's drafting and trading and ports and the cats ! we are screwed.

So enlighten us on how St Kilda's trading and drafting of Fiora (let go by one of the worst teams in the comp), McGough (couldn't get a game in a struggling, injury ridden team) and Ackland is so special.

These players may do well, but on the face of it, it is a very similar drafting / trading strategy to the Swans claiming Jolly, Spriggs and James.

What did the Cats do this time round that earns them a spot on the pedestal, other than pay heavily for Ottens?

[footyhead]

Originally posted by liz
So enlighten us on how St Kilda's trading and drafting of Fiora (let go by one of the worst teams in the comp), McGough (couldn't get a game in a struggling, injury ridden team) and Ackland is so special.

These players may do well, but on the face of it, it is a very similar drafting / trading strategy to the Swans claiming Jolly, Spriggs and James.

What did the Cats do this time round that earns them a spot on the pedestal, other than pay heavily for Ottens?

The difference ostensibly lies in the fact that the saints already have one of the best lists of footballing talent ever assembled, and the top up of the afore mentioned players will probably ensure that they win the flag in either 2005 2006.
The same unfortunately can not be said of the Swans 2004 drafting and trading situation, and if you are insinuating that it can or that we are going to be any where near competitive with either them or Port or Geelong, then you are insane .

[chammond]

Originally posted by liz
So enlighten us on how St Kilda's trading and drafting of Fiora (let go by one of the worst teams in the comp), McGough (couldn't get a game in a struggling, injury ridden team) and Ackland is so special.

These players may do well, but on the face of it, it is a very similar drafting / trading strategy to the Swans claiming Jolly, Spriggs and James.

What did the Cats do this time round that earns them a spot on the pedestal, other than pay heavily for Ottens?

Yeah, it always makes me chuckle when I read about how brilliant St Kilda and Geelong have been at recruiting, and how their youth policies are models for the modern game.

Really, all they have been models for is rampant mediocrity . . . . gonnabes and wannabes who get every advantage but still can't cut it with the best.

Port have been by far the best performed team over the past two seasons, and their drafting policy is based on taking the best local talent first, and then topping-up with the best of what's left.

And their trading policy is usually forced on them by players who can't wait to get away from the club.

Maybe we should tell Roos to follow the Port Adelaide recruiting model if he wants to succeed?

[liz]

Originally posted by chammond

Port have been by far the best performed team over the past two seasons, and their drafting policy is based on taking the best local talent first, and then topping-up with the best of what's left.



And they are not shy in taking players who others might deem to be washed-up or mediocre players and getting them to perform solid, consistent roles - Cochrane, Mahoney, Wakelin, even Bishop and Schofield arguably fit into these categories. None is the core of their team but they are valuable nonetheless.

[Foreign Legion]

Originally posted by footyhead
The difference ostensibly lies in the fact that the saints already have one of the best lists of footballing talent ever assembled, and the top up of the afore mentioned players will probably ensure that they win the flag in either 2005 2006.
The same unfortunately can not be said of the Swans 2004 drafting and trading situation, and if you are insinuating that it can or that we are going to be any where near competitive with either them or Port or Geelong, then you are insane .

Who exactly are St.Kilda's backmen?

They have a good forward line (although it does leak a bit;) ) a good midfield but a poor defence. Don't think 1 good year means anything, afterall, a club as crappy as us beat 'em.

[SXP]

Can we have some fait in Roos and his football committee? I'm sure they'll try to find the best player possible. Our bickering here is not helping anyone.:frown

[robbieando]

Originally posted by footyhead
The difference ostensibly lies in the fact that the saints already have one of the best lists of footballing talent ever assembled, and the top up of the afore mentioned players will probably ensure that they win the flag in either 2005 2006.
The same unfortunately can not be said of the Swans 2004 drafting and trading situation, and if you are insinuating that it can or that we are going to be any where near competitive with either them or Port or Geelong, then you are insane .

So let me get this right, its OK for Geelong, Port Adelaide and St Kilda to top up their list with recycled players to win a premiership, but at the same time its not OK for the Swans to do the same????

Your logic is all over the place moron, but then again I don't expect any different from a person who thinks its OK for Geelong and Essendon to rebuild their list without early draft picks, but not OK for the Swans to do the same.

[DST]

I can't see anything wrong with our drafting today.

They picked up a young midfielder to go with the three we have drafted in the last couple of years (McVeigh/Willoughby/Schmidt). From all reports the kid is quick, gets his own footy (ie can play inside) and has good skills on both sides of his body.

We then went for a more mature age midfielder, who has pace and endurance that can help the team straight away from round 1 next year.

And finally, looking at what tall players were left they made a considered decision that Heath James was more of a safer bet next year playing as a back-up key defender.

The other key issue of today was that both Ed Clarke & Earl Shaw were both overlooked and will simply be listed by us as two of our rookie listed players.

I would have liked a young tall to be added to the list, but maybe Roos thinks that with LRT & Powell he has enough talent to work with until we can get a top 16 pick next year to draft a young tall.

DST
:D

[Mark]

Originally posted by DST
I can't see anything wrong with our drafting today.

They picked up a young midfielder to go with the three we have drafted in the last couple of years (McVeigh/Willoughby/Schmidt). From all reports the kid is quick, gets his own footy (ie can play inside) and has good skills on both sides of his body.

We then went for a more mature age midfielder, who has pace and endurance that can help the team straight away from round 1 next year.

And finally, looking at what tall players were left they made a considered decision that Heath James was more of a safer bet next year playing as a back-up key defender.

The other key issue of today was that both Ed Clarke & Earl Shaw were both overlooked and will simply be listed by us as two of our rookie listed players.

I would have liked a young tall to be added to the list, but maybe Roos thinks that with LRT & Powell he has enough talent to work with until we can get a top 16 pick next year to draft a young tall.

DST
:D

Could not agree more, it is amazing how everyone has an opinion on gun recruits they have not even seen play !

[robbieando]

Originally posted by DST
We then went for a more mature age midfielder, who has pace and endurance that can help the team straight away from round 1 next year.

Help in what way???? An outside midfielder who can't kick, that doesn't help the team in any way.


And finally, looking at what tall players were left they made a considered decision that Heath James was more of a safer bet next year playing as a back-up key defender.

Agreed, it came down to training this week and James must of put in the better show. Have no issue with selecting him.


The other key issue of today was that both Ed Clarke & Earl Shaw were both overlooked and will simply be listed by us as two of our rookie listed players.

Add Troy Bartlett to that list, who is seen by some as the better NSW kid this year.


I would have liked a young tall to be added to the list, but maybe Roos thinks that with LRT & Powell he has enough talent to work with until we can get a top 16 pick next year to draft a young tall.

It won't hurt us next season because the young tall wouldn't of played anyway, BUT in future seasons it could be any issue. Still I would think a young tall will be put on the rookie list just in case.

[timthefish]

more p1ss and wind signifying nothing.
just once footyhead in your endless stream of miserable posting whinge, could you please put forth an alternative strategy. you seem to be completely confident in the righteousness of your vision, so please share it.

what. would. you. do?

i suspect you believe in tanking. tell me i'm wrong.

i think the swans are putting faith in their present list and with good reason. the next four/five years are our window. starting this year. for picks 15, 47 and 61 we have picked three players that can play every match in that period. any kids taken with those picks would be likely no use until 2007/2008, let alone a project player such as a baby ruckman.

how i see the swans in 2005
1. we've got an awesome forward set up.
2. if a few things fall into place such as one or more of bevan, buchanan, davis, fixter or schneider slotting into the midfield we'll have the class and aggression we need there.
3. saddington and lrt will be competing for the chb position, and competing well.
4. goodsey will shrug off last year and rip back into form around the ground. who knows with ruck rule changes.

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by robbieando
Help in what way???? An outside midfielder who can't kick, that doesn't help the team in any way.


No I can't kick. I would have thought any AFL player can kick.

Enough of the sweeping generalisations. Jude can't play. Baz can't take an overhead mark to save his life. Magic's a useless cripple. And they are our good players.

From what I've read here today, the Swans have set themselves up for a decade of failure. No, we did that when we won some matches we could have lost and so missed out on first draft picks.

The consensus is that either Paul Roos and the Swans management are in the thrall of an evil plot to embrace mediocrity or they are incompetent. Or Roos is competent but is prohibited from showing it by his bosses.

The big error it appears is that we should have simply bought all the Saints players. Or the Cats. Personally, I would have aimed for the Port team but maybe we'd have to take them with their supporters.

Of course, all the naysayers are right. What the hell are our chances of gaining a premiership by trying to move above fifth place by taking on some experienced players that may improve under good coaching. No chance that'll work - look what a disaster that St Kilda thug Barry Hall has been. Better to aim for the wooden spoon for a few years and get a run-up at a premiership from there. The Tigers have got it right, we've got it wrong.

Personally, one of my delights in supporting the Swans is watching players unexpectedly bloom. I don't know who it's going to be next year but I'm looking forward to seeing it. It could be some of the established players on the team who are currently regarded as "also rans". God forbid - it could even be someone we've recently drafted!

[DST]

No matter how smug Richmond looked today in taking 5 players in the top 20 picks, I just could not stomach us losing 14 games in a row to be in that position.

And that is their fundamental problem, yes both St Kilda and now Richmond have great lists but they are built on the back of years of mediocrity at a football department, club and board level.

Recently clubs like Essendon, Roos and Port have shown that great teams can be built from middle of the road to high ladder positions when you work hard to get things right in your football department, club and board.

Since 1996 our football department has worked dam hard to make sure we put out a competitive football teams that take pride in the jumper and the club. Off the field the club has made huge inroads into making sure it is to become an entrenched part of Sydney and the AFL. The Basil Sellers office/training facility, team swans charity promotions, the foresight to get Stade de Oz to be converted into an oval so we can expand the brand into Western Sydney and the desire of the club to reconnect with it's heritage in Melbourne through a committment to a Melbourne office have all made the club stronger.

You may look at the St Kilda & Richmond list now and think wow how good would it be if they were playing for us. But hey you know what, in 5 years time these two clubs will be back to where they were before hand. Unstable boards, constant change in the football department leading too no set vision and reyling on the AFL for hand outs due to mismanagement.

A strong club which is underpinned by a committment to hard work and the processes we know that will work in Sydney will ultimately lead us to success.

DST
:D

P.S Sorry about the rant but we don't need to be like St Kilda, Richmond or anyone else to be succesful. Be ourselves and set-up our own dynasty that other clubs can copy for all they like. I beleive the current board, club executive and football department are on the right course for us.

[liz]

Originally posted by DST

And that is their fundamental problem, yes both St Kilda and now Richmond have great lists but they are built on the back of years of mediocrity at a football department, club and board level.



Richmond does not have a great list all of a sudden. All it has done is added 5 unproven teenagers plus an ageing Hawthorn discard to an uneven and underperforming squad. The players it drafted today are nothing until they get out there and prove they can cut it at the highest level.

For their sakes I hope they can but Richmond's recent list of top 10 picks is hardly something to mortgage the house on - Ottens, Fiora, Pettifer for example.

[DST]

Originally posted by liz
Richmond does not have a great list all of a sudden. All it has done is added 5 unproven teenagers plus an ageing Hawthorn discard to an uneven and underperforming squad. The players it drafted today are nothing until they get out there and prove they can cut it at the highest level.

For their sakes I hope they can but Richmond's recent list of top 10 picks is hardly something to mortgage the house on - Ottens, Fiora, Pettifer for example.

I know Liz, to early to call but they do have a decent midfield set-up of Coughlan, N Brown and Kane Johnson. Add to that a very good tap ruckman in Simmonds and if Deleido, Tambling and that winger they picked up play footy in the next couple of years then they will have a group that does look good on paper.

DST
:D

[robbieando]

Originally posted by liz
Richmond does not have a great list all of a sudden. All it has done is added 5 unproven teenagers plus an ageing Hawthorn discard to an uneven and underperforming squad. The players it drafted today are nothing until they get out there and prove they can cut it at the highest level.

For their sakes I hope they can but Richmond's recent list of top 10 picks is hardly something to mortgage the house on - Ottens, Fiora, Pettifer for example.

Agreed, come back in a year or two and lets see how Richmond benefited form this years draft.

On St Kilda, they got lucky with what they got from "tanking". How lucky were they to be the only team with a priority pick in 2000 when Riewoldt and Koschitzke were the two standout players available.

Also consider that the year before and the years since that two key position haven't been any where near that standard. Then how lucky were they in 2002 when the got Goddard when they moved up to the first pick from pick 3 the night before the draft.

Also consider that NO team has won a premiership with a player taken with priority pick. Luck plays a big role in the early picks and they NEVER promise you anything. The Swans could tank 3 years and get all the early picks to go along with that and yet still not end up anywhere near a premiership, a fact many forget.

[footyhead]

All I will say is : it was a mistake to trade away our first round pick. generaly getting highish picks in the draft is the way to go. (if you look at-at least the last 3 years drafts most teams above us had picks in the draft higher than us). I don't care what reasons you want to give for our situation, but I think it is untenable, at least in terms of winning a premiership. I am sure that we will be comparitivley competative, as this is what the Swans "Buisness" plan is based on, but we will not win the flag within the next 5 years directly as a result of the type of decisions that we saw enacted today.
As for the performance of teams like the saints and Geelong and even richmond- well I will see you about that in 2009.
By then I would hope that most of you have reached the end of your tether, with regards to the Swans "almost" being a real contender.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by footyhead
generaly getting highish picks in the draft is the way to go.

Proven that that just isn't the case. Since the 1999 National Draft the following clubs have had a pick in the first 5 in a draft.

1999 - Collingwood, Fremantle x3 and Richmond
2000 - St Kilda x2, Collingwood, and Carlton
2001 - Hawthorn, St Kilda x2, West Coast and Fremantle
2002 - St Kilda, Kangaroos, Brisbane, Western Bulldogs and Sydney
2003 - Western Bulldogs x 2, Carlton and Melbourne x2

Of these Club only Brisbane have won a premiership in this time, however Jared Brennan, had little impact on their premiership, nor did he play in the Grand Final. Collingwood is the only other team to make a Grand Final since their Top 5 selections and those selects got them Fraser and Didak, both of whom weren't the reason why Collingwood made 2 Grand Finals. Of the rest only Richmond, Sydney and St Kilda have made Premlinary Finals with only St Kilda having any of their Top 5 selections in the team.

So again, since when is an early draft pick the way to go???



(if you look at-at least the last 3 years drafts most teams above us had picks in the draft higher than us)

In 2002, the 4 teams that had picks before our first, all finished below us on the ladder and therefore were entited to have picks higher than us. The next season we also finished above all four teams that selected before us.

In 2003, the teams that finished above us in Collingwood and Brisbane had their first selections after we had our first. With the exception of Brisbane who went to their 4th GF in a row, we finished above Collingwood.

This season we traded away our first pick, therefore the teams that finished above us had selections before our first. But if we kept our first round, only Port would of gone before us having traded for the selection 11.


I don't care what reasons you want to give for our situation, but I think it is untenable, at least in terms of winning a premiership.

Of course you don't care what reasons we have, but thats because those reasons we give, make you look like a even bigger fool.


I am sure that we will be comparitivley competative, as this is what the Swans "Buisness" plan is based on

How would you know what the Swans business plan even is??? Anyway, no club plans to finish low down on the ladder, which is clearly what you want them to do.


but we will not win the flag within the next 5 years directly as a result of the type of decisions that we saw enacted today.

I'm sure our decisions today will be the overwhelming reason why we didn't win a premiership if we don't win one within the 5 years:rolleyes:

In short FH, you have no idea what you are talking about. You produce no facts or evidence to support your claims, nor do you even use logic to try and get yourself out of trouble when your rants are shot to pieces. You also haven't given a single suggestion of how the Swans should go about rebuilding and winning a premiership.

No one here is saying we WILL win a premiership within 5 years, but we are saying that we have a team that COULD win one within 5 years. Still I guess it must suck to be you. Bitter people normally are.

[footyhead]

What a nasty nasty man you are turning into.
Cheer Cheer

By the way Robbie you may not like or agree with what I say, but by reducing your argument to personal attacks with invective, you show your true colours.
So could you please try to elevate your antagonistic language a little. Personal attacks should be saved for the school yard.


Originally posted by robbieando

No one here is saying we WILL win a premiership within 5 years, but we are saying that we have a team that COULD win one within 5 years. Still I guess it must suck to be you. Bitter people normally are.

PS, All the teams in the AFL, and certainly most of the supporters would say that they COULD win a preiership within the next 5 years, that does not change the fact that the Swans won't.

[Dpw]

Originally posted by footyhead
What a nasty nasty man you are turning into.
Cheer Cheer

By the way Robbie you may not like or agree with what I say, but by reducing your argument to personal attacks with invective, you show your true colours.
So could you please try to elevate your antagonistic language a little. Personal attacks should be saved for the school yard.



PS, All the teams in the AFL, and certainly most of the supporters would say that they COULD win a preiership within the next 5 years, that does not change the fact that the Swans won't.

what a joke you are footyhead, you dodged all the points that Robbie raised and then turned his post into something it wasnt. how about addressing the points and then trying to put forward a plan stating how you would like it done and why its better?
untill you do that people will just keep dismissing most of your posts as rubbish.

[timthefish]

Originally posted by footyhead
you may not like or agree with what I say

YOU NEVER SAY ANYTHING!! i ask again, what is it you believe should be done? whom should we have taken with pick 15 and why? what would you have done about our urgent need for a ruckman come 2006 or the next knee injury? which players would you have taken with picks 47 and 61 that would be ready for full-time senior football in 2006?

apt moniker you have - leather filled with stale gas.

[Kallias]

Originally posted by footyhead



PS, All the teams in the AFL, and certainly most of the supporters would say that they COULD win a preiership within the next 5 years, that does not change the fact that the Swans won't.

How is that a fact? How can a prediction, or 5 predictions, be fact?

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by timthefish
YOU NEVER SAY ANYTHING!! i ask again, what is it you believe should be done? whom should we have taken with pick 15 and why? what would you have done about our urgent need for a ruckman come 2006 or the next knee injury? which players would you have taken with picks 47 and 61 that would be ready for full-time senior football in 2006?

apt moniker you have - leather filled with stale gas.

Here here. I think Roos wanted a back up ruckman, and the choice has apparently come down to Jolly versus Woods (picked at 18 by Brisbane). A proven 23 yr old with experience and bulk, versus a complete unknown with another 5yrs to go to even get to Jolly in experience. I prefer our decision.

Plus, by all reports, we snagged an absolute gun at 31 anyway (BOG in the U-18 championship final) who is very close to senior footy already. Add some top class youngsters who missed out in the draft to our rookie list, and its a list that has just as much potential as anyone else.

The beauty of footyhead's arguments is that he feels he has nothing to lose by the line of argument, and in fact neither do we. If the Swans dont win a premiership, he feels chipper in his black pessimism, and for us nothing changes anyway. If we win one, we will all laugh at him, and he will ignore it and say it was a fluke... therefore he is still right. Win win I say.

[chammond]

Originally posted by footyhead
By the way Robbie you may not like or agree with what I say, but by reducing your argument to personal attacks with invective, you show your true colours.
So could you please try to elevate your antagonistic language a little. Personal attacks should be saved for the school yard.


Better get the dictionary out again Fhead. Robbie doesn't use invective. He uses facts to prove that you are a half-wit. There is a difference.

And there's not an asterisk anywhere!

[robbieando]

Originally posted by footyhead
By the way Robbie you may not like or agree with what I say, but by reducing your argument to personal attacks with invective, you show your true colours.
So could you please try to elevate your antagonistic language a little. Personal attacks should be saved for the school yard.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, thats some funny **** right there. Since when has making you look you like a fool, by using facts become a personal attack?? I think you need to pull your head out of your arse, because the ****s starting to play with your mind.


PS, All the teams in the AFL, and certainly most of the supporters would say that they COULD win a preiership within the next 5 years, that does not change the fact that the Swans won't.

So again, its OK that other teams say they can win a premiership within five years when at least 10 teams won't, yet its not OK for the Swans to do it??? Again your logic is all over the place and makes you look like a twat.

[swansrule100]

Originally posted by footyhead
What a nasty nasty man you are turning into.
Cheer Cheer

By the way Robbie you may not like or agree with what I say, but by reducing your argument to personal attacks with invective, you show your true colours.
So could you please try to elevate your antagonistic language a little. Personal attacks should be saved for the school yard.



PS, All the teams in the AFL, and certainly most of the supporters would say that they COULD win a preiership within the next 5 years, that does not change the fact that the Swans won't.


why are u going for the swans?? u dont seem to like or support them

[mocaholic]

Hey Bloodsports,

WHAT IS YOUR SUGGESTION AS TO BRINGING HOME A FLAG? In this forum plus on BF you have not once given an alternative.

A troll is all.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by footyhead
Look especially at Saint Kilda's drafting and trading and ports and the cats ! we are screwed.

Geelong: Spriggs at pick 15. Us: Spriggs at pick 47. Their recruiting is so much smarter.

St Kilda: They gave us Hall, they have Gehrig. LOL @ St Kilda.

[footyhead]

Originally posted by Dpw
what a joke you are footyhead, you dodged all the points that Robbie raised and then turned his post into something it wasnt. how about addressing the points and then trying to put forward a plan stating how you would like it done and why its better?
untill you do that people will just keep dismissing most of your posts as rubbish.

That is the classic control freak tactic, "Others may have there opinion, but they have to stick to the logic, or rules that I (the control freak) am putting forward".
This is a forum for discussion.
Who said that the rules were that you have to put forward something other than a critisism to be legitimate ?
Thats just a way for Robbie to keep his hopes alive that the Swans might be heading in the right direction. "oh this fool says..... but he offers no alternatives, therefore he's just a f'ing idiot who ... Blah blah blah.
Well say what you will, all I'm saying is that the Swans won't win the flag in the next five years, because they have fallen into the bad ways of old habits. Don't agree ? Fair enough , but don't resort to calling me names, and don't fool your self that you have the right to demand that others do anything.

[mocaholic]

Originally posted by footyhead
That is the classic control freak tactic, "Others may have there opinion, but they have to stick to the logic, or rules that I (the control freak) am putting forward".
This is a forum for discussion.
Who said that the rules were that you have to put forward something other than a critisism to be legitimate ?
Thats just a way for Robbie to keep his hopes alive that the Swans might be heading in the right direction. "oh this fool says..... but he offers no alternatives, therefore he's just a f'ing idiot who ... Blah blah blah.
Well say what you will, all I'm saying is that the Swans won't win the flag in the next five years, because they have fallen into the bad ways of old habits. Don't agree ? Fair enough , but don't resort to calling me names, and don't fool your self that you have the right to demand that others do anything.
Hey F'Head - I've got a proposal for you:

If Sydney don't win a flag up to and including 2009, you can come back to this forum and slag the lot of us. I'll eat humble pie too. But till then, you vanish.

[footyhead]

[i]... If we win one, we will all laugh at him, and he will ignore it and say it was a fluke... therefore he is still right. Win win I say. [/B]

What you don't understand, is that if I am wrong and we do win the flag, I will be as ahppy as anyone, and will be more than prepared to admit I was wrong, In fact I hope I am.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by footyhead
Don't fall down the ladder

Are you seriously critical of this plan?

[footyhead]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Are you seriously critical of this plan?
Many people here and else where have said things to the effect- that the swans precarious commercial situation, is having an undue negative affect on the Swans footballing dept.

[mocaholic]

Originally posted by footyhead
Many people here and else where have said things to the effect- that the swans precarious commercial situation, is having an undue negative affect on the Swans footballing dept.
So....answer the question.

[footyhead]

Originally posted by mocaholic
So....answer the question.

One minuet you are telling me to vanish till 2009 the next you are telling me to answer questions.

May I respectfully tell you to get stuffed.
I am not your bitch, bitch.

[mocaholic]

Originally posted by footyhead
One minuet you are telling me to vanish till 2009 the next you are telling me to answer questions.

May I respectfully tell you to get stuffed.
I am not your bitch, bitch.
The desire to get rid of you was an obviously vain hope.




Answer the question.

[timthefish]

Originally posted by footyhead
This is a forum for discussion.


precisely. how about if it's put in these terms....

"The swans are making intelligent decisions concerning team management and recruitment with the intent of having a serious shake at the premiership over the next five years. Discuss."

Your basic assertion is "NO", and you have cited a single example of trading pick 15 for jolly as an error demonstrating this. These are merely assertions without discussion. Obvious avenues of discussion following from these would be

1. Jolly is not worth pick 15
2. Player X in the draft would have been a better option.
3. The solution to our looming ruck deficiency would be better addressed by
a) grooming draftees
b) scouting local/country leagues
c) stacking dwarves.

do you get it? you have not discussed your assertions to any degree beyond superficial conjecture. that is not discussion by any reasonable definition.

[mocaholic]

Originally posted by timthefish
precisely. how about if it's put in these terms....

"The swans are making intelligent decisions concerning team management and recruitment with the intent of having a serious shake at the premiership over the next five years. Discuss."

Your basic assertion is "NO", and you have cited a single example of trading pick 15 for jolly as an error demonstrating this. These are merely assertions without discussion. Obvious avenues of discussion following from these would be

1. Jolly is not worth pick 15
2. Player X in the draft would have been a better option.
3. The solution to our looming ruck deficiency would be better addressed by
a) grooming draftees
b) scouting local/country leagues
c) stacking dwarves.

do you get it? you have not discussed your assertions to any degree beyond superficial conjecture. that is not discussion by any reasonable definition.
- If I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
- Yes, but that isn't just saying "no it isn't"
- Yes it is.

Give it up Tim. Waste of time I reckon.

[timthefish]

Originally posted by mocaholic
- If I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
- Yes, but that isn't just saying "no it isn't"
- Yes it is.

Give it up Tim. Waste of time I reckon.

had the same thought halfway through the message.

[Benevolent Ert]

- No it isn't, an argument is an intellectual process... contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

- No it isn't.

- Yes it is.

- Not at all.

Ah such fun - and always so applicable on forums like this!!!

[footyhead]

Indeed, that is what everybody is ulitimatley doing anyway. Especially here, and especially Swans fans.

[Sanecow]

No we're not.

[footyhead]

yes you are

[Sanecow]

You are mistaken!

[footyhead]

You are.

[Sanecow]

I know you are, but what am I?

[swansrule100]

id like to buy an arguement please

[desredandwhite]

Obviously this argument isn't going anywhere. Gee, off-season IS long and dull :)