CWBush said:
How can Brian be blamed for Clint having a tantrum and deciding to leave now rather than at season's end. Smith told him he wasn't in the clubs plans for 2008 so rather than sucking it up and trying to prove management wrong - he plays his 100th game, reaches his personal milestone, and then asks for the release? Why not last week?
Brian Smith cannot be blamed for Clint's tantrum. That's precisely my point Chris:
But, I am phased by the willingness to get rid of one of our best clubmen Clint Newton albeit with him having shown no loyalty to the club that stood by him through long-term suspension and injury. What a way to repay the club. The timing of it, right after a heavy defeat, is not surprising how cowardly.
I think it was very ordinary of Clint to have pulled the pin when someone who was more of a man would have faced up to the challenge and spent the rest of the year proving it to himself, the fans and the coach that he was worth every penny. Clint has always been a bit emotional, which serves as both his greatest strength (pride in the jersey) and his greatest weakness (makes a rash choice, based purely on his emotion and his feeling wronged by being told he wasn't wanted). It was a dud choice.
FFS - this tactic doesn't work! How can you complain that he's not prepared to do the same stupid sh*t that Hagan's been doing for the past six years? We've tried the 'Newcastle juniors at all costs' approach and it hasn't worked. We've lost guys like Kennedy and Tahu and replaced them with guys like Carmont and Tanner. No other club so blindly relies on its juniors, save perhaps Brisbane, who have the better part of a state to act as their breeding ground - and even they've gone elsewhere to secure the likes of Hannant and Ennis.
I agree, losing Kennedy and Tahu was disappointing. But both were injury-proned. Whether the cause of their injuries was directly attributable to our training/rehab etc is another topic for discussion elsewhere (I tend to believe so), but the point here is that they were jettisoned because the ratio of their usefulness to their cost (including their propensity to be injured) was imbalanced.
Bear in mind that both Tahu (still regularly injured) and Kennedy (now retired because of injury) didn't get much better elsewhere.
Instead we got Carmont (who isn't a junior and who I don't have any room for in my salary cap) and Tanner (who should have been jettisoned years ago). By naming these two players you're playing hard-ball on this line of argument. The truth is: I actually agree with you. We've let some great players go and kept (or signed) some really dud players. There isn't much point providing a list, because I'd probably agree with 90% of your arguments. The real issue here is whether we should let all our juniors go (including those who are performing) and sign up big names for all key positions. It's an expensive exercise, and one that I hope Brian Smith isn't seriously considering, even in part.
The club needs a clean-out, as I said on Sunday night when you claimed I was panicking. Smith clearly sees that Hagan has done some damage to the club, and he's taking steps to remedy it.
Yep, I agree on this. But it's all about the scale of the clean-out. My mail is that Luke Walsh was being headhunted by the Bulldogs. I'll be very cranky if, in the process of focusing on a clean-out, we forget to offer a truckload of money to Walsh.
I'm saddened that it's seen guys like Newton having to leave the club - but at the end of the day, a football club is out there to win games, and not to cater to fans with nostalgic hearts.
Point taken. But changing the team sheet is one thing. Losing the soul of the club in the process is another. The Sydney Roosters have no soul, nor Melbourne. Let's not become a chequebook club, even if it means we don't have the best teamsheet. A team is all about dynamics... some of these blokes know each other so well that it would be a waste to lose the familiarity and the team bond.
If we lose Woolnough and Perry, I won't be phased either. Perry's had years to live up to his potential and grow out of his attitude problem, and doesn't look like ever doing it. Woolnough's a bench player at best, and if Penrith want to throw $250,000 at him (like their bold Worth experiment), they can have him.
Yeah, I'm not concerned about Josh Perry. Woolnough is a solid performer... albeit never having really turned into a superstar like he should have. The other one is Daniel Abraham -- great player, but a hospital-case if I've ever seen one. A family friend goes fishing with Simpson and Abraham quite regularly... I haven't told him that I now ponder whether keeping Daniel on the books is a healthy thing given his injury toll.
