Daniel Anderson eyes court action against Parramatta Eels over a payout dispute

[mickdo]

how did they have more credit than DA?

Did I say they did? I didn't vote DA out.

I should add though, I still think he had no idea how to coach us to the style of play that worked so well in late 2009, and maybe this will all turn out for the best. Only time will tell.

 

[born an eel]

Did I say they did? I didn't vote DA out.

I should add though, I still think he had no idea how to coach us to the style of play that worked so well in late 2009, and maybe this will all turn out for the best. Only time will tell.

I think it is hard for any coach when they do not have the support of the board. It is very hard to install discipline when the board do not have your back.

 

[mickdo]

I think it is hard for any coach when they do not have the support of the board. It is very hard to install discipline when the board do not have your back.

I stand by my comment that what worked for us on the field didn't fit DA's coaching style... board support or not

 

[strider]

Good post cgee221.

If my kids behaved like this current board I would spank them and send them to their rooms.

i love how you've always got an angle to come back on :lol: :lol:

 

[strider]

We don't know the details and we shouldn't be casting judgement of any kind. There is no doubting the dismissal of Anderson was handled very poorly and publicly, however every situation involving our club should be judged on its merits rather than as one big witch hunt and conspiracy theory.

Very few people have argued against that opinion. In fact, I'd suggest that a huge majority agree with it, judging by replies on this forum.

thing is, we are all agreeing they handled that poorly, and on the back of sooooo many other recent firings at the club going to court (or legal proceedings) over various things with some success from those that were fired, its hard not to imagine that the board may well be being penny pinchers in this case.

but very good post cgee .... its very true - we have no clue what is going on

 

[Maroubra Eel]

i love how you've always got an angle to come back on :lol: :lol:

It's all for good fun.:lol:

You might have already noticed that I like stirring and making stuff up. It's just for fun.

 

[born an eel]

I stand by my comment that what worked for us on the field didn't fit DA's coaching style... board support or not

that may well be the case, but I also think that that style of footy is easy to coach against once you work out how to limit the opportunities especially without a good kicking game.

We did so well in 2009 as coaches where not sure how to defend it and concentrated mainly on trying to stop hayne. For it to work in 2010 the players and coaching would have to evolve to a new level but history seems to say that safety first football is more productive in the long run.

I believe Kearney will coach more like Bennett than our flamboyant run in 2009. If anything he is showing he will go down the same path as bennett and take points whenever they are on offer, expect a big year from Burt with the boot.

 

[Gronk]

It's all for good fun.:lol:

You might have already noticed that I like stirring and making stuff up. It's just for fun.

It's just plain wrong stirring people on here. Who do you think you are ? :sarcasm:

 

[Wise Old Eel]

Just a thought (conspiracy theory :lol. A few of you have mentioned KPI’s. Perhaps Anderson’s manager (& now lawyer) is disputing the requirement for him to meet these KPI’s due to him not having the total control of the team. If this is true, it would be very difficult for the club to reduce his payout based on him not meeting these KPI’s.

For the record, I am one of those who is of the “opinion” that Daniel Anderson was not afforded total control of the team. Of course, as previously stated by others on this forum, it is ALL speculation. Only the parties involved in this whole scenario know the “truth”.

WOE

 

[SDM]

My theory is that Paul Osborne is meeting with Daniel Anderson's lawyers due to a custody dispute over who is now the legal guardian of Daniel Mortimer.
Daniel Anderson wishes to remain his guardian, but want Parra to pay child support. Osborne doesn't want to pay, and has offered him a bunk bed and all the groceries he can eat.
Mortimer does not want to live with Osborne, becasue unless he can bulk up, Ozzy's kids will keep beating him up and eating all the good food.

 

[Gronk]

My theory is that Paul Osborne is meeting with Daniel Anderson's lawyers due to a custody dispute over who is now the legal guardian of Daniel Mortimer.
Daniel Anderson wishes to remain his guardian, but want Parra to pay child support. Osborne doesn't want to pay, and has offered him a bunk bed and all the groceries he can eat.
Mortimer does not want to live with Osborne, becasue unless he can bulk up, Ozzy's kids will keep beating him up and eating all the good food.

Good point. Food would be scarce at Ozzie's house. Even worse since he stopped shop lifting.

 

[born an eel]

T

Good point. Food would be scarce at Ozzie's house. Even worse since he stopped shop lifting.

I can't believe the amount of speculation and bullsh*t that gets written in this thread,:crazy:

everyone knows that it was not shoplifting, as Roy had told Ozzie "the contract of sale would be honoured".
Ozzie expected this to mean that Roy would pay for the whole amount as was due but in reality Roy meant that he would engage the lawyers to see how much he could screw them over.:sarcasm:

 

[SDM]

I always take my lawyer to Woolies too, you never know when a big wheel of cheese is going to catch your eye and get the better of you.

 

[Casper The Ghost]

TI can't believe the amount of speculation and bullsh*t that gets written in this thread,:crazy:

everyone knows that it was not shoplifting, as Roy had told Ozzie "the contract of sale would be honoured".
Ozzie expected this to mean that Roy would pay for the whole amount as was due but in reality Roy meant that he would engage the lawyers to see how much he could screw them over.:sarcasm:

The 3P Collective

 

[ParraAds]

Good point. Food would be scarce at Ozzie's house. Even worse since he stopped shop lifting.

Oh... he stopped. Good.

 

[Haynzy]

Geeze some of you lot are pathetic.

 

[parra pete]

If Ozzie is the new Oliver Twist...(Please sir can I have some more is Roy the Artful Dodger??

 

[Suitman]

Geeze some of you lot are pathetic.

True dat.
Not often Haynzy dumps like this.
He makes a valid point.

Suity

 

[lingard]

if you are looking for intelligent debate you are in the wrong forum mate

Oh. Really? Can you show me where to go then? :lol:

 

[lingard]

To those who place angel wings and halo's around 3P & co , used as sedatives and prescripted medication to keep them at a distance from taking responsibility and doing something before it is too late....

The boy cried wolf!!!
The boy cried wolf!!!
The boy cried wolf!!!

The final time the boy cried wolf (3P are angels)..... but then it was too late.

C`mon, Casper - slip me a bit of that stuff you take when you stay up late at night. ;-)