Discussion with Pete Nolan

[Suitman]

'tbh, I dig Korny's response because it does show that he's genuinely hurting and passionate about the club the thing that gets me is the continual smug, condensending and smart arsey responses from others...must be the water in Maroubra.
Reply With Quote'

well yeah, right there.:lol:;-)

You think you, or Korny, or bart or Casper are hurting any more than anyone else?
If you think that, you are an idiot.

Suity

 

[Ron Jeremy]

You think you, or Korny, or bart or Casper are hurting any more than anyone else?
If you think that, you are an idiot.

Suity

never said that all.

 

[bartman]

You think you, or Korny, or bart or Casper are hurting any more than anyone else?
If you think that, you are an idiot.

Suity

I think RJ was just referring to Staggers' implication that there was a difference between Kornstar and Maroubra's passion?

No-one hurts more or less than anyone else and as I said above, I think we're all equally passionate Eels fans, and there's no point in anyone getting too upset in what they imagine that other people think...

 

[Poupou Escobar]

tbh, I dig Korny's response because it does show that he's genuinely hurting and passionate about the club the thing that gets me is the continual smug, condensending and smart arsey responses from others...must be the water in Maroubra.

Yep. There are a few posters on here loving our current poor form. Usually when posters gloat over our failure they get moved to the Swamp. Why is this any different?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Mate, I know that - and was pointing it out to you.

Try not to ignore it in your homespun "logic" about the club's situation though?

Mate I completely understand the story you keep trying to spin:

1. The board knew they had a good coach but didn't want him because he was signed by Fitzgerald.

2. They sacked him even though they knew he was a good coach.

3. They signed Kearney because he fooled them into thinking he was a good coach.

4. Now they won't sack him because they'd rather have a coach who fooled them than one who is good at coaching.

As you can see, I know the anti-board/anti-Kearney narative well. I just can't take it seriously.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I don't know where you got your stats from nor where you derived your questions (I'm assuming you made them up) but for the sake of the exercise let's assume you are correct. Now if 90% of the fans want an answer to that question then I think they deserve one - Don't you?

No because all three of them are stupid questions.

 

[Suitman]

I think RJ was just referring to Staggers' implication that there was a difference between Kornstar and Maroubra's passion?

No-one hurts more or less than anyone else and as I said above, I think we're all equally passionate Eels fans, and there's no point in anyone getting too upset in what they imagine that other people think...

So you condone those passionate Eels fans who hope we lose so Kearney is one step closer to getting the sack?

Suity

 

[Suitman]

No because all three of them are stupid questions.

With all due respect Tony, I agree with Poupou. It would be an embarressment if any of those question were a majority decision.

Suity

 

[Tony Bongo]

No because all three of them are stupid questions.

Thank you and this is why I believe Fanlink worked. I don't consider those who take enough interest that they want answers as stupid. Nor do I underestimate the intelligence of the majority of our fans.
Again if the majority of fans are asking the same question they deserve an answer - after all the board is answerable to us whether they like it or not.
Did I personally think some of the questions asked by fans were stupid? The answer is yes - but who am I to judge when the majority wanted to know the answers?

 

[Tony Bongo]

With all due respect Tony, I agree with Poupou. It would be an embarressment if any of those question were a majority decision.

Suity

I take no offense mate and I understand where you are coming from. Some of the questions I emailed I also found personally embarrassing but the fact was that the majority supported them. In a democracy whether we like it or not the majority rules.

 

[strider]

Mate I completely understand the story you keep trying to spin:

1. The board knew they had a good coach but didn't want him because he was signed by Fitzgerald.

2. They sacked him even though they knew he was a good coach.

3. They signed Kearney because he fooled them into thinking he was a good coach.

4. Now they won't sack him because they'd rather have a coach who fooled them than one who is good at coaching.

As you can see, I know the anti-board/anti-Kearney narative well. I just can't take it seriously.

I don't know if most people think that .... here is an alternative ...

1. The board didn't think the coach was that good

2. They sounded out a coach they thought would be shit hot cos he was involved at melbourne.

3. They took the opportunity to sack the coach they didn't like so much when the chance came

4. Now, despite the results being worse, they won't sack him because they don't want to have to pay out another coach AND don't want to look like they jumped in and wrongly hired a rookie


I actually think this is what alot of people think rather than the line you and others keep on putting out there to discredit other people's views

 

[Ron Jeremy]

So you condone those passionate Eels fans who hope we lose so Kearney is one step closer to getting the sack?

Suity

its about the long term outlook, no one ideally wants to loose, but if it means SK is gone in 2 weeks then yeah, ill cop the the short term pain.

Much like my bills in the NFL i knew our season due to injuries last year, so i was content knowing we had a top 10 pick in the draft.

 

[emjaycee]

I don't know if most people think that .... here is an alternative ...

1. The board didn't think the coach was that good

2. They sounded out a coach they thought would be shit hot cos he was involved at melbourne.

3. They took the opportunity to sack the coach they didn't like so much when the chance came

4. Now, despite the results being worse, they won't sack him because they don't want to have to pay out another coach AND don't want to look like they jumped in and wrongly hired a rookie


I actually think this is what alot of people think rather than the line you and others keep on putting out there to discredit other people's views

here is an alternative ...

1. The board didn't think the coach was that good

2. They sounded out a coach they thought would be shit hot cos he was involved at melbourne.

3. They took the opportunity to sack the coach they didn't like so much when the chance came

4. Now, despite the results being worse, they won't sack him because they still believe that in the long-term, the vision and change he wants to make at the club is the right one.

 

[Tony Bongo]

here is an alternative ...

1. The board didn't think the coach was that good

2. They sounded out a coach they thought would be shit hot cos he was involved at melbourne.

3. They took the opportunity to sack the coach they didn't like so much when the chance came

4. Now, despite the results being worse, they won't sack him because they still believe that in the long-term, the vision and change he wants to make at the club is the right one.

This could make a very good thread of it's own IMO.
1. The board was voted in with a mandate for change.
2. A new broom sweeps clean and staff including DA were sacked.
3. They sought advise and through consultation and their own understanding employed a coach who was being touted as the next best thing, as well as the best recruitment manager available.
4. It became the house that Jack built.

 

[Casper The Ghost]

Mate I completely understand the story you keep trying to spin:

1. The board knew they had a good coach but didn't want him because he was signed by Fitzgerald.

2. They sacked him even though they knew he was a good coach.

3. They signed Kearney because he fooled them into thinking he was a good coach.

4. Now they won't sack him because they'd rather have a coach who fooled them than one who is good at coaching.

As you can see, I know the anti-board/anti-Kearney narative well. I just can't take it seriously.

You come up with so much bullshit Poo Poo. Where you are coming from is nowhere near the reality of most Eels fans on this forum. The issues we have are: our club ran 3rd last last year, is currently running last this year with just ONE WIN. We all need to see our club win some games and this is not being delivered by SK & co. SK is having great difficulty running the bench. SK is having great difficulty in identifying and tapping into the unique skills of each squad member and bringing out these qualities in a team game where our players can play together within attacking and defensive formations that can operate for 80 minutes. Achieving this will bring our club at least a few victories and off the bottom of the table. This is what it is all about f**kwit. We are supposed to be having some progress, instead we are experiencing regress. And you come along with all your crap in hope of distracting the majority of Eels fans on this forum. Unfortunately for you, they see right through all your propaganda.

 

[strider]

here is an alternative ...

1. The board didn't think the coach was that good

2. They sounded out a coach they thought would be shit hot cos he was involved at melbourne.

3. They took the opportunity to sack the coach they didn't like so much when the chance came

4. Now, despite the results being worse, they won't sack him because they still believe that in the long-term, the vision and change he wants to make at the club is the right one.

Thats cool .... I got no problem with that way of thinking too

The reason I posted what I posted is that I think certain people are fixated that anyone who questions Kearney has some obsession with Fitzy and DA .... and I believe that that is WAY off the mark.

 

[Eels Dude]

1. The board acted a clueless and agenda based when they first came into power.

2. The board made the decision to punt a coach because missing the finals was deemed unacceptable (look at us now)

3. The board were led to believe by the CEO and a board member who happened to also be the CEO of our major sponsor and sponsor the Kiwis as well, that SK was the greatest young coach in the game, despite not having even head coached in lower grades whasoever.

4. They won't sack him YET but are praying we start winning soon so their hand isn't forced into doing so as fans won't cop these results for much longer.

 

[Eels Dude]

I don't know where you got your stats from nor where you derived your questions (I'm assuming you made them up) but for the sake of the exercise let's assume you are correct. Now if 90% of the fans want an answer to that question then I think they deserve one - Don't you?

They're not bad questions if slightly rephrased. Those general issues are ones fans want addressed.

For example, if the first question asked was "What makes SK such a good coach, and how do you justify keeping him employed despite our current on field results". Or the second question "Please explain the concept of the structure we're trying to create and why isn't it working thus far". And the third question "Why doesn't it look like certain players aren't putting in on a week to week basis and there's no team cohesion".

 

[lingard]

True. But if there weren't problems to begin with, that individual never would have gotten a start here.



Agreed. I reckon it's almost certainly true, but there's always the possibility of doubt.



I guess we'll see. One thing we know is that he's having a proper go at fixing it.

And if he's not the right bloke he'll get the arse. That's how the system works.

And how do you think we know that?

 

[Suitman]

You come up with so much bullshit Poo Poo.

Lol, Coming from you Casper, that's one of my all time favourites on this forum.

Suity