Slothfield vs Gould

[Lambretta]

Rothfield's attacks on Phil Gould only serve to show how little original thought he has to offer.

Play the ball not the player is a quote often made by a moderator on another forum and it's so true.

Attacking another individual for voicing an opinion is the domain of the petty minded. In his blog today Rothfield was carrying on about Gould's opinion regarding the NRL and the salary cap.

Well, what would you expect another journalist writing about Rugby League to talk about? Does Rothfield want Gould to ignore an issue he's been really passionate about for a long time, at a time when that issue is causing a massive amount of controvesy? Seriously?

What would he rather Mr Gould had talked about in his newspaper columns and on the media programmes he is paid to work on for his comments?

Does he expect Mr Gould to say "no comment" or "I'm not sure, I think I might need to ring Mr Rothfield to see what he thinks before I form my own opinion" or does he expect him to ignore the issue altogther to discuss the new flower beds that have been planted near the SFS.

I should expect a higher degree of professionalism from a journalist that is paid to provide opinions on issues not continued, petty personal attacks on a rival newspapers journalist.

 

[Marshall_magic]

I remember last year Slothfield did a blog about Tim Sheens, that night Sheens called him up to ask what the deal was (he basically bashed Sheens all day). Slothfield replied by telling Sheens how he should coach the side.

Now I'm not the biggest Sheens fan in the world, but I'd have him coaching us ahead of that rosey cheeked f**kstick any day of the year.

 

[Lambretta]

Now I'm not the biggest Sheens fan in the world, but I'd have him coaching us ahead of that rosey cheeked f**kstick any day of the year.

Those "rosey" cheeks are a sign of alcohol abuse.

Long term alcohol abuse effects the mind. Most heavy drinkers have an inflated sense of their own opinions when they probably shouldnt have.

They also tend to repeat themselves ad-neaseum, which explains why Mr Rothfield is constantly attacking Phil Gould.

(and probably why I am constantly defending him)

 

[TheDalek079]

I'd love to see a boxing fight between these two

 

[Brutus]

WTF is an Editor at Large?

It's better than the Executive Editor which was his former title.

Basically, his job is a joke and they can pretty much call it whatever they like.

If they called the title of his job 'Plant Fiddler' then it really wouldn't matter. It's all rather insignificant.

 

[Brutus]

Its like a choice between fingers down a chalkboard or a frog in a blender

Paul Adams went ok before opposition batsmen started to work him out.

 

[Brutus]

If you keep asking the same stock standard questions why be surprised at getting the same answers?

Many of the questions have validity.

Obviously you've been sucked in the by News LTD spin.

There have been some burning issues in the game put to Gallop over the last few years from expansion, to broadcast rights and coverage in Melb and the responses have been repetitive and piss poor.

 

[yawn]

They need to get Gus Gould's audible chocolate into the public domain far far more.

The man is awesome.

He's a charismatic enabler.

 

[Brutus]

Have a look at Rothfeldsman.

That's what Ricky Stuart will look like in 25 years.

 

[Red&BlackBear]

Douchefield is a knob shiner... just a journo who believe they are better to the game then someone with 40 years experience... yes Gould can be a toad at times but he still knows the game intensively! That alone should be respected!.

 

[Brutus]

Rothfeldsman likes to discredit Gould opinions on how to improve the game off the field simply because it goes against the company line.

 

[Brutus]

They've stripped about 150 votes off the 'no' vote in the Telegraph's "Is Gus Gould bad for the game" poll. They did in the last hour or so. It conveniently puts the no vote down to 46 percent.

I know it's a who cares type of thing, but it shows what a joke this mob are and the games they play to get their agenda out there.

 

[adamkungl]

:lol: poll editing. fmd they're pathetic

 

[Usain Bolt]

They've stripped about 150 votes off the 'no' vote in the Telegraph's "Is Gus Gould bad for the game" poll. They did in the last hour or so. It conveniently puts the no vote down to 46 percent.

I know it's a who cares type of thing, but it shows what a joke this mob are and the games they play to get their agenda out there.

I dont know what is worse, them deleting votes or you actually monitoring that vote and caring enough to post about it

 

[Brutus]

I dont know what is worse, them deleting votes or you actually monitoring that vote and caring enough to post about it

I looked at the poll twice and noticed the discrepancy.

At least you now know their polls are about as genuine as a Krudd election promise.

 

[aqua_duck]

Gould is agenda driven, and bias towards those who he likes, to a fault I believe. He's also a Bill O'Reilly (the US fox news guy, not the australian sportsman) type of person where he's so pig headed and simple that he doesn't allow for other ideas to breathe. There is no way that his ideas regarding the Melbourne Storm salary cap scandal would work in an accounting sense, nor in a legal sense...Moreover the $4.3 million dollar salary cap caters for the top 25 players, so you can't simply say "here! choose $4.1 million dollars worth of players and cut the rest". It doesn't work like that at all.

Rothfield on the other hand is a sensationalist, a person who thrives on scandal, almost like a politician. He gets a story out of catching on to the smallest fact and then beats it up like it's the biggest controversy to occur.

Both are necessary evils unfortunately.

I don't see how Slothfield is necessary, he's a dribbler of the highest order who's probably never played rugby league in his life and would get killed if he ever tried to. I don't hold his opinion in any higher regard than a everyday punter at the pub.
Gould has atleast played the game (104 first grade games in respectable enough), and was one of the best coaches of his time.
If they ever put the 2 in the ring, Gus would beat 6 shades of purple into the merkin, hell I reckon Bourban Bec would put up a better fight after a 6 pack of Woodstock and Cola

 

[Patorick]

Have a look at Rothfeldsman.

That's what Ricky Stuart will look like in 25 years.

 

[fred92]

I tuned in to the footy show to find out what David Gallop had to say but wasn't able to because Gould talked over him all the time.

Gould wanted a peice of Gallop, and grabbed it with both hands. Gallop was visually looking like a man that wished he were somewhere other than a television studio being agressively interrogated by a man with superior knowledge, intelligence and true passion for the game. one man was talking of a vision for the future of Rugby League while the other could only spruik the tired old company line. This was one of the most one sided debates and I just wish I had taped it.

 

[Fathead]

Well at the end of the day it must be said - Gould knows a thing or two about football but absolutely nothing about administration.
His attack on Gallop was abhorrent.

 

[Fathead]

Those "rosey" cheeks are a sign of alcohol abuse.

Long term alcohol abuse effects the mind. Most heavy drinkers have an inflated sense of their own opinions when they probably shouldnt have.

They also tend to repeat themselves ad-neaseum, which explains why Mr Rothfield is constantly attacking Phil Gould.

(and probably why I am constantly defending him)

Mate its called make up !! Have you ever met Gus ?? Gus has the reddest cheeks in the world ! When I last saw him , I thought he was ready to collapse.