We have signed Chris Walker

[Suitman]

Not in the slightest. Fortunately I`m able to see that Anderson had some very good points as well as some not so good ones. My main problem with Daniel Anderson was that he kept selecting Mortimer in first grade, but at the same time was unable to coach any improvement into him. Now, some people have implied that Anderson wasn`t the one who was selecting Mortimer - that it was 'the board' who was selecting him. If that could be proven to be true, I would decry the board and I would think that was possibly the most stupid and irresponsible act I have ever seen from a football organisation. BUT there has been no proof of this. Just a few people 'implying' and 'theorising' about what is really a fairly improbable scenario. So, for the moment at least, I`m thinking that the head coach of the first grade team probably selected the team on a weekly basis. In which case, I think Anderson failed at improving Daniel Mortimer`s playing form. Don`t go saying I`m on an anti-Anderson crusade - that`s just grasping at tiny little straws, Bart. And, in answer to your last question, I think there is a level of blame to be attached to Hagan, Fitzgerald and Anderson. Maybe to Brian Smith as well. All of them had their good points and all of them failed in some areas. What`s your point?

If I could express the way I feel as well lingard, that's exactly what I would have written.
Problem is, it makes too much sense and is logical in the extreme.
Let's not let those ideas get in the way of cracking conspiricy theories though.

Suity

 

[The Colonel]

Please share it with us, Stagger. Please?

Teach him I cannot. The boy has no patience....:crazy:

 

[mickdo]

 

[Joshuatheeel]

Gee what was Joel thinking, I have never woken up to something as bad as that !!!!hahaha

 

[bartman]

Not in the slightest. Fortunately I`m able to see that Anderson had some very good points as well as some not so good ones. My main problem with Daniel Anderson was that he kept selecting Mortimer in first grade, but at the same time was unable to coach any improvement into him. Now, some people have implied that Anderson wasn`t the one who was selecting Mortimer - that it was 'the board' who was selecting him. If that could be proven to be true, I would decry the board and I would think that was possibly the most stupid and irresponsible act I have ever seen from a football organisation. BUT there has been no proof of this. Just a few people 'implying' and 'theorising' about what is really a fairly improbable scenario. So, for the moment at least, I`m thinking that the head coach of the first grade team probably selected the team on a weekly basis. In which case, I think Anderson failed at improving Daniel Mortimer`s playing form. Don`t go saying I`m on an anti-Anderson crusade - that`s just grasping at tiny little straws, Bart. And, in answer to your last question, I think there is a level of blame to be attached to Hagan, Fitzgerald and Anderson. Maybe to Brian Smith as well. All of them had their good points and all of them failed in some areas. What`s your point?

Fair enough, you're entitled to your view.

My view is that I'm not a fan of the way Anderson was terminated by the Board - even though (like any NRL coach, Kearney included) he had good and bad points. More than not a fan - philosophically it's an indicator of a way of doing "business" that is the opposite of the values that I personally hold important.

My point is that (in my opinion) people have tended to take issue with any criticism of the current board on here, but were more than happy to let the same (or worse) criticism of the previous board slide, or try and deflect any criticism of the current board over to other parties (and ultimately back on forum members themselves).

This tendency on these forums has admittedly lessened in the face of some howlers of quotes and actions by the current board during this year, but the prevailing reaction against any opinions critical of the current board is still quite... interesting to observe (in my opinion). It's not the same "emperors new clothes" vibe on various other Eels forums, which may (warning: unjustified theory or opinion follows....) just be an indicator of how successfully these forums were used by one party in the lead up to the previous elections?

 

[mickdo]

My point is that (in my opinion) people have tended to take issue with any criticism of the current board on here, but were more than happy to let the same (or worse) criticism of the previous board slide, or try and deflect any criticism of the current board over to other parties (and ultimately back on forum members themselves).

Oh for heavens sake Bart, some perspective please. The previous lot had 30 years.

 

[born an eel]

Oh for heavens sake Bart, some perspective please. The previous lot had 30 years.

and 4 premierships ;-)

 

[bartman]

30 years for what exactly? Is it the Board's job to deliver a premiership? They delivered 4 if that's the comparison...

No, it's the Board's job to make sure the club runs smoothly and that the on-field preparations and performance of the footy teams aren't unduly distracted by the Board's own actions.

While I thought/agree Fitzy should have put a sock in it years ago, I personally think the constant disruption of headlines (dating back to the campaigns two years ago, but sadly enduring through this season) and issues that could have been handled better reflect poorly on the current Board's term and abilities.

Again, it's just my opinion, and I share or explain it where it is called into question. Unlike some, in (re)stating my opinion in those circumstances I don't set out to dismiss differing opinions or particular forum members. And it seems to me that some (still) have a problem with any critical comments about the current Board.

 

[mickdo]

and 4 premierships ;-)

How many lately?

 

[born an eel]

How many lately?

that's right it's a new era now where you get fired after one bad year :crazy:

 

[mickdo]

30 years for what exactly? Is it the Board's job to deliver a premiership? They delivered 4 if that's the comparison...

I think part of their brief is to set the place up to be able to win premierships, of course, but it's been a long time...

No, it's the Board's job to make sure the club runs smoothly and that the on-field preparations and performance of the footy teams aren't unduly distracted by the Board's own actions.

Shame the previous board/Fitzy hadn't done that since the 80's

While I thought/agree Fitzy should have put a sock in it years ago, I personally think the constant disruption of headlines (dating back to the campaigns two years ago, but sadly enduring through this season) and issues that could have been handled better reflect poorly on the current Board's term and abilities.

And who has said it was a GOOD look exactly? FMD, you act like they should be flayed alive or something. I think you're also forgetting that the board are not necessarily the only ones behind all the headlines.

Again, it's just my opinion, and I share or explain it where it is called into question. Unlike some, in (re)stating my opinion in those circumstances I don't set out to dismiss differing opinions or particular forum members. And it seems to me that some (still) have a problem with any critical comments about the current Board.

No, I think they have a problem with comments being blown out of proportion, not surprisingly by those who were Fitzy supporters

 

[mickdo]

that's right it's a new era now where you get fired after one bad year :crazy:

one and a half...

 

[bartman]

I think part of their brief is to set the place up to be able to win premierships, of course, but it's been a long time...

We've "been able" to win premierships for a long time imo, and came close on two occasions (01, 05) without the current Board's input. I don't think the/any Board plays a big role in winning premierships... it's the players on the day when they get to the GF.

Shame the previous board/Fitzy hadn't done that since the 80's

With hindsight, I think the disruptions caused by the current Board have had more of an effect on the joint than any of Fitzy's anti-Melbourne quotes, or his (in)famous inability to guarantee the next five years.

And who has said it was a GOOD look exactly? FMD, you act like they should be flayed alive or something. I think you're also forgetting that the board are not necessarily the only ones behind all the headlines.

Well if the Board hasn't been a good look exactly, then let's just agree on it ;-)

I'm not forgetting that the headlines may not have all been due to the Board alone, but I'm also not absolving them of their part in what has been a constant since before the last elections - a level of disruption that I don't recall our club having to deal with prior to that.

No, I think they have a problem with comments being blown out of proportion, not surprisingly by those who were Fitzy supporters

Not sure if that's directed at me or others, but I'm not a Fitzy supporter, and voted for 3P majorities in both elections two years ago. However I am (personally) disappointed with the overall state of things.

It's a schoolboy error to assume anyone who has become critical or disappointed with the current Board must be or have been a Fitzy supporter.

 

[mickdo]

We've "been able" to win premierships for a long time imo, and came close on two occasions (01, 05) without the current Board's input. I don't think the/any Board plays a big role in winning premierships... it's the players on the day when they get to the GF.

Frankly 2 GFs in 20+ years isn't particularly good, and the way we capitulated in 01 almost removes it from the ledger IMO. The club has been very brittle mentally for some time.

With hindsight, I think the disruptions caused by the current Board have had more of an effect on the joint than any of Fitzy's anti-Melbourne quotes, or his (in)famous inability to guarantee the next five years.

Well of course you would

I'm not forgetting that the headlines may not have all been due to the Board alone, but I'm also not absolving them of their part in what has been a constant since before the last elections - a level of disruption that I don't recall our club having to deal with prior to that.

It hasn't been constant, but certain people have definitely tried to portray it that way. Hence my earlier comments about blowing things out of proportion.

Not sure if that's directed at me or others, but I'm not a Fitzy supporter, and voted for 3P majorities in both elections two years ago. However I am (personally) disappointed with the overall state of things.

No, sadly you're what I'd call one of those 'negative' supporters bart. You manage to focus on the dark clouds no matter how clear the sky seems to be. Don't get me wrong, there've been some dark clouds around lately (when haven't there been for Parra fans in the last 20 years), but the sky isn't black.

It's a schoolboy error to assume anyone who has become critical or disappointed with the current Board must be or have been a Fitzy supporter.

I never said you were, and finished school years ago.

 

[bartman]

Frankly 2 GFs in 20+ years isn't particularly good, and the way we capitulated in 01 almost removes it from the ledger IMO. The club has been very brittle mentally for some time.

The capitulation in 2001 wasn't far off 2009 imo. But again I don't think Boards deliver Premierships - or are responsible for a lack of Premierships either.

It hasn't been constant, but certain people have definitely tried to portray it that way. Hence my earlier comments about blowing things out of proportion.

Constant enough, or too often imo... choose whichever words you prefer. Not often have our players had to go to the media to speak out against the Board - that happened this year. :crazy:

No, sadly you're what I'd call one of those 'negative' supporters bart. You manage to focus on the dark clouds no matter how clear the sky seems to be. Don't get me wrong, there've been some dark clouds around lately (when haven't there been for Parra fans in the last 20 years), but the sky isn't black.

So I'm negative because I comment on the dark clouds, although you admit there are dark clouds there? Ok... let's not talk about what needs to improve. And let's magically change our tune from all talking ion here about what needed to be improved two years ago.... actually no, I'll stick with being consistent in the analysis thanks, instead of blinded by my own voting/participation in the last election.

I never said you were, and finished school years ago.

Just checking. Seemed very schoolish to suggest that supporters with different opinions must be Fitzy supporters? I think Fitzy stopped being a factor 18 months ago.

 

[lingard]

30 years for what exactly? Is it the Board's job to deliver a premiership? They delivered 4 if that's the comparison...

No, it's the Board's job to make sure the club runs smoothly and that the on-field preparations and performance of the footy teams aren't unduly distracted by the Board's own actions.

While I thought/agree Fitzy should have put a sock in it years ago, I personally think the constant disruption of headlines (dating back to the campaigns two years ago, but sadly enduring through this season) and issues that could have been handled better reflect poorly on the current Board's term and abilities.

Again, it's just my opinion, and I share or explain it where it is called into question. Unlike some, in (re)stating my opinion in those circumstances I don't set out to dismiss differing opinions or particular forum members. And it seems to me that some (still) have a problem with any critical comments about the current Board.

Not in the slightest. This current board - like any other - should be held accountable for their actions. Proper criticism is fine. It`s just when it gets into the realm of unsubstantiated inuendo and that I have objections. Calling the board 'cowboys and clowns', making snide remarks, implying when anything goes wrong that it is the board`s ineptitude that is the cause. If you came out and gave a balanced view of things, I don`t think anyone would have a problem. In fact, your views might gain a whole lot more credibility.

 

[bartman]

So you don't like the words cowboys and clowns Lingard. I get it... I think I might have used the words twice a few months back?

I'm not concerned with "credibility" on a forum, whatever that actually means. I appreciate that you may not have been around on here at the time of the last elections, but I think you'll find any critical comments I make about the current Board's performance pale in comparison next to the comments made previously.

And interestingly when a member has been disappointed in what has been delivered by the current Board, it seems that it's the people that made the loudest and most constant comments of a critical nature last election don't appreciate the "balance" going the other way? (Well that's my analysis for what it's worth anyway.)

There's a link below that will enable you to ignore my comments, if their "balance" isn't to your liking, or if they don't meet your personal standards of credibility. Cheers.

 

[born an eel]

Not in the slightest. This current board - like any other - should be held accountable for their actions. Proper criticism is fine. It`s just when it gets into the realm of unsubstantiated inuendo and that I have objections. Calling the board 'cowboys and clowns', making snide remarks, implying when anything goes wrong that it is the board`s ineptitude that is the cause. If you came out and gave a balanced view of things, I don`t think anyone would have a problem. In fact, your views might gain a whole lot more credibility.

I take it you have doe some research since this

That`s exactly where I`m coming from too. Hell, I don`t even know who`s on the board. I don`t even know what a board does. I don`t even care. I just hate people trying to influence others with utter, unsubstantiated bullsh*t. And then there`s the mindless idiots who follow like sheep and just believe whoever talks the loudest. Wake up, guys.

 

[mickdo]

But again I don't think Boards deliver Premierships - or are responsible for a lack of Premierships either.

They certainly have a role to play

Constant enough, or too often imo... choose whichever words you prefer. Not often have our players had to go to the media to speak out against the Board - that happened this year. :crazy:

Go to the media? I doubt very much that they went knocking on the media's door

So I'm negative because I comment on the dark clouds, although you admit there are dark clouds there? Ok... let's not talk about what needs to improve. And let's magically change our tune from all talking ion here about what needed to be improved two years ago.... actually no, I'll stick with being consistent in the analysis thanks, instead of blinded by my own voting/participation in the last election.

No, you're negative because you only comment on the dark clouds and make out as if it has been nothing but a black sky. That's the difference.

I think Fitzy stopped being a factor 18 months ago.

Really? So he didn't kick up a stink at an AGM, nor become the centrepiece of legal action? The board can do no right and Fitzy can do no wrong :lol:

 

[eels81236]

Not in the slightest. This current board - like any other - should be held accountable for their actions. Proper criticism is fine. It`s just when it gets into the realm of unsubstantiated inuendo and that I have objections. Calling the board 'cowboys and clowns', making snide remarks, implying when anything goes wrong that it is the board`s ineptitude that is the cause. If you came out and gave a balanced view of things, I don`t think anyone would have a problem. In fact, your views might gain a whole lot more credibility.

In Bart's defense...

IMO...what Bart has said re the current board pales into insignificance when compared to what he and others said about the previous lot.
It would appear as though speculation, innuendo and "guessing" has only recently been outlawed around these parts. I can only assume that everyone casting aspertions 2 years ago did indeed know undeniable facts which enabled to make such informed comments. :sarcasm:

The only difference this time around being that Bart is now in the minority and it appears that he may be upsetting a few of the boards personal friends (not talking about you personally, Ivor).

Now please don't take this the wrong way, as I am not saying that what Bart and a couple of others are saying is right or wrong, I'm just pointing out that the TYPE of comments are nothing new around these parts. It seems as though the goalposts have moved as to what is an acceptable argument and what is guessing.

It's human nature, I guess. Life will roll on regardless....