Toast Gwilt Re-Signed Until 2014

[Defacto]

Sportsnewsfirst ‏@Sportsnewsfirst
DEFENDER James Gwilt has re-signed with St Kilda until the end of 2014.

from sports new first though

 

[stkildathunda]

http://www.saints.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/5315/newsid/139530/default.aspx

DEFENDER James Gwilt has re-signed with the club until the end of 2014.

In his seventh year at the Saints, the 25-year-old said he was excited about extending his career in the red, white and black.

“I’ve re-signed for another two years, which I’m really happy about. I’ve always hoped to be a one-club player,” James Gwilt said.

“I’m feeling pretty good, I know there’s a massive opportunity for us at the moment, as a group.”

“I’m pretty happy and I’m looking forward to the challenge of the second half of the year.”

Gwilt was recruited to the club in 2004 from Noble Park in the Eastern Football League, debuting for the Saints the following year.

The defender recently made his come-back from a season ending knee injury in 2011, playing his first match this year against the Sydney Swans in Round 9.

Saints’ list manager Ameet Bains said Gwilt's re-signing was vital to the future of the St Kilda Football Club.

“James is a very important player, he’s obviously a key backman whose absence was missed in the earlier part of the year. It’s great to see him return from the knee injury and be stringing some games of footy together,” Ameet Bains said.

“He’s also vital in a leadership sense, because as our supporter base would know, James was added to our Leadership Group earlier this year.”

 

[goodie23]

Top news, keeping him out of reach of the vultures that circle free agents

 

[saintsrfreak]

 

[thomas_m18]

Good Jimmy.

Awesome news.

 

[stkildathunda]

So much for the salary cap problems Saints have faced over past 12months. Really cant stand it when we lose big name player and cant re-sign anyone. Frustrates me like nothing else

 

[stephen96]

I just realised from the video on the saints.com.au that Gwilty sounds alot like Kosi

 

[hayes]

Great to hear. Keep them coming!

 

[aussierulesrules]

So much for the salary cap problems Saints have faced over past 12months.

You're kidding aren't you? You're acting of late as though someone has stated that we won't be able to sign ANYONE, and no-one has stated anything even remotely close to that, that I've seen.

Think you're doing a Luke Nolen and celebrating a tad early. It ain't over till the fat lady sings and they're ALL resigned (that we want to resign). If that happens, then will be the time to tell them "I told you so" and act all smug.

We lost Zac last year and despite his weaknesses, he has left a huge hole at FB, that doesn't look like being filled any time soon and which could have cost us three or more wins already this season. It has probably also counted us out of this year's premiership race, as almost all the top teams have "power forwards", that we are likely to struggle big-time to contain. If we lose someone else important like that this year, it will probably set us back again, even if they're not one of our very highest priorities.

We're a long way short of celebrating having re-signed everyone and no-one has suggested that we wouldn't be able to resign anyone. It's great to celebrate Jimmy having re-signed, but we've got a long, long way to go, before it's time to stick it up anyone, by having re-signed everyone we want to.

 

[stkildathunda]

You're kidding aren't you? You're acting of late as though someone has stated that we won't be able to sign ANYONE, and no-one has stated anything even remotely close to that, that I've seen.

Think you're doing a Luke Nolen and celebrating a tad early. It ain't over till the fat lady sings and they're ALL resigned (that we want to resign). If that happens, then will be the time to tell them "I told you so" and act all smug.

We lost Zac last year and despite his weaknesses, he has left a huge hole at FB, that doesn't look like being filled any time soon and which could have cost us three or more wins already this season. It has probably also counted us out of this year's premiership race, as almost all the top teams have "power forwards", that we are likely to struggle big-time to contain. If we lose someone else important like that this year, it will probably set us back again, even if they're not one of our very highest priorities.

We're a long way short of celebrating having re-signed everyone and no-one has suggested that we wouldn't be able to resign anyone. It's great to celebrate Jimmy having re-signed, but we've got a long, long way to go, before it's time to stick it up anyone, by having re-signed everyone we want to.

Well the Herald Sun keeps making out that we wont be able to re-sign anyone and we are in dire strife with salary cap. Maybe i needed few more of to make it clearer is was joking around.

But even still when you break it down i dont think we will lose anyone because of salary cap issues, it wont be reason BJ goes if he does.

 

[Baldur]

Signing Jimmy is nice, but I will not feel happy until BJ signs

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Not normally that fussed about the English language, but I hate this use of the term "resigned" ( which means chucked your job in ) even in its slightly better correct form re-signed.
Gwilt signed up until 2014 means exactly the same thing. Anyone who doesnt realise he its not his first signing can suffer in their ignorance.

Anyway good on Jimmy. Go with the Fro.

 

[Squizz]

Maybe we need to merge into a re-signing thread?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/139576/default.aspx

The Saints have re-signed James Gwilt and Rhys Stanley in the past week after also securing Sam Fisher and Ben McEvoy earlier in the year.

Montagna, along with Lenny Hayes and Brendon Goddard among others, is still yet to put pen to paper, but he said an agreement was close to being reached.

"Not yet but it shouldn't be too far away. The club and my manager are in discussions so I'm hopeful it's not too far away,"

"I don't think anyone really wants to leave and I don't think from my understanding that anyone will leave. Obviously circumstances change and things come up but from a playing group point of view it's not something we discuss as a group that we want to stay or how everyone's going with their contracts."

 

[mysainters]

Anyway good on Jimmy. Go with the Fro.

Go the mo?

 

[stkildathunda]

Tommy Walsh left club due to salary cap issues?? Gee learn something new everyday! There I was thinking it was for more opportunity!!

 

[StFly]

We lost Zac last year and despite his weaknesses, he has left a huge hole at FB, that doesn't look like being filled any time soon and which could have cost us three or more wins already this season. It has probably also counted us out of this year's premiership race, as almost all the top teams have "power forwards", that we are likely to struggle big-time to contain. If we lose someone else important like that this year, it will probably set us back again, even if they're not one of our very highest priorities.

Strictly speaking you only lose a player when that player wishes to stay and you are unable to match offers to the contrary that tip the balance. Like Ball before him, Zac was never really intending to stay at the club the very minute there was a better offer on the table, unlike Ball, Zacs motivation was financial in nature in which there is always a ceiling effect. It's similar to Tom Scully in a way, Melbourne wanted to keep him, they basically needed to keep him, yet as soon as the finances were trumped he was out and gone and this was not a player they could or really should retain.

Tommy Walsh left club due to salary cap issues?? Gee learn something new everyday! There I was thinking it was for more opportunity!!

And what an opportunity he's getting, tearing up that Swans forward line, playing every week...

 

[Defacto]

Strictly speaking you only lose a player when that player wishes to stay and you are unable to match offers to the contrary that tip the balance. Like Ball before him, Zac was never really intending to stay at the club the very minute there was a better offer on the table, unlike Ball, Zacs motivation was financial in nature in which there is always a ceiling effect. It's similar to Tom Scully in a way, Melbourne wanted to keep him, they basically needed to keep him, yet as soon as the finances were trumped he was out and gone and this was not a player they could or really should retain.



And what an opportunity he's getting, tearing up that Swans forward line, playing every week...

heres an interesting question.

who would you rather have walsh or wilkes?

 

[Geronimo#]

What about the new hairdo!!! Mean

 

[SaintsSeptember]

heres an interesting question.

who would you rather have walsh or wilkes?

Wilkes right now. In the future, I dont know ( as usual ).

 

[IllBeTheJudge]

Well the Herald Sun keeps making out that we wont be able to re-sign anyone and we are in dire strife with salary cap. Maybe i needed few more of to make it clearer is was joking around.

But even still when you break it down i dont think we will lose anyone because of salary cap issues, it wont be reason BJ goes if he does.

You were joking around?
As well as the above, can you please add several next time, thanks

 

[IllBeTheJudge]

heres an interesting question.

who would you rather have walsh or wilkes?

here's another interesting question

why is it that if you take an ordinary set of bathroom scales and set them on a hard surface (such as the tiled floor of a bathroom. go figure) and weigh yourself, you get a different result than if you place said scales on a bathroom mat on the bathroom floor (a thick-ish bathroom mat ... almost more like a rug) and if you place the same said scales on a carpeted floor, get a different result again?

The harder the surface, the less you weigh ...

meant to ask Dr Karl yesterday but got distracted

 

[Strahany]

here's another interesting question

why is it that if you take an ordinary set of bathroom scales and set them on a hard surface (such as the tiled floor of a bathroom. go figure) and weigh yourself, you get a different result than if you place said scales on a bathroom mat on the bathroom floor (a thick-ish bathroom mat ... almost more like a rug) and if you place the same said scales on a carpeted floor, get a different result again?

The harder the surface, the less you weigh ...

meant to ask Dr Karl yesterday but got distracted

Because the scales don't measure "you". Weight is just a force generated when gravity acts upon a mass. When you step on the scales, it doesn't measure your weight force, rather the force exerted on the scales by the ground below; according to Newton's third law (every action has an equal and opposite reaction).

You get a lower reading on a softer surface due to it impairing the amount of force the floor can exert on the scales.


I'm sorry; I couldn't resist seeing if my brain still works.

 

[IllBeTheJudge]

Because the scales don't measure "you". Weight is just a force generated when gravity acts upon a mass. When you step on the scales, it doesn't measure your weight force, rather the force exerted on the scales by the ground below; according to Newton's third law (every action has an equal and opposite reaction).

You get a lower reading on a softer surface due to it impairing the amount of force the floor can exert on the scales.


I'm sorry; I couldn't resist seeing if my brain still works.

FAIL!
You actually get a higher reading on the softer surface

 

[Strahany]

FAIL!
You actually get a higher reading on the softer surface

I could have sworn it was lower....

Perhaps this "soft surface phenomenon" is only apparent with mechanical scales, as it is their internal mechanics that are impacted by the type of surface more significantly than the change in reactionary force. Digital scales have different internals.

But, hey, at least I correctly explained how a scale works!!

 

[IllBeTheJudge]

I could have sworn it was lower....

Perhaps this "soft surface phenomenon" is only apparent with mechanical scales, as it is their internal mechanics that are impacted by the type of surface more significantly than the change in reactionary force. Digital scales have different internals.

But, hey, at least I correctly explained how a scale works!!

No matter what it is, I think the moral of the story is, I need to stop eating pies