No Oppo Supporters Re-signing Tex, Danger and Sloane *** Crows Only ***

Your thoughts on Dangerfield?


  • Total voters
    684

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

I ******* love this thread!

I hope it never ends and after Danger is all signed on for another 2 years, we just change the thread title to include other players :D

So entertaining

This thread is a great study in the effects the media have on sports supporters.


If you want to create debate and/or sell print or digital they just simply need to make stories up claiming they have sources with no accountability. This whips up hysteria and we all hang on what the next unaccountable story says about the subject. Then we all jump on another meaningless story. Rinse and repeat till something actually happens. Then move on to the next story.

As Schulzenfest said on the Port board. The Geelong Advertiser and our Advertiser are owned by the same people, yet reporting the Dangerfield story in a manner to appease their local market.


It is so laughable, yet too many people take it so seriously.
 
Did Bicks suggest he is staying on a two year deal on AA tonight.

Rowie hinting at it near the end of the Lingy interview I caught driving home.
Nah mate....he said he still thinks he is staying. Cameron Ling thinks Danger will stay at the Crows too....but has no knowledge either way.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

So what is your explanation as to why he isn't in there then?

Even if the club doesn't have to approve it (bollocks), then why wouldn't this third party independent Chinese manufacturer who apparently do not know a thing about P Dangerfield include him in the calendar? Given he is our best player.

There is obviously huge public speculation about Dangerfield, and whether he's staying or going. The media have gone with the he's going angle, which wouldn't be too hard for the printing company to find out. Given their complete utensil ups of recent calendars, I'm guessing they are now being careful about using images of players that are publicly expected to leave.

Jed Adcock is on the cover of Brisbane's 2016 calendar. We know that he isn't going to be at Brisbane next year, and that was a decision made by the club, rather than the player. If the club controlled what their calendar looked like, do you think he'd be on the cover of it?

He may be counting down the seconds until he's back in Moggs Creek, but I don't think his absence from a calendar that isn't produced by the club is of any relevance to that situation.
 
168350_88e61c91d19eaf36fdffa2c928e42f60.jpg


Those sneaky Cats. Telling everyone their players are retiring when they're clearly playing on in 2016 according to their official 2016 calendar.

Bloody incompetent Chineesees, they left Patrick Dangerfield off of that calender???
Geelong board must be filthy. Revoke the F.T.A at once I say!
 
There is obviously huge public speculation about Dangerfield, and whether he's staying or going. The media have gone with the he's going angle, which wouldn't be too hard for the printing company to find out. Given their complete utensil ups of recent calendars, I'm guessing they are now being careful about using images of players that are publicly expected to leave.

Jed Adcock is on the cover of Brisbane's 2016 calendar. We know that he isn't going to be at Brisbane next year, and that was a decision made by the club, rather than the player. If the club controlled what their calendar looked like, do you think he'd be on the cover of it?

He may be counting down the seconds until he's back in Moggs Creek, but I don't think his absence from a calendar that isn't produced by the club is of any relevance to that situation.
I just think that a pretty big distinction exists between leaving someone off a calendar, and including someone who may not be there (in this case, won't).

I would feel more comfortable if they left Eddie or Tex out too.

Anyway, it's all trivial I guess
 
Here is lingy during FiveAA, I'm not to sure what's said -

Not sure what Rowie is on - he says Danger is on the front of the Geelong calendar, which he isn't.

Lingy: "I haven't heard much. My sense, my feel from afar is that I'm erring to him staying... Whether he stays or goes I don;t know, but having gone through all that [Walsh] if you put me on the spot I'd say, "Stays", But I really got no idea"
 
I just think that a pretty big distinction exists between leaving someone off a calendar, and including someone who may not be there (in this case, won't).

I would feel more comfortable if they left Eddie or Tex out too.

Anyway, it's all trivial I guess
Well, from the calendar people's POV, put him on and you've got a 50/50 chance of it being wrong. Leave him out and it's correct no matter what.
 
Just listened to it Rowe is like to bicks your guaranteeing me he's staying on a 2 year deal, bicks is like i haven't gone that hard then asked lingy and lingy said he's leaning towards staying.
 
Well, from the calendar people's POV, put him on and you've got a 50/50 chance of it being wrong. Leave him out and it's correct no matter what.
I'd be far more inclined to believe this if they took the same approach to out of contract players at other clubs - Henderson is in Carlton's, Adcock is in Brisbane's, and as some bellend pointed out earlier, there's half a dozen guys in Geelong's who won't be playing in 2016. Danger seems to be the only guy who's been left out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top