Remove this Banner Ad

Retired #3: Paul Chapman

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Kaiser Powser said:
It is pretty much known that the offer included limited game time to increase development of the future stocks. The same can be said for the 1 year offer. Both these items were repeatedly mentioned by the press and never refuted by Geelong. So you can pretend the parts you don't like are false and that Geelong really wanted to keep Chappy, but he made a sneaky underhand deal with Thompson, if you want. Whatever makes you feel better.

And I am not merely potting Geelong, I think they are usually fantastic with this sort of thing. You put the blame squarely at Chappy's feet and needed a dose of reality. The club botched this one, Chappy should not be in red and black. I love it, but it should not be. I think Essendon botched Lloyd, many disagree with me, but I am happy to fault the club, when I feel fault lies there.
Click to expand...
Because Geelong never refuted it does not make it true. Geelong's position is that private negotiations between the club and players remain private. The one year contract is same for all 30+ aged players as I said. I have not put the blame on Chappy I have simply said there are two sides to the story, Chappy's version is in public, the GFC version is not. I do not know the truth, and I always felt that the club should have done everything to keep Chappy. I cannot say for sure that they did...or did not. It is possible Geelong ****ed up on this. At the end of the day you should be happy, like we all are, that Chappy is playing well and leave the blame and condemnation for a time when the truth might be known.
 
steady2 said:
Because Geelong never refuted it does not make it true. Geelong's position is that private negotiations between the club and players remain private. The one year contract is same for all 30+ aged players as I said. I have not put the blame on Chappy I have simply said there are two sides to the story, Chappy's version is in public, the GFC version is not. I do not know the truth, and I always felt that the club should have done everything to keep Chappy. I cannot say for sure that they did...or did not. It is possible Geelong ****** up on this. At the end of the day you should be happy, like we all are, that Chappy is playing well and leave the blame and condemnation for a time when the truth might be known.
Click to expand...

You are happy to assume that Bomber made contact and an offer to Chapman before he even began negotiations with Geelong, but aren't willing to entertain something that is basically common knowledge?

That is pretty selective.

Also you started the blame game, by suggesting that Chapman had met with Thompson and had put Geelong in a difficult possition. You insinuated that Chapman put Geelong in an impossible position, I pointed out that I felt it was more the other way around.
 
Last edited:
steady2 said:
Unlike you I can't say for sure what was said to those players and their managers in every situation, since I was not privy to the discussions, however I doubt any of those players including Chappy were told anything like that. It sounds a ridiculous story, Chappy was BOG in his last match the Qualifying Final, on the form he showed last year he was a walk in best 22, possibly best 10. Even if such a story had an atom of truth to it, all Chappy had to do was play to his best (doesn't he always?) and how could he be dropped? To my knowledge he had not been dropped in ten years, why would anyone assume he would have been dropped even in good form this year? It sounds an absurd suggestion.

I am not sure why you want to take a pot shot at Geelong over Chappy, the treatment of Josh Hunt, West and Pods was far shoddier than Chappy, and your club is clearly benefiting from Chappy's presence and yet you want to take a swing at the Cats as well?, as if Essendon's treatment of its players is beyond reproach? You don't really want to go down that road.
Click to expand...

I reckon you probably don't want to go down that road on this board, sunshine.
 
Whether or not Chappy features in our next premiership, he was a steal at the reported $$ we paid. The development, leadership he brings to our younger forward/mids and the wealth of experience will be invaluable for our next generation of stars.

I still think we can press for a premiership in the next two years, but either way you look at it.. Chappy has been a good investment by the club.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

And, given our draft sanctions, an absolute no-brainer of a recruit too. Instant and quantifiable top up of class.

The experience and leadership he brings to the table is invaluable.
 
Kaiser Powser said:
You are happy to assume that Bomber made contact and an offer to Chapman before he even began negotiations with Geelong, but aren't willing to entertain something that is basically common knowledge?

That is pretty selective.

Also you started the blame game, by suggesting that Chapman had met with Thompson and had put Geelong in a difficult possition. You insinuated that Chapman put Geelong in an impossible position, I pointed out that I felt it was more the other way around.
Click to expand...
There are two sides to the story some things seem probable and some things seem improbable, what we all choose to believe is subjective.

I did not start the 'blame game', I originally responded to Ben the Gooner who was blaming Geelong.
 
steady2 said:
There are two sides to the story some things seem probable and some things seem improbable, what we all choose to believe is subjective.

I did not start the 'blame game', I originally responded to Ben the Gooner who was blaming Geelong.
Click to expand...

Well it doesn't seem probable to me that Chapman would have actively looked to leave Geelong, unless the offer was as substandard as it is purported to be.
 
As I said in preview thread, might as well challenge the decision
 
Anyone know how they measure the impact? Where is the line between 'not sufficient contact" and low? Do they just spin a wheel?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Oh well, gives him a good week two week break and can come back for Richmond, would love to beat those campaigners and pretty much end there season
 
eth-dog said:
Nope, 125 points up to 173 points (or something like that)
Click to expand...

What's the likelihood of him getting off? I haven't seen the incident closely enough, not many get off when challenging though and will then have points hanging over his head for the rest of the season.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Halftimehero said:
What's the likelihood of him getting off? I haven't seen the incident closely enough, not many get off when challenging though and will then have points hanging over his head for the rest of the season.
Click to expand...

None, nada, nil. Take it and run. Give him 2 weeks to freshen up with the bye as well.
 
Halftimehero said:
What's the likelihood of him getting off? I haven't seen the incident closely enough, not many get off when challenging though and will then have points hanging over his head for the rest of the season.
Click to expand...

Deledio somehow got his suspension downgraded from intentional to reckless last week so anything is possible.
 
Halftimehero said:
Can't see what the can argue it down too anyway, it's obviously high impact, it was graded as low impact and reckless conduct.
Click to expand...

The only chance is negligent but jeez you are pushing it! If anything he is dead lucky to not get both incidents combined. Was utter stupidity from Chappy. Already laid a dumb bump, decides to do another one just to make sure he gets suspended!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Retired #3: Paul Chapman

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top