Recommitted Isaac Heeney

Remove this Banner Ad

TwentyNine said:
Not really. My point is that your view of how important a player is seems to be reduced by them leaving, whether that is a reduction to less important or not at all important makes no difference. Either way it's a logic loop where Sydney only loses players who are less/not important, and they are less/not important because Sydney would not lose them if they were - very convenient. The reality is: sometimes Sydney loses players they don't want to, as does every club in the league. And that's OK. But by all means, stick to a minor semantic point rather than addressing the argument I have put forward.

(At any rate, verbal jousting has become a bit dull at the stage. Cheerio and have good night.)
Click to expand...
Mate I have addressed your argument ad nauseam. Mitchell's level of importance didn't drop after he left it was known well before HE decided to leave. He was the 4th ranked midfielder on the list, was offered a new contract consummate to his place on the list, he fielded a higher $$ offer from a rival to be their 2nd ranked midfielder which Sydney chose not to match and HE decided to leave.

As you rightly say every club loses players they would 'prefer' to keep, I never said that Sydney didn't want to keep Mitchell, nor have I ever once said that Sydney doesn't lose players it wants to keep ... once again you keep changing and adding words to suit the context of your own argument.

My original point was that Sydney did what they do best and kept their 'most important' players in Kennedy, Hannebery, Parker on long term deals over Mitchell (who chose to leave for more money) safe in the knowledge that they have Heeney (whom your mob offered $1m/yr so can't be too bad) waiting in wings to play his role. As the 4th/5th Midfielder you can't expect to paid like the 1st or 2nd on the list - its that simple! Get it yet?

If you have any knowledge of how Sydney manages its list you would know that Sydney routinely lose players they would prefer to keep but are not in the top echelon of players playing their position on the list. Mitchell is not the first one to leave, players like Shane Biggs (WB), Tim Membrey (StK), Jed Lamb (GWS/CAR), Jesse White (COL), Andrejs Everett (CAR) and Toby Nankervis (RIC) just to name a few have all recently left for better $$ or offers of more opportunity ... this is the norm at Sydney.

What Sydney very rarely does is pay overs to players who are not at the top echelon of the list, the list management strategy is simple they offer what they considered fair and reasonable offers for their position and if a player decides to move on they back themselves in to have ready made players able to come into the side and perform the same role to the same acceptable level. The logic is simple, no one player is bigger than the club.

Perhaps if you weren't so pedantic in your ridiculous 'unimportant' and 'he's gone because of buddy' argument, you would actually see that its this very shrewed list management strategy why the Swans have played in 18/21 of the last final series and look very well placed for another shot at the flag in 2017.
 
Last edited:
westcoastswan said:
Mate I have addressed your argument ad nauseam. Mitchell's level of importance didn't drop after he left it was known well before HE decided to leave. He was the 4th ranked midfielder on the list, was offered a new contract consummate to his place on the list, he fielded a higher $$ offer from a rival to be their 2nd ranked midfielder which Sydney chose not to match and HE decided to leave.

As you rightly say every club loses players they would 'prefer' to keep, I never said that Sydney didn't want to keep Mitchell, nor have I ever once said that Sydney doesn't lose players it wants to keep ... once again you keep changing and adding words to suit the context of your own argument.

My original point was that Sydney did what they do best and kept their 'most important' players in Kennedy, Hannebery, Parker on long term deals over Mitchell who chose to leave for more money safe in the knowledge that they have Heeney (whom your mob offered $1m/yr so can't be too bad) waiting in wings to play his role. As the 4th/5th Midfielder you can't expect to paid like the 1st or 2nd on the list - its that simple! Get it yet?

If you have any knowledge of how Sydney manages its list you would know that Sydney routinely lose players they would prefer to keep but are not in the top echelon of players playing their position on the list. Mitchell is not the first one to leave, players like Shane Biggs (WB), Tim Membrey (StK), Jed Lamb (GWS/CAR), Jesse White (COL), Andrejs Everett (CAR) and Toby Nankervis (RIC) just to name a few have all recently left for better $$ or offers of more opportunity ... this is the norm at Sydney.

What Sydney very rarely does is pay overs to players who are not at the top echelon of the list, the list management strategy is simple they offer what they considered fair and reasonable offers for their position and if a player decides to move on they back themselves in to have ready made players able to come into the side and perform the same role to the same acceptable level. The logic is simple, no one player is bigger than the club.

Perhaps if you weren't so pedantic in your ridiculous 'unimportant' and 'he's gone because of buddy' argument, you would actually see that its this very shrewed list management strategy why the Swans have played in 18/21 of the last final series and look very well placed for another shot at the flag in 2017.
Click to expand...
Had me until the shot at the flag in 2017 line. Think Sydney will go back before they go forward again.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top