Far Kern
Rat
GM. I’ll guess that he got in first and your bloke had a big sook a few years later.Who is this man and why has he stolen the name of one of heavens angels?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
GM. I’ll guess that he got in first and your bloke had a big sook a few years later.Who is this man and why has he stolen the name of one of heavens angels?
Come now. Richo never sooked. Not once. Never.GM. I’ll guess that he got in first and your bloke had a big sook a few years later.
Even the feedback KT received face to face about co-captains at the Inside Port Adelaide Live event in February was completely ignored.
Even more so if he or his management have been 'shopping'.If true, offering captaincy in contract negotiations is a real get what you deserve moment.
Not sure if serious.In fairness, reversing the co-captains decision in this way would have set a very dangerous precedent. There are a many decisions, captaincy among them, that must be left to the football department. Having management intervene in these decisions on behalf of members/fans is a bad idea. ....
Based on what evidence do you claim that having co-captains gives us the best chance of winning a premiership?... As much as I love our club's history and value it's traditions, if "we exist to win premierships", and a well run football program tells us that co-captains give us the best chance to win a premiership, then so be it. ...
Pretty sure that was part of the negotiations to convince Boak to stay.If true, offering captaincy in contract negotiations is a real get what you deserve moment.
The way I heard the process of deciding on the co-captain issue is somewhat different than the football department being too involved as stated / presumed. Six months before Boak resigned as captain, I was told in confidence that he was prepared to resign the captaincy in order for Wines to re-sign his contract during 2018 and as a carrot, the captaincy offer was used to gain the signature which was supported by the coach. When the time came, unnamed people did not consider Wines quite ready for the role, and suggested a co-captaincy arrangement. I was told the team selected the other. Both were then approved by the football department. One captain was wanted by the coach, the other wanted by the players. The club sent out feelers re co-captains but had no intention of listening to members because the promise and decision had already been made, even prior to a skiing accident.
The club has never explained in any detail exactly how having co-captains could increase the chance of more wins or playing finals, winning a premiership. They just said it would in the hope of silencing the members and supporters due to the very unpopular decision. If a statement is made but then not qualified, I question the statement. For me, so be it is not quite good enough.
.
The way I heard the process of deciding on the co-captain issue is somewhat different than the football department being too involved as stated / presumed.
Not sure if serious.
Based on what evidence do you claim that having co-captains gives us the best chance of winning a premiership?
How'd that work out?
If a statement is made but then not qualified, I question the statement.
Management protecting time honoured club traditions is not "interfering with the football department".Organisationally, don't the players sit within the football department?
Once management starts interfering with the football department, it can be damaging, and difficult for them to stop. That sort of interference is what saw Jack Watts debut in the Queen's Birthday game, for instance.
None, because I didn't claim that. "If" was the operative word in that sentence.
Either you missed or misunderstood the second to last paragraph of my post.
Again, I said that our handling of the co-captains decision was not evidence based. "So be it" is predicated on the expectation that a well run football department would be able to justify their decision.
Thursday.Any updates on how this went from those attending? FishingRick04
What part of having co-captains increased our chances of winning the flag in 2019 did I misunderstand?
So Hinkley trashed 148 years of tradition for no noticeable gain. You are saying it actually had a negative impact. This is why I find your idea of having football departments make these far reaching decisions totally unacceptable.I never said it did.
I said it either decreased our chances, or it had a negligible effect because we are not close to winning a flag.
So Hinkley trashed 148 years of tradition for no noticeable gain. You are saying it actually had a negative impact. This is why I find your idea of having football departments make these far reaching decisions totally unacceptable.
In response to my post regarding the co-captains decision;..
I never said co-captains was a decision I was happy for our football department to make.
..... There are a many decisions, captaincy among them, that must be left to the football department. Having management intervene in these decisions on behalf of members/fans is a bad idea. ....
In response to my post regarding the co-captains decision;
Apologies, I thought it was yesterday.Thursday.