Rumour *Separated discussion* Board, Mick, Rogers, whiteanting, powerbrokers, competency or lack thereof

Remove this Banner Ad

There are no 'whales' who gamble significant large sums via pokies - they prefer to sit down and play the stupidest game ever invented - baccarat.

I wasn't drawing a comparison between big-spending casino-goers and big-spending pokie players, there's no point as it's a whole different ball game. But there's still rich guys who sit and lose thousands a day on pokies. I know because I've seen it.

And I just googled Baccarat and am baffled!

As Knavey has pointed out, we are talking about whales in terms of pokies, not people who are in the mahogany room at crown (although there are crossovers, as gamblers love to gamble) betting tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands at a time. The limits in terms of max bets, minimum spin revolution times and in house policies such as one machine per customer at a time when playing pokies in this state outside of casinos, stops this type of extremely high limit betting, but they money still comes. The new wave of high limit pokies play is when people win a large sum, either in free spins, features or otherwise, and use the 'gamble' feature, which for those unfamiliar with it is the option to gamble any 'win' amount by choosing a colour :)clubs::spades: or :diamonds::hearts: ~ 2-1) or individual suit :)hearts:, :diamonds:, :spades:. :clubs: ~ 4-1). Players have started scoping out people who are winning large amounts and paying them for their machine / seat the amount the machine is currently in credit for and placing a gamble bet for that big risk feeling. I've seen someone gamble a $1500 credit win on a 4-1 shot. Scary.

Saying there are no gamblers who put significant money through the pokies is simply incorrect. You couldn't be more incorrect actually, although I guess it depends on your version of 'significant money'. One mans $500 is another mans loose change so to speak.

I've got to be careful with privacy, but i've worked at venues where the difference between a good day in terms of money taken and an unbelievable (it truly is unbelievable until your the one who counts the money in the morning) day can depend on a handful, maybe even one or two customers coming in or not. If you get multiple big punters in or even syndicates, who play in groups or as an individual representing a group that scope out venues targetting jackpots which are considered 'close', look out. You've got millionaire widows who couldn't care less about $15-50k a week, but they love a young male gaming attendant holding their hand and doting on them whilst they play. You've got the middle age super rich guy going through a divorce who is trying to punish his wife by spending as much as he can and having a whale of a time doing it. You've got the people who have a huge inheritance and now have the cash to play 'high limit pokies' 4 times a week now instead of 1. These are all real and let's say common situations across a lot of venues. If these guys are all in your venue at once and you have a reasonably full room for a lot of the day, It would make people's eyes bulge IMO to know how much is going in these machines...
 
So Murph on AFL360 gets asked about his relationship with Mick, suggesting it wasn't great and mentioning Mick wasn't very complimentary of Murph as a captain. The response was a very underwhelming 'oh it was alright' with darting eyes and a bit of a grin.

Just goes to show you that when players come out and talk about how happy they are under a coach, it is not necessarily so.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Just wanted to say how much respect and admiration I have for ODN. No question.

I'm assuming you speak on behalf of the rest of the board and have to say, I'm humbled and buoyant about the future. There is going to be hard work ahead, and though you might think I'm egotistical at times, I have been around a long time and moderated many groups with much success.

So get out there and post around the fringes of the board, and if you see an opening, submit a long post into the top of the forum where one of our posters will be waiting with 3 opposition posters.

Seriously, it's difficult to see where we will lose a debate this year.
 
This thread appeared out of nowhere on the first page of threads today.

Mick was toxic and had to be shown the door. Players left no doubt because they were not happy at the Blues. They were the ones who could get a game at another club.

We are still banished from playing on Friday Nights.

Chris had a very good get in Cripps. I struggle to find another. He defended his Boekhorst acquisition, saying he would do it again. Together with Wayne (and Swann), there was a lack of strategy in recruiting and an inability to spot talent, for years.

Trigg for mind is excellent. He listened. He came up with a 10 point plan. No quick fixes and so on.

The club has learnt lessons. Mick, a great coach by many measures, was simply not the right coach for us. Some of us might say the club should have learned its lesson with Pagan. Bolton is the right coach for us.

The board has also learned the importance of realistically assess the list.

What was the Board thinking? 'We can pinch one with Judd'. We overestimated our list, the Board fell for the 'it can turn around quickly' thing and it dragged on a year or two too many (as it did with Williams and Kernahan after 1995).

Yes we almost made preliminary finals. Judd was good in the finals for us.

But I do wonder if we perhaps were too short sighted in getting Judd in the first place. What if we had kept Kennedy, and picks 3 and 20 that year instead? Perhaps with our lack of good recruiting it was better to get Judd.

I am not affected by the club's communication, transparency, or lack thereof. Rather, I am more concerned about list management strategy and player development. With that, we are on track.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Was interesting to see Wayne Hughes and Shane Rogers at the draft on Friday night. Not really sure what Hughes is doing at the Saints, but Rogers is more of a mature aged player scout for the Lions.

Hughes is in charge of scouting other AFL clubs for trade/free agency opportunities.

Not sure what he was doing on draft night unless they were looking at drafting a player with AFL experience.
 
Hughes is in charge of scouting other AFL clubs for trade/free agency opportunities.

Not sure what he was doing on draft night unless they were looking at drafting a player with AFL experience.

At least both clubs are smart enough to keep them both away from the kids.
 
Was interesting to see Wayne Hughes and Shane Rogers at the draft on Friday night. Not really sure what Hughes is doing at the Saints, but Rogers is more of a mature aged player scout for the Lions.

That's what Hughes does at St Kilda, Rogers is the Lions scouting co-ordinator in SA and WA.
 
This thread appeared out of nowhere on the first page of threads today.

Mick was toxic and had to be shown the door. Players left no doubt because they were not happy at the Blues. They were the ones who could get a game at another club.

We are still banished from playing on Friday Nights.

Chris had a very good get in Cripps. I struggle to find another. He defended his Boekhorst acquisition, saying he would do it again. Together with Wayne (and Swann), there was a lack of strategy in recruiting and an inability to spot talent, for years.

Trigg for mind is excellent. He listened. He came up with a 10 point plan. No quick fixes and so on.

The club has learnt lessons. Mick, a great coach by many measures, was simply not the right coach for us. Some of us might say the club should have learned its lesson with Pagan. Bolton is the right coach for us.

The board has also learned the importance of realistically assess the list.

What was the Board thinking? 'We can pinch one with Judd'. We overestimated our list, the Board fell for the 'it can turn around quickly' thing and it dragged on a year or two too many (as it did with Williams and Kernahan after 1995).

Yes we almost made preliminary finals. Judd was good in the finals for us.

But I do wonder if we perhaps were too short sighted in getting Judd in the first place. What if we had kept Kennedy, and picks 3 and 20 that year instead? Perhaps with our lack of good recruiting it was better to get Judd.

I am not affected by the club's communication, transparency, or lack thereof. Rather, I am more concerned about list management strategy and player development. With that, we are on track.
Agree with this except the Judd trade. Hindsight: trade pick 1 instead of Kennedy & 3... but as I said it's hindsight
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top