The Completely Non-Jinxing "We Must Select Ben Jarman!!!" thread

[hey shorty]

It just annoys me that KG and others don't straight out ask 'where you told specifically by the club that they would nominate Ben for the ND, and if so, when?'

They just waffle on about 'Mail' and 'understandings' even when they've got their 'source' right in front of them.

KG has spoken in riddles and dribbles his whole life. Love the passion, but he'll believe the sky is green if the right person tells him.

 

[Punchy Bassett]

Oh really? Well we are taking him and its definitely not too early.

Im not impressed with any of our work during the offseason but i cant see anything here other than a disappointed family just like Jonty Scharenbergs family would be.

Worse for Jonty's family at least Ben is guaranteed a rookie spot.

 

[Jars458]

Well unless Roo is lying the Club has done nothing wrong. I am plenty pissed about the direction we are going in at times but this is not one of them. They have taken the emotion out of it.

 

[Sanders]

Excuse me, if youre going to use "Jarward", i get royalties

As for the rest, I think the onus is on the club to not be ambiguous. There's no room for misunderstanding here. Hence the point of view that the clubs communication is lacking.

Surely, when we lodged the nomination, we should have said to him something like "look, we have to lodge this, but it's likely we will take you as a rookie". That's pretty straightforward, and the type of communication I think would have been appropriate.

It's clear that, irrespective of what was said, that simple message wasn't conveyed. If they trotted out the ambiguous "we will take you as determined by our talent order", then they erred, and should be held to account. If that was the basis of the misunderstanding, one has to wonder why they were less than direct.

There is literally no good reason for us not to say, yeah look we're nominating you but for us we see you as rookie.

If someone comes in early for you, good luck, we'll consider where we stand if that happens; but if you make it through to the rookie draft we'll take you

That nesssge, assuming it's what we meant at the time, didn't happen

I'm not persuaded that the real reason it didn't happen wasn't because it's not what we thought.

I think there is a lot of revisionist gymnastics here to cover over for a lack of communication between the clubs left and right hands

 

[Sanders]

Yes, it makes sense that the Jarmans didn't understand the Father/Son process.

Would they even have heard of it before?

I doubt they even knew the rule existed and were surprised when the Crows knocked on their door with the news.

Why do they need to know the finer points?

Club: we're nominating you
Family: yay

At that point we signal intention, why would they care how many forms and steps are involved?

Intent has been given; that's what they need to know. Unless our fingers were crossed

 

[Sanders]

For your benefit, I'll restate what I've said about 6000 times...

The onus is on the club to ensure the family of a past champion are dealt with unambiguously and with respect. Doing so builds culture and shows professionalism.

Did Hawthorn mislead him, treat him unfairly, or do anything but give it to him straight?

It doesn't seem so.

 

[Sanders]

Drugs Are Bad Mackay? welcome to the club of being accused of never being supportive of the club.

I've got to ask why would you support a club you obviously hate?

Why does his hatred of the club have the momentum of a runaway steam train?

I think he must secretly be a tealster.

 

[crowsup]

Why do they need to know the finer points?

Club: we're nominating you
Family: yay

At that point we signal intention, why would they care how many forms and steps are involved?

Intent has been given; that's what they need to know. Unless our fingers were crossed

How about:-
Club: We nominate you but there are no guarantees that we will pick you.
Club:- You do understand that if we decide to take you in the ND, we'll have to nominate you again before the draft?

I take it the people that believe the club is at fault, believe the club did not tell the Jarmans the second line and that the club should have told them.
The fact that, in the first line, the club makes it clear that there are no guarantees, is not enough. The belief is that the club should have advised Ben that they would not nominate him for the ND prior to the dead line.

Have I got this correct? At least as far as you're concerned?

If that is the case, I believe we all have been arguing about s**t all!

 

[jenny61_99]

Goes both ways. If your going to label people sheep and all because they dont agree with your point of view.

That's the very least some of us have been labelled.

 

[Sanders]

How about:-
Club: We nominate you but there are no guarantees that we will pick you.
Club:- You do understand that if we decide to take you in the ND, we'll have to nominate you again before the draft?

I take it the people that believe the club is at fault, believe the club did not tell the Jarmans the second line and that the club should have told them.
The fact that, in the first line, the club makes it clear that there are no guarantees, is not enough. The belief is that the club should have advised Ben that they would not nominate him for the ND prior to the dead line.

Have I got this correct? At least as far as you're concerned?

If that is the case, I believe we all have been arguing about s**t all!

I believe we said, and they heard, we're nominating you.

And we meant it

 

[Sanders]

That's the very least some of us have been labelled.

There are North Koreans who disagree with dear leader more than you do

 

[jenny61_99]

Again, immaterial.

Did they tell the Jarmans they would nominate Ben for the ND?

I'm not talking press releases.

The Jarmans (through Edwards and others) claim they did.

No one from the club has denied it.

Edwards said "reading between the lines". That doesn't indicate to me he actually knew anything.

 

[jenny61_99]

I didn't ask you to post that, I've heard it myself, twice. The bit I've quoted above is pretty categoric.

KG: I heard they changed their mind, is my mail right?
TE: yes

What more do people need to hear?

TE says: reading between the lines.... That is not categoric knowledge.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Edwards said "reading between the lines". That doesn't indicate to me he actually knew anything.

Sure, he tactfully eased it down a notch a couple of days later given that there was still hope that Jarman would end up at the Crows. Very sensible.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Sure, he tactfully eased it down a notch a couple of days later given that there was still hope that Jarman would end up at the Crows. Very sensible.

Just what are you hoping to achieve here? You seem to be hell bent on arguing the crows are the criminals here. And for what? Whats the end game? Its gone past analysis of the situation a week ago. Lets move on.

 

[feenix67]

TE says: reading between the lines.... That is not categoric knowledge.

If you were to take your Red Gold and Blue blinkers off, just for a moment, you would take the entire conversation as read, apply the appropriate context to the individual sections of the conversation, and realise that the quote you referred to was not in relation to the clubs comments to the Jarman family, but the clubs rating of Ben and their strategy with regards to the draft.

But you won't, so around around we go.

How often do you think the Jarman's and the Edwards get together? Just at Christmas?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Just what are you hoping to achieve here? You seem to be hell bent on arguing the crows are the criminals here. And for what? Whats the end game? Its gone past analysis of the situation a week ago. Lets move on.

I think all we want is to ensure the same mistakes are not made again & next time there is no misunderstanding.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Just what are you hoping to achieve here? You seem to be hell bent on arguing the crows are the criminals here. And for what? Whats the end game? Its gone past analysis of the situation a week ago. Lets move on.

That's our catch-cry.

There was stuff with Rendell behind the scenes. What was it? Ummm.... let's move on. We look forward to telling our side of the story with Tippett. When will that be happening? Ummm... let's move on. Gibbs has gone... let's move on. Jarman will be a rookie... let's move on.

Look, this isn't a big deal. We stiffed a potential draftee, that's all. Changed our minds as we have the right to do. Kept our cards close to our chest which we have the right to do.

Jarman isn't the first player given false promises by a club and won't be the last. Every season there would be players told one thing by clubs but then 'sorry, the situation has changed.'

It happens. It happened here. It's not crime of the century, just a bit disappointing. We don't have to mount an Erin Brockovich Crusade every time there is even a waft of criticism about the club (yes... it's on Foxtel now)

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

How often do you think the Jarman's and the Edwards get together? Just at Christmas?

I doubt they even talk footy

Did Tyson even know that Ben played?

 

[adelaidecrows]

I think all we want is to ensure the same mistakes are not made again & next time there is no misunderstanding.

Im pretty sure the only feedback the crows will take notice of is from the Jarmans and Roo is on top of that. A blown out of proportion debate on here proves nothing and ensures nothing from the club.

 

[spenze]

I doubt they even talk footy

Did Tyson even know that Ben played?

Probably be too busy venting about Rachel to even talk footy

 

[adelaidecrows]

That's our catch-cry.

There was stuff with Rendell behind the scenes. What was it? Ummm.... let's move on. We look forward to telling our side of the story with Tippett. When will that be happening? Ummm... let's move on. Gibbs has gone... let's move on. Jarman will be a rookie... let's move on.

Look, this isn't a big deal. We stiffed a potential draftee, that's all. Changed our minds as we have the right to do. Kept our cards close to our chest which we have the right to do.

Jarman isn't the first player given false promises by a club and won't be the last. Every season there would be players told one thing by clubs but then 'sorry, the situation has changed.'

It happens. It happened here. It's not crime of the century, just a bit disappointing. We don't have to mount an Erin Brockovich Crusade every time there is even a waft of criticism about the club (yes... it's on Foxtel now)

The point im getting at is there really is no proof of anything wrong actually happening and we have over analysed this to death and there is no end. Gibbs and Tippett are pretty straight forward and really are totally different. I guess you really wanted gibbs instead of new talent.

 

[Sanders]

Just what are you hoping to achieve here? You seem to be hell bent on arguing the crows are the criminals here. And for what? Whats the end game? Its gone past analysis of the situation a week ago. Lets move on.

The debate doesn't need to stop just because it's gone past you

That's reductionist

 

[Elite Crow]

The point im getting at is there really is no proof of anything wrong actually happening and we have over analysed this to death and there is no end. Gibbs and Tippett are pretty straight forward and really are totally different. I guess you really wanted gibbs instead of new talent.

I knew you sided with the club over Gibbs, what Drugs wanted is to fix a need to give us a better chance of winning the flag in 17 & 18.

 

[Elite Crow]

The debate doesn't need to stop just because it's gone past you

That's reductionist

And then he keeps on going.