Tom Boyd

[Sweet Jesus]

If thats what Freo see's Hamling's worth, what would it be to you or anyone else?

It would be something that people would discuss. Just like the question of whether Boyd is overpaid.

 

[dergert]

Meh we won the flag and beat wet toast in doing so. Tom was exceptional in the finals.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Please point out where my post had false nuance.

The entire laboured attempt to argue that a player who is obviously overpaid isn't actually overpaid.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Why don't you just stop repeating the same shit over and over and glory be off.

Why don't you concede the obvious reality that Boyd has been overpaid?

 

[immortalmike]

Personally I think Tom should receive a pay rise.

 

[Hard Ball Get]

I am unfamiliar with that number. Do you have a source?

If Naitanui is in fact being paid $1.2 million per season, then yes, that seems like overs to me..

Seems here you're showing that you don't get footy clubs. Naitanui is worth that and more to the club. Membership, sponsorship, marketability etc. It's not just what he does on the field.

 

[jdz101]

You could say the same for Joel Hamling but no one is arguing he's worth $1 million a season.

Joel hamling didn't show a tenth of what tom showed at junior level, and didn't get drafted at the number one spot. You have to pay a premium to get early draft prospects to move clubs, and you have to pay another premium to get key position players to move clubs.

Your complete ignorance of players getting paid according to their potential output as opposed to their immediate output is pretty amusing though.

 

[NoName]

Seriously dude, you must have way too much spare time on your hands to be worrying about a player from a team that you don't even follow.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Seems here you're showing that you don't get footy clubs. Naitanui is worth that and more to the club. Membership, sponsorship, marketability etc. It's not just what he does on the field.

Well, it's up for debate. If Naitanui is on $1.2 million, as claimed, that seems like overs to me. Unlike some Dogs fans, I don't have some weird phobic aversion to saying so.

 

[conrad_437]

 

[Hard Ball Get]

Well, it's up for debate. If Naitanui is on $1.2 million, as claimed, that seems like overs to me. Unlike some Dogs fans, I don't have some weird phobic aversion to saying so.

Just some weird obsession with opposition players. Enjoy the discussion. I'm off to watch the replay of the premiership Tom Boyd delivered 2 weeks ago.

 

[_Mike_]

Because people keep responding and I'm trying to understand their resistance to the obvious.

I don't think you quite understand that those who disagree with your belief have no obligation to explain the reasons why to you or I or anyone else for that fact.

And many have disagreed.

Hence your approach is becoming somewhat dogmatic on the topic. Tom Boyd is overpaid, you must believe what I believe (SIC)

Why don't you concede the obvious reality that Boyd has been overpaid?

again, you are looking more and more on that crusade with each response as you persist with pushing the point.

It would be something that people would discuss. Just like the question of whether Boyd is overpaid.

Which is now looking more like an obsession rather than an intelligent discussion.

 

[BRWB]

Because people keep responding and I'm trying to understand their resistance to the obvious.

And many have disagreed.

The cosmic ballet continues.

You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time here.

1 - no one cares if you think Boyd is overpaid

2 - on some metrics imposed by some people Boyd may be overpaid - no Dog fan cares even if this is the case

3 - Most fans know we wouldn't have won the flag without Boyd and most fans know we wouldn't have got Boyd without paying what we did - what price a Dogs flag?

Priceless.

But by all means keep dribbling on in your world where closed minded and somewhat mean spirited pedantry passes for 'logic'.

 

[Pannalstaroz]

Yes, everyone is just randomly guessing the same number. That must be it.

And you guessed its salary.

What a poor end to our chat. I was hoping you wouldn't concede, but c'est la vie

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Just some weird obsession with opposition players.

You don't need to be obsessed to point out an obvious reality. It's the denial that's weird.

I'm off to watch the replay of the premiership Tom Boyd delivered 2 weeks ago.

Will you pay him another $1 million for the replay?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

What a poor end to our chat. I was hoping you wouldn't concede, but c'est la vie

You didn't guess the outcome?

 

[Doggies1972]

Why don't you concede the obvious reality that Boyd has been overpaid?

Why don't you come up with something original if your going to troll instead of just being a w***er.

 

[Ozil]

1. We could try to distill statistics and intrinsic value down to a dollar figure and determine the extent to which the 700 players in the league are being over or underpaid.

2. We could instead acknowledge that Boyd's salary was the point of difference that saw him lob at the Kennel rather than Princes Park or elsewhere, and without that distinction, the Bulldogs more than likely don't win the 2016 premiership.

3. We could go around in the same boring circle again and again until the sun burns up, cooks us all and devours our lifeless planet.

I bet you all choose option 3.

 

[BrisDog]

What case is that?

I have been embarrassed for you blokes the last couple of years the 2 times Darling has soiled his shorts at the proposition of a shadow. Against us it was a 18 year old chap named Josh Dunkley. Using your logic: Hamling was great for 4 games (I agree), a million bucks, happy with that. Unfortunately Jack shat his dacks when push came to shove 2 years in a row. Don't get me wrong, I would have him at the dogs for irrelevant games against shit teams (same as Hill and Le Cras). Just not for the big time!!!

 

[Doggy Dan]

You cray cray SweetJesus

 

[Pannalstaroz]

Personally I think Tom should receive a pay rise.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I don't think you quite understand that those who disagree with your belief have no obligation to explain the reasons why to you or I or anyone else for that fact.

I wouldn't use the word "obligation" but thinking people can generally offer some supporting argument for their opinions. What kind of discussion would exist without that?

Hence your approach is becoming somewhat dogmatic on the topic. Tom Boyd is overpaid, you must believe what I believe (SIC).

Alternatively, they can explain why that's not the case and we can then jointly interrogate that explanation. Is there something wrong with that?

Are the people disagreeing with me also dogmatic? Will you discourage them as well?

again, you are looking more and more on that crusade with each response as you persist with pushing the point.

There's no need for dishonestly loaded language among reasonable people.

Which is now looking more like an obsession rather than an intelligent discussion.

Which part of it is unintelligent?

Do my arguments lack clarity or cohesion?

 

[Pannalstaroz]

You didn't guess the outcome?

You didn't read it in a paper?

 

[Bemoreboyddog]

Why did I come here? Pann, I want my 10 minutes back.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

1 - no one cares if you think Boyd is overpaid

Apparently many care enough to disagree.

2 - on some metrics imposed by some people Boyd may be overpaid - no Dog fan cares even if this is the case

See above.

3 - Most fans know we wouldn't have won the flag without Boyd and most fans know we wouldn't have got Boyd without paying what we did - what price a Dogs flag?

You could say the same for Joel Hamling. Is he worth $1 million as well?

But by all means keep dribbling on in your world where closed minded and somewhat mean spirited pedantry passes for 'logic'.

Surely those insisting Boyd hasn't been overpaid are the ones guilty of close-mindedness. I'm merely pointing out the obvious reality.