Bulldogs have pulled out of the race for Metcalf and his asking price is around 1 million dollars. Dragons most likely spot but to get him immediately I wonder if this means they will allow Sua to join us early to free up cap space to get Metcalf immediately. Just seems logical
You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
Replies
We as fans keep thinking we remain an attractive proposition and the gold standard of clubs in sydney .....we have not been for 35 years......its not the 80s any more and we are the poor cousins or a western sydney powerhouse now unfortunately .....and we dont have an eastern suburbs money bags with money and connections either..
we are a play within the rules and do not have the smarts or money club unfortunately ...we have bet hard on our pathways.....but we are years of that bearing fruit ..time will tell
def worth a try mitch as oniell and rogers are not working recruitment wise something has to change
OK Parra G, you claim my "defense" (of what you don't specify) is "illogical".
What am I defending? I denied the very premise of the demand to have a blog defending MON, so you must be saying I am defending NOT scapegoating? You are thus defending scapegoating?
And if I am being "illogical", you must be able to identify either an invalid or unsound argument.
I'll help you out here. If invalid, you admit my premises could be true but my conclusion false. So identity those premises and that conclusion and then we can assess whether the latter doesn't follow the former.
I'll also help with unsound. You just to have to identify one or more premises you think are just not true. Once you do that we can assess a conclusion to see if it did in fact rely on those premises and whether you are in fact right that the premises you identified as false are indeed false.
Go. I'll wait. I've done all I can to help your argument beat mine!
pS: and to be super helpful, I'll re-state. Any argument relying on scapegoating is faulty and unproductive of good solutions.
You defence of MON is illogical
what have you based the defence of MON on ? His performance over 12 years ...off course not if you where id be worried.
to direct the argument we are making MON a scapegoat and blaming an individual is purely symantics and not addressing the issues we have as a club.
or more to the point the differing opinon of other Eels fans as to his performance in the job .....I would say YES that is the crux of your argument which is baseless....
To add you are defending your right not to put forward a "Keep MON blog" is pure smokes and mirrors and diversionary ...
You remain unconvincing in everyway on this topic. The opposing position have suggested solutions (however convincing or otherwise) you have said nothing in the defence of your position the reason we should keep MON, what are the positives under him and his department and why he is above accountability.
Parra G, you were offered a chance to actually identify conclusions that didn't follow from premises that were untrue and you're reply is to reply in a shrill voice "but but illogical". It's not clear you even know what it takes to prove a claim is illogical!
Try again. What are the premises with which you disagree? Why? What is the conclusion and how does it not follow from some premises?
This is not "semantics". If you make a charge of "illogical" then back it up as noted above. If your case was considered and reasonable, this would be easy for you to do.
Also, it was you who claimed "illogical". As such, it really doesn't help your cause to be unable to grasp why, if I reject the scapegoating premise, I would NOT bother with a blog on MON alone. That's entirely logical, brother, IF YOU GRASP LOGIC!
Prof Daz ...ok one last time.
Poppa and yourself seem to have alot of advice for other punters on this site. Whether my tone is shrill or otherwise .....you still cant answer a question....or refuse too ....if our position is purely scapegoating an individual ...
What is yours status quo I am guessing
instead of baseless critics of opponents positions provide your view on why the MON camp and status quo is the way forward and the best for Parramatta....
of course you dont want to do this as you position is flawed. Instead you deflect.
I hate to be at the University you have tenue.....id say the institution also make cereal ??
I was pointing out the fact that when Anderson was Head of Football here, he was implicated in the salary cap scandal and sacked by Donnelly.
Mark doesn't need me to fight his battles for him. Especially when the majority of your criticism levelled at him is concerning recruitment - an area he only oversees but isn't directly involved with on the day-to-day. We have a head of recruitment and it isn't Mark.
Your argument for Richardson in the past is ill-informed and misguided. Richardson is a CEO. He won't be coming to this club to sit under Sarantinos. Further to that, you talk a lot about recruitment yet Richo's own recruits in Galvin and Luai have already departed. In fact he handed out contracts with the very same player options you railed against and which our club have canned.
Here we go, passing the buck again super on Mark o'neill and recruitment. Thats like saying the recruitment personnel under Phil Gould at the dogs are more responsible for the roster than Phil is.
What a massive load of bullshit . Nobody believes you.
Each club's approach to recruitment is different. Phil Gould is a law unto himself and operates completely differently to virtually every other GM/Head of Football in the game. The Dogs don't actually have a head of recruitment, whereas Parramatta does.
You're measuring Mark against Gus when the 2 have different roles and remits at their respective clubs.
Thats false.. If the recruitment people below Mark aren't meeting kpi's, then its up to Mark to deal with the issue.
If Mark isn't hitting kpi's , its up to Sarantinos to deal with Mark
Thats tge same for all clubs
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
of 15 Next