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
He is head of recruitment i believe Mongolian / Pathways. Ando has a great knowledge of the game and wish we had someone like that.
You see with the chairs moving down at Mulgoa Rd (Penrith) I would be sounding out Matt Cameron now....he could be in the background at Parra leading / sorting things as head CEO and with Cleary going he could also be convinced to leave for the right role and $$$
Mitchy, Matt Cameron ain't going anywhere, the CEO at Penrith has a totally different Football structure and a brand new stadium that will keep him busy for the next 10 years. Its a bit like you being a school principal and drafted into Churchie (Top GPS school Brisbane) and then offered a job at Loganhome to look after the street kids from Marsden High..... great football nursery but hey I'm a celebrity....get me outta here!
I understand Pop's but lets be honest, the new stadium at Penriff is hardly anything special and Mulgoa Rd is not overly endearing but that's ok ....and Parra would be somewhat of a homecoming for unfinished business. You need to look at the big picture - Parra want to be the best, then you get the best. Simple.
Big Picture's are my specialty Mitchy, but if the horse has bolted, we have to go back to the sales to buy one that has not overachieved at this stage of its racing career. Alternatively we can buy another used horse that is on an upward path....Cheika maybe an old nag but he has been set for a big race.
PS The unfinished business maybe somewhat of a possibility, but that approach has most likely been explored in other ways and we would never know.
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.
Ooh, can I help? So, Chiefy wants Daniel Anderson back as GM so the Eels can go spoon, 10th, 12th? Oh yeah, also so that the Eels can breach the salary cap, get fined half a million, and get docked competition points.
Please, Chiefy, we would all really love to hear why THAT is the kind of management you want at the club?
I don't want Anderson i want Richardson. Been saying ut all along
Either you guys put your case forward on mark o'neill or don't comment.
These are your opinions
Issues with Richardson were pointed out. Galvin and Luia were lost under his watch or under eye conditions of contracts he made, for instance.
If we can critique MON for Brown's get our clauses then Richardson is on the hook for same. What do you make of that?
Daz, quick question...if we leave MON plodding along (I mean, no-one would say that he is crushing it, right?) when would be the appropriaye time to shuffle him along? 10yrs? 15? but won't it just be more scapegoating then? Or must we wait for an egregious "fuck-up for the ages" before moving him on?
The time feels up for him so folks are gonna come at him, unfairly or not.
Shake it up a bit. Punt him now. It's for the best. What's the worst that can happen, he doesn't seem to do a lot. Retaining MON feels political. I would bet that he is a happy loyal lapdog....Goodboy Mark.....who's a goodboy
Fair questions, Randy. If it's not obvious, my consistent point has been that arguments to remove MON that rest solely on selected retention and recruitment decisions are faulty. They rely on distributed responsibility being reduced to sole responsibility and conflating that with accountability. That is a recipe for scapegoating and a poor argument.
Poor arguments won't breed good decisions.
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
of 9 Next