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
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.
Was Phil Gould the most influential person in R and R at Penrith super?
Is Head of football Phil Gould themost influential person in recruitment at the Bulldogs super. Why isn't the hof the most responsible for the roster at Parramatta.
But at Parramatta o'neill isn't the most responsible for the roster. Unbelievable. Do you think the average fan is that naive????
Which is why, to agree with Super, none of us should accept these scapegoating critiques. They are misidentifying their targets and their solutions are little more than symbolic changes. Scapegoating as a critique is fundamentally flawed, whenever it is deployed, both mischaracterizing the target of critique and pretending symbolic quick fixes will actually address what are likely problems that are in fact broad, systemic, multi-causal issues.
Chief, Daz can share his opinions regardless of whatever demands or ultimatums you place on him. We don't want this place turning into a boring echo chamber of relentless negativity against the club.
You’re free to continue your persistent attacks on the club. None of your comments have been deleted or edited.
Just be careful you don't overstep the mark into personal cheap shots, which you have so far avoided.
In fact, I’ve only edited one comment in the past few months and that was a recent personal attack on Randy. Ironically, Randy is also on your side of the fence: the Church of Sack MON.
Its not negative, its productive. So when a fan at the dragons for example, (after many disappointing losses), conveys his opinion on Flanagan being the problem, you're saying thats an unessaseery negative view and attack against the club?
Thats exactly what you're saying.
Let's have a vote on how many 1ee fans support the head of football being at Parramatta for the next umpteen years shall we.
I've haven't put out any cheap shots either, id just like to know why some support the current hof. Make their points so everyone can understand their views. I haven't once heard anything to support their case. But its ok to attack my views on Richardson or Ando.ect
But Chiefy, it's notable that when you want to claim your being productive, you change the terms of your critique. We assume you're talking about a Dragons fan who says the Dragons are poorly coached and blame the coach. We were all critics of BA for his coaching. I agree that is productive.
But much of your complaint lacks that specificity. Most of your critique lumps all problems in one spot, which is fine if the complaint is coaching and the target is the coach, but not when the complaint is a scatter gun about recruitment, retention, player performance, etc etc etc and apparently it's all down to one employee. THAT is the scapegoating.
Again, it's interesting that in defending your critique you actually narrow it down to a more credible and targetted cause-effect claim. But that's not the character of much of your critique, which lumps every problem one can poke a stick at into one place.
Recruitment and retention is O'neill's responsibility,
The Recruitment staff report to O'neill
O'neill reports to Sarantinos
Sarantinos reports to the board
Chiefy, you're expressing a view. So is Daz.
Both are allowed.
As long as no-one is taking cheap shots or trolling, and meeting code standards, we won't have a problem.
End of story.
Chiefy, I pointed out that I don't accept the premise of your scapegoating critique. So you will wait forever because if I don't accept the premise of your scapegoating, that will mean a blog premised on examining one person is a non-starter.
Why won't you address why your scapegoating premise is warranted? Isn't the burden on you to warrant your critique? We are waiting!
PS: given you suggested Anderson as GM, can you also address why IF assessing suitability for GM, a GM that oversaw salary cap breaches is better than a GM that has eliminated salary cap breaches?
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?
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
of 12 Next