by Sojourner » Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:57 pm
by Mr Irate » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:00 pm
by Dirko » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:00 pm
by Mr Irate » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:12 pm
by Big Phil » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:31 pm
by SpionKopster » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:47 pm
by Grahaml » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:27 pm
by Big Phil » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:28 pm
by Dogwatcher » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:02 am
by Barto » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:47 am
by JK » Fri Dec 10, 2010 2:38 am
by Mr Irate » Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:32 am
SpionKopster wrote:Was the question make it onto a list, or make the grade?
Ben Nason, will make it smart ass, God some of you lot need to pull ya pants down so we can hear what your saying.
by fish » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:38 pm
Constance_Perm wrote:The majority answer is surely .. "Who cares"??
The business of winning premierships is the highest priority by a mile .. If you can elevate a squad member here and there thats all nice and fluffy, but it's the business of winning flags that should count.
by sjt » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:42 pm
fish wrote:Constance_Perm wrote:The majority answer is surely .. "Who cares"??
The business of winning premierships is the highest priority by a mile .. If you can elevate a squad member here and there thats all nice and fluffy, but it's the business of winning flags that should count.
Yep, it sounds like a sour-grapes question to me...
by JK » Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:11 pm
sjt wrote:fish wrote:Constance_Perm wrote:The majority answer is surely .. "Who cares"??
The business of winning premierships is the highest priority by a mile .. If you can elevate a squad member here and there thats all nice and fluffy, but it's the business of winning flags that should count.
Yep, it sounds like a sour-grapes question to me...
I wish I heard the context as to how and why it was raised.
by Sojourner » Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:24 pm
Constance_Perm wrote:Fair call, I was making a bit of an assumption that the context wasn't a positive one toward the Dogs, who imho, clearly have their priorities in the right order.
by JK » Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:26 pm
Sojourner wrote:Constance_Perm wrote:Fair call, I was making a bit of an assumption that the context wasn't a positive one toward the Dogs, who imho, clearly have their priorities in the right order.
My reading of the question was that it was being implied that Central are successful in the SANFL because they only focus on mature aged players and yes I did take the comment as being a slight towards the CDFC and a suggestion that all the other clubs should do likewise! - If you can be bothered its likely on the podcast from yesterday between 6 & 7pm
by sjt » Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:41 pm
Sojourner wrote:Constance_Perm wrote:Fair call, I was making a bit of an assumption that the context wasn't a positive one toward the Dogs, who imho, clearly have their priorities in the right order.
My reading of the question was that it was being implied that Central are successful in the SANFL because they only focus on mature aged players and yes I did take the comment as being a slight towards the CDFC and a suggestion that all the other clubs should do likewise! - If you can be bothered its likely on the podcast from yesterday between 6 & 7pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |