Matabele
Journey Man
quinny said:Just because you keep repeating something, doesn't mean it's correct.
You can say this to Byso but it will make not one iota of difference to his conduct. Woof, woof.
quinny said:Just because you keep repeating something, doesn't mean it's correct.
quinny said:byso said:So you wanted to wait untill he made his way to the ball boys before the penny dropped?
No use tangling with this lover's tryst...are they the same person 🙂
Talk about flogging a dead horse, they have written 100 comments geared to exactly the same point of view. Just because you keep repeating something, doesn't mean it's correct. Now all we need is the travel agent to agree, and tell us how "informed" he is, and we can all smile and nod our heads in unison.
Ramrod said:Does anyone know those people who keep writing into the Manly Daily and bitching about the Board? Tell them to stop now.
Matabele said:quinny said:Just because you keep repeating something, doesn't mean it's correct.
You can say this to Byso but it will make not one iota of difference to his conduct. Woof, woof.
None have denied it yet ...byso said:Probably a mod from here 😉
byso said:Matabele said:quinny said:Just because you keep repeating something, doesn't mean it's correct.
You can say this to Byso but it will make not one iota of difference to his conduct. Woof, woof.
Yet again you find a way of not replying to a simply comment.
"So you wanted to wait untill he made his way to the ball boys before the penny dropped?"
Just trying to understand when you would of thought it was the right time to get rid of Hasler.
Matabele said:byso said:Matabele said:quinny said:Just because you keep repeating something, doesn't mean it's correct.
You can say this to Byso but it will make not one iota of difference to his conduct. Woof, woof.
Yet again you find a way of not replying to a simply comment.
"So you wanted to wait untill he made his way to the ball boys before the penny dropped?"
Just trying to understand when you would of thought it was the right time to get rid of Hasler.
Not all of us believe revisionist history and selective leaks build a compelling picture of Hasler as a wrecker. Given his achievements with the club I give him a greater benefit of the doubt than some here.
The Board have leaked Lowe's assessment of Hasler to somehow suggest he was problematic for the club. Only problem is, it didn't stop them pursuing him for the next 12 months, did it?
As late as 23 September Reilly was quoted as saying:
(I) "acknowledge the outstanding role Des Hasler has played in the Club as player and coach and his importance to the future of our great club. Both Boards are working with Penn Sport and the Quantum Group to secure a long-term extension of Des Hasler's coaching contract with the Sea Eagles."
Matabele said:byso said:Matabele said:quinny said:Just because you keep repeating something, doesn't mean it's correct.
You can say this to Byso but it will make not one iota of difference to his conduct. Woof, woof.
Yet again you find a way of not replying to a simply comment.
"So you wanted to wait untill he made his way to the ball boys before the penny dropped?"
Just trying to understand when you would of thought it was the right time to get rid of Hasler.
Not all of us believe revisionist history and selective leaks build a compelling picture of Hasler as a wrecker. Given his achievements with the club I give him a greater benefit of the doubt than some here.
The Board have leaked Lowe's assessment of Hasler to somehow suggest he was problematic for the club. Only problem is, it didn't stop them pursuing him for the next 12 months, did it?
As late as 23 September Reilly was quoted as saying:
(I) "acknowledge the outstanding role Des Hasler has played in the Club as player and coach and his importance to the future of our great club. Both Boards are working with Penn Sport and the Quantum Group to secure a long-term extension of Des Hasler's coaching contract with the Sea Eagles."
Matabele said:byso said:Matabele said:quinny said:Just because you keep repeating something, doesn't mean it's correct.
You can say this to Byso but it will make not one iota of difference to his conduct. Woof, woof.
Yet again you find a way of not replying to a simply comment.
"So you wanted to wait untill he made his way to the ball boys before the penny dropped?"
Just trying to understand when you would of thought it was the right time to get rid of Hasler.
Not all of us believe revisionist history and selective leaks build a compelling picture of Hasler as a wrecker. Given his achievements with the club I give him a greater benefit of the doubt than some here.
The Board have leaked Lowe's assessment of Hasler to somehow suggest he was problematic for the club. Only problem is, it didn't stop them pursuing him for the next 12 months, did it?
As late as 23 September Reilly was quoted as saying:
(I) "acknowledge the outstanding role Des Hasler has played in the Club as player and coach and his importance to the future of our great club. Both Boards are working with Penn Sport and the Quantum Group to secure a long-term extension of Des Hasler's coaching contract with the Sea Eagles."
What is with 'innocent'? This is not about guilt or innocence, it is not about salvation or damnation. There has been a dramatic and painful and publicly humiliating change within our club, that goes specifically to the heart of the footballing operation. (And it is a football club!)anthonyb1965 said:The truth is somewhere in between, not for a moment do I believe Hasler is innocent or the board and co. it is naive to think otherwise!
SeaEagleRock8 said:What is with 'innocent'? This is not about guilt or innocence, it is not about salvation or damnation. There has been a dramatic and painful and publicly humiliating change within our club, that goes specifically to the heart of the footballing operation. (And it is a football club!)anthonyb1965 said:The truth is somewhere in between, not for a moment do I believe Hasler is innocent or the board and co. it is naive to think otherwise!
The issue is (as some have colourfully portrayed it), 'Has the cancer been excised?'
Desmond is scapegoat of the month. The absurdity of painting Des as a cancer in the ranks ought to be a non sequitur. Nonetheless, that is what is put forward by the board in defence of the board and that is what has been swallowed, by significant sections of this forum at least.
The fact that Des is not 'innocent' and may not be a realistic candidate for canonisation this century should not obscure the other more pertinent issue for those of us that remain committed Sea Eagles. Namely, is there a problem with the club ownership structure? Is there a problem with the composition of the board? Do these things have anything to do with us losing a dual premiership winning coach, who was a Manly icon, and who remains loved by the current championship crop of Manly players?
Well … is there? I don't know, but surely that is the issue, rather than whether or not Des is 'innocent'.
SeaEagleRock8 said:Still none have denied it ...
byso said:Matabele said:byso said:Matabele said:quinny said:Just because you keep repeating something, doesn't mean it's correct.
You can say this to Byso but it will make not one iota of difference to his conduct. Woof, woof.
Yet again you find a way of not replying to a simply comment.
"So you wanted to wait untill he made his way to the ball boys before the penny dropped?"
Just trying to understand when you would of thought it was the right time to get rid of Hasler.
Not all of us believe revisionist history and selective leaks build a compelling picture of Hasler as a wrecker. Given his achievements with the club I give him a greater benefit of the doubt than some here.
The Board have leaked Lowe's assessment of Hasler to somehow suggest he was problematic for the club. Only problem is, it didn't stop them pursuing him for the next 12 months, did it?
As late as 23 September Reilly was quoted as saying:
(I) "acknowledge the outstanding role Des Hasler has played in the Club as player and coach and his importance to the future of our great club. Both Boards are working with Penn Sport and the Quantum Group to secure a long-term extension of Des Hasler's coaching contract with the Sea Eagles."
Mata, Fair enough you feel not all the info has been revealed.
But all you have is fleeting comments from Hasler suggesting that the board is creating issues. Did he make these to help soften the blow for himself to the fans after he got his big offer from the dogs. Who knows.
Anyhow I guess you dont want to go past the fact he was let go in the first place, therefore you would of answered the question.
I guess the releasing of the information was obviously released to show the supporters and sponsors that not is all is what it seemed with Dessie.
SER8, you and I have clashed at times over the years but you make abundant sense here.SeaEagleRock8 said:What is with 'innocent'? This is not about guilt or innocence, it is not about salvation or damnation. There has been a dramatic and painful and publicly humiliating change within our club, that goes specifically to the heart of the footballing operation. (And it is a football club!)anthonyb1965 said:The truth is somewhere in between, not for a moment do I believe Hasler is innocent or the board and co. it is naive to think otherwise!
The issue is (as some have colourfully portrayed it), 'Has the cancer been excised?'
Desmond is scapegoat of the month. The absurdity of painting Des as a cancer in the ranks ought to be a non sequitur. Nonetheless, that is what is put forward by the board in defence of the board and that is what has been swallowed, by significant sections of this forum at least.
The fact that Des is not 'innocent' and may not be a realistic candidate for canonisation this century should not obscure the other more pertinent issue for those of us that remain committed Sea Eagles. Namely, is there a problem with the club ownership structure? Is there a problem with the composition of the board? Do these things have anything to do with us losing a dual premiership winning coach, who was a Manly icon, and who remains loved by the current championship crop of Manly players?
Well … is there? I don't know, but surely that is the issue, rather than whether or not Des is 'innocent'.
byso said:Mata. You are the master of not getting to the point.
Hence the reason for asking the question. Over and over again.
Matabele said:SER8, you and I have clashed at times over the years but you make abundant sense here.
Team | P | W | D | L | PD | Pts | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Bulldogs | 7 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 74 | 14 |
2 | Warriors | 8 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 14 |
3 | Storm | 7 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 78 | 12 |
4 | Raiders | 8 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 58 | 12 |
5 | Broncos | 8 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 78 | 10 |
6 | Sharks | 9 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 49 | 10 |
7 | Sea Eagles | 8 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 36 | 10 |
8 | Tigers | 9 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 20 | 10 |
9 | Cowboys | 8 | 4 | 0 | 4 | -14 | 10 |
10 | Dragons | 8 | 3 | 0 | 5 | -14 | 8 |
11 | Roosters | 9 | 4 | 0 | 5 | -42 | 8 |
12 | Knights | 8 | 3 | 0 | 5 | -48 | 8 |
13 | Rabbitohs | 9 | 4 | 0 | 5 | -70 | 8 |
14 | Dolphins | 9 | 3 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
15 | Titans | 7 | 2 | 0 | 5 | -68 | 6 |
16 | Eels | 8 | 2 | 0 | 6 | -117 | 6 |
17 | Panthers | 8 | 2 | 0 | 6 | -26 | 4 |