Incorrect. You just blast anyone with a negative view about the current direction of the club (not the club itself, but the current direction) because you are uncomfortable asking yourself why those reasons might be. That's your failing, not mine or Polly's.
The club had become all about two people and not the actual club itself. These players like Hayward, Papalii, etc were around long before our current chairman and GM them two take all the credit. The North Coast Bulldogs partnership was formed when Andrew Hill and Lynne Anderson were around and all NRL clubs have been assigned a region. Eli Clark has been with us since Hill was CEO. It's been made out to be about two people before the club itself.
Canterbury has always had strong juniors, strong pathways, strong systems. We've lacked the NRL component of the club. The most important part of the club.
A lot of deals have been done to prevent elections in the past. When the EGM signatures got put together one of the three new directors was a very firm Dib ally. When the two directors were removed not long after the Barrett coach sacking when Paul Kent called them fan boys they were replaced by another Dib ally and what seemed to be a neutral in Druissi.
When you all cheered no nominations for the board I said they didn't need to challenge as Khoury was one vote away from being ousted as chairman. One too many deals to prevent elections cost Khoury the job from within.
I predicted there wouldn't be a board challenge and predicted Khoury wasn't safe as chairman as one director clearly being Druissi who wasn't in a faction had chairman ambitions and now aligned himself with a faction. This meant Khoury was one vote away from being ousted. The Khoury faction was Mortimer, Thomas and Gifford. One of them has given Druissi the numbers to be chairman.
What's interesting is how quick Gould changed from being a 1-2 partnership with Khoury to now supporting Druissi lilke Khoury never existed. Gould backs the winning team.
