Time to reach out and be honest.

[Deathspell]

You'll have to mention that at their wedding that your nuts slapped him in his face. LOL

ROFL,one thing for sure I don't think he'll ever enter my study again.My daughter said at the RBT the cops tested him twice,he shit himself.

 

[chisdog]

True I grant you,circumstances are different.But if Pay has been following the game from 2015 to 2017,the squad's standard he was inheriting should be no mystery to him.

Nearly everyone on this forum was expecting a top 4 or 8 season,with our current squad.Why were people expecting that? It's because they all thought Pay would transform our squad and most people believed him.He must have taken the job thinking his coaching was good enough to make a difference.Bro he was so confident in his ability to transform our team,he made public statements to the effect,but did he? So now that he failed,the excuse becomes the players,the refs,Des,Dib,Castle everyone else but Pay.

You're making it sound like he signed blind,we begged him or forced him to take the job.I have never represented a client without reading the transcripts first.Only then do I know whether I'm the right Counsel.A good tradesman should never blame his tools.

These excuses have a shelf life,so let's hope our trust in his ability is justified.

I have to say that my expectations were bottom 4. Anything else was delusional IMO.

 

[Deathspell]

If this is true (& it has been reported in this way) then why are we seemingly the only club who have this desaster? If it is true, then we should be suing the NRL & enforcing this verbal contract. This has caused the club (& fans) untold misery for a few years & probably cost the club $1M.

Without knowing the exact words spoken by John Grant it's difficult to determine whether the principles of offer and acceptance for a verbal agreement were executed.

Let's assume as an agent of the NRL,John Grant prematurely outlined official details of the salary cap.Let's assume our administration were led to believe the salary cap was to be $10 million.A verbal agreement is still incomplete and will not be legally binding.

This is because all the parties have not agreed on all of the essential terms of the agreement.It can be argued successfully that parties have only agreed on some terms but are still negotiating or discussing others.The salary cap does not only establish the monetary amount allowable for players agreements but encompasses other details that needs to be negotiated and agreed with the Rugby League Player Association first.

Once this drafted 'package' is agreed by RLPA,it is offered,debated and voted on (accepted) by the Australian Rugby League Commission.If it is rejected or amended by the ARLC,it must be renegotiated with RLPA. As per NRL's constitution,it is at this commission,where all 16 clubs,NSWRL,QRL together with an elected Chairman,CEO and 7 commissioners that all of the essential terms of the agreement must be decided and agreed upon by the parties,thus making whole process 'complete'.

A good example would be,you make a statement that you are going to sell your car for $30k.I prematurely procure $5k of accessories.I contact you accepting to procure your car for $30K as per your statement.You refuse and rightly say I never made an offer to sell or discuss essential terms.I cannot enforce your statement as a verbal agreement.

 

[Nasheed]

Siebold is the only coach im seeing thats getting it right. Having players run on the ball from the deep creating indecision in the defences, not slow standing flat plods that cant create momentum to break the defence.

Hes turned a so/so team into dynamite with this one simple trick.

Manly in the nineties did this well, and i think we did it too in 03.

 

[chisdog]

Without knowing the exact words spoken by John Grant it's difficult to determine whether the principles of offer and acceptance for a verbal agreement were executed.

Let's assume as an agent of the NRL,John Grant prematurely outlined official details of the salary cap.Let's assume our administration were led to believe the salary cap was to be $10 million.A verbal agreement is still incomplete and will not be legally binding.

This is because all the parties have not agreed on all of the essential terms of the agreement.It can be argued successfully that parties have only agreed on some terms but are still negotiating or discussing others.The salary cap does not only establish the monetary amount allowable for players agreements but encompasses other details that needs to be negotiated and agreed with the Rugby League Player Association first.

Once this drafted 'package' is agreed by RLPA,it is offered,debated and voted on (accepted) by the Australian Rugby League Commission.If it is rejected or amended by the ARLC,it must be renegotiated with RLPA. As per NRL's constitution,it is at this commission,where all 16 clubs,NSWRL,QRL together with an elected Chairman,CEO and 7 commissioners that all of the essential terms of the agreement must be decided and agreed upon by the parties,thus making whole process 'complete'.

A good example would be,you make a statement that you are going to sell your car for $30k.I prematurely procure $5k of accessories.I contact you accepting to procure your car for $30K as per your statement.You refuse and rightly say I never made an offer to sell or discuss essential terms.I cannot enforce your statement as a verbal agreement.

That's all well & good if the salary cap was done properly by the NRL & organised WELL ahead of time, but it wasn't. Clubs are a business and need to plan. By leaving it so late, the NRL were still negotiating what the salary cap was going to be for this season very late last year. Look at the process you outlined above. You can't do that sort of thing over night which is why the clubs sort an indication of what it would be. Unfortunately, The Bulldogs believed what Grant said, which leaves us in this predicament.0

 

[Oatley Dog]

For starters Anderson didn't build the Storm,John Ribot,Chris Johns and the NRL did.Ribot set the club up and made a deal with NRL to sign Super League players such as Robbie Ross,Glen Lazarus,Brett Kimmorly,Scott Hill and others from the Perth Reds and Hunter Mariners.Granted Anderson was their foundation coach but this post was about administration and that was Ribot and Johns responsibility.

As far as the 'plonker',he made it possible for Souths to achieve glory and respect,something they lacked for 42 years.It doesn't matter who gets pushed out,sentiment in business produces failure.If Maguire,Kleary,CEO's and players had to go,good move.Our opinion doesn't matter,their record memberships and fans say,"Souths are a better club for it".
Piggins 'Never Say Die,Fight to save the Rabbitohs',got the ball rolling,but Nick Pappas couldn't keep the fight going.The 'plonker' with a pocket full of cash came along,won a comp by smashing us and built a team that have a decent chance of winning the comp again this year.You cannot argue with success.

Easts are like a steady ship,a well run club that rarely encounters any club issues.Since 2000 they've been in 6 grand finals (won 2),won 4 minor premiership,been in the top 4,10 times (in 18 seasons).They have the best record of any team in the comp.Cronk has a proven big game record,his presence and game management was an area Easts identified as lacking in Pearce.Pearce compromised his club with his stupidity and rightfully so when opportunity arose he was pissed off.That's what a well run successful club does.Cronk might succeed or fail,time will tell.
You cannot argue with East's success.

Dictatorship comes from the top bro not the underlings,it's absolute authority in EVERY sphere.If Dib and the board let Des run rough shot then they were puppets,the exact opposite to what a dictatorship means!Did Des have absolute authority in employing a CEO or final approval for signing players? no.So he was not a dictator (more like a pretender).

Which clubs are being run the best Broncos,Easts and Souths,who are now run by a professional administration,or Bulldogs,Parra and Manly who's run by ex players? The salary cap fiascos these later clubs encountered provides the answer.
So before you go slapping around the word contradiction,show me where any of my statements have a position opposite to one I already made.Show me how I broke the law of contradiction,where I made two propositions that cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. Because all I did was contrast the Broncos,Easts and Souths style of administration with ours which hasn't changed since Moore stepped down.

I respect your opinion bro,it's healthy and welcomed.But to come up with an idiotic Ad hominem statement like "This is about the most contradictory post I have read" in unfounded and easily dismissed. Cheers my Bulldogs brother.

Interesting that now your view seems to be that the coach has nothing to do with establishing how things work in a club. Apparently it is all the ability of the administrators. Of course you have overlooked one fairly important administrator, a bloke who apparently got on reasonably well with Anderson at the time. Crowe had nothing to do with achieving glory or respect. He just had the money to buy players and push out whoever he didn't like. That essentially means every money man in the world is somehow the type of leader you want. Well in my books and I've worked with quite a number of outstanding leaders over the decades, money counts for jack.

The only thing I would agree with is that dictatorship comes from the top - where the hell else would it come from. dictators never survive, nor do their systems. They may have a golden summer here or there but the systems collapse. Bullfrog wasn't a dictator - he was a winner who could negotiate, plan and communicate in a way that those underneath him could buy into it. That was why we were successful over such a long period. We had no money and only built it over decades not minutes. That's precisely what has happened at the Storm. Can't think who established those cultural norms.

As for best run clubs, there is one thing all of the ones you mentioned have in common and that is someone or a group with significant control, vast resources and control of the media. Tell me, how many clubs get access to Good morning America, or a whole city or a global media empire? I can tell you it isn't us, Parra or Manly, seeing as you brought them up.

In terms of contradiction you push forward Easts and Souths as exemplars, citing the vast success of Easts but conveniently ignore the decades of failure of Souths. Even Crowe has taken 12 years to get to where they are now. 12 long years where they have won 1 comp and made the semis maybe twice. Ask the fans what they think of Crowe and most would rather him gone.

There is a world of difference between effective leadership and dictatorship and authoritarian behaviour. I spent many years working in conditions that required all three of those things at different times and the last two never survive the cut.

 

[Deathspell]

Siebold is the only coach im seeing thats getting it right. Having players run on the ball from the deep creating indecision in the defences, not slow standing flat plods that cant create momentum to break the defence.

Hes turned a so/so team into dynamite with this one simple trick.

Manly in the nineties did this well, and i think we did it too in 03.

It wasn't a simple trick but a new style called three or four-pass shift that Bellamy created after the grand final defeat in 2016.It is aimed at several NRL sides that have not overhauled their slide or compressed style of defense.Souths, Cronulla and Easts are all using this style during strategic times in the game.These heavy shifts are being rehearsed ad nauseam as it takes hours of practice to perfect the speed and positioning.Once perfected only fast rushing defenses with players that can effectively tackle 1 on 1 like Penrith and Saints can defend against this style.
I managed to get details of how it works from a reporter at Foxsports.

Idea is to play to an edge and work the opposition's forwards with your forwards before shifting back to get the creative players in your spine on the ball on the other side of the field.Working the ball sideline to sideline you try to catch the defense out by creating channels near the tiring opposition's props,lock and hooker and/or out wide.
It is important that the amount of time the ball is in a big man’s hands is limited,the big men may only carry the ball once per set in order to save fatigue.Reason you are seeing huge effectiveness in the Burgess brothers.Forwards are not to try to push a pass but to focus on shifting.Once the forwards work an edge,the center (not hooker) jumps to dummy half.The spine lines up with the fullback marking it's dept.The 1st receiver must have a long crisp fast pass and pace.Every spine member must receive the ball running forward attacking the line,causing indecision and exposing gaps.

The center shifts fast to the hooker (1st receiver) who runs forward to jam the slide.He shifts long to the advancing five-eight who shifts fast to the half to commit the oppositions half or five eight and isolate the opposition's center.The fullback chimes in at an angle to commit the opposition's center.He shifts the ball fast to his center to create a 2 on 1 overlap.

If you get a chance go and see Souths train,the detail they go into is unbelievable.From steps run before passing.Steps run and positioning by each member of the spine when a spine member takes on the line.Their understanding and speed is continuously checked and called out.They train against their lower grades.

As for the Titans and their coach Garth Brennan.Last year they only won 7 games and finished 2nd last.This year with 10 games to go they have already won 5 games and are currently 11th.Even though they will most likely miss the semis,6 points with 2 other teams ahead of them outside the 8,is too much to make up.At least they are improving,they need to work on their defense which is a lot easier to fix then offense.





The idea is you work sideline to sideline and try to catch the defence out because they’ve worked up a channel.
These shifts are being rehearsed ad nauseam. It will be interesting to watch the trial games over the coming weeks to see how well they’re executed and whether the coaches persist with this style of play deep into the season.

It’s a style that limits the amount of time the ball is in a big man’s hands and could prove a catalyst to bringing the best out of the Burgess twins as it saves fatigue.

It’s no secret George and Tom can get reckless and try to push a pass but with a focus on shifting, the big men may only carry the ball once per set.

It’ll be interesting to see how many teams adopt this style throughout the trial period.
Crunolla

 

[CrittaMagic69]

It wasn't a simple trick but a new style called three or four-pass shift that Bellamy created after the grand final defeat in 2016.It is aimed at several NRL sides that have not overhauled their slide or compressed style of defense.Souths, Cronulla and Easts are all using this style during strategic times in the game.These heavy shifts are being rehearsed ad nauseam as it takes hours of practice to perfect the speed and positioning.Once perfected only fast rushing defenses with players that can effectively tackle 1 on 1 like Penrith and Saints can defend against this style.
I managed to get details of how it works from a reporter at Foxsports.

Idea is to play to an edge and work the opposition's forwards with your forwards before shifting back to get the creative players in your spine on the ball on the other side of the field.Working the ball sideline to sideline you try to catch the defense out by creating channels near the tiring opposition's props,lock and hooker and/or out wide.
It is important that the amount of time the ball is in a big man’s hands is limited,the big men may only carry the ball once per set in order to save fatigue.Reason you are seeing huge effectiveness in the Burgess brothers.Forwards are not to try to push a pass but to focus on shifting.Once the forwards work an edge,the center (not hooker) jumps to dummy half.The spine lines up with the fullback marking it's dept.The 1st receiver must have a long crisp fast pass and pace.Every spine member must receive the ball running forward attacking the line,causing indecision and exposing gaps.

The center shifts fast to the hooker (1st receiver) who runs forward to jam the slide.He shifts long to the advancing five-eight who shifts fast to the half to commit the oppositions half or five eight and isolate the opposition's center.The fullback chimes in at an angle to commit the opposition's center.He shifts the ball fast to his center to create a 2 on 1 overlap.

If you get a chance go and see Souths train,the detail they go into is unbelievable.From steps run before passing.Steps run and positioning by each member of the spine when a spine member takes on the line.Their understanding and speed is continuously checked and called out.They train against their lower grades.

As for the Titans and their coach Garth Brennan.Last year they only won 7 games and finished 2nd last.This year with 10 games to go they have already won 5 games and are currently 11th.Even though they will most likely miss the semis,6 points with 2 other teams ahead of them outside the 8,is too much to make up.At least they are improving,they need to work on their defense which is a lot easier to fix then offense.





The idea is you work sideline to sideline and try to catch the defence out because they’ve worked up a channel.
These shifts are being rehearsed ad nauseam. It will be interesting to watch the trial games over the coming weeks to see how well they’re executed and whether the coaches persist with this style of play deep into the season.

It’s a style that limits the amount of time the ball is in a big man’s hands and could prove a catalyst to bringing the best out of the Burgess twins as it saves fatigue.

It’s no secret George and Tom can get reckless and try to push a pass but with a focus on shifting, the big men may only carry the ball once per set.

It’ll be interesting to see how many teams adopt this style throughout the trial period.
Crunolla

Please send this to Derp Pay.

 

[Emdog85]

Please send this to Derp Pay.

Dude I know you are seriously against Pay, and I'm not totally in disagreeance with you about him, but you are sounding like indiandog with his 'dudbye' fascination. Can't you just call him Pay?

 

[Aceman]

Best post I have ever read on this forum. Send it to Deano!!

 

[Deathspell]

Interesting that now your view seems to be that the coach has nothing to do with establishing how things work in a club. Apparently it is all the ability of the administrators. Of course you have overlooked one fairly important administrator, a bloke who apparently got on reasonably well with Anderson at the time. Crowe had nothing to do with achieving glory or respect. He just had the money to buy players and push out whoever he didn't like. That essentially means every money man in the world is somehow the type of leader you want. Well in my books and I've worked with quite a number of outstanding leaders over the decades, money counts for jack.

The only thing I would agree with is that dictatorship comes from the top - where the hell else would it come from. dictators never survive, nor do their systems. They may have a golden summer here or there but the systems collapse. Bullfrog wasn't a dictator - he was a winner who could negotiate, plan and communicate in a way that those underneath him could buy into it. That was why we were successful over such a long period. We had no money and only built it over decades not minutes. That's precisely what has happened at the Storm. Can't think who established those cultural norms.

As for best run clubs, there is one thing all of the ones you mentioned have in common and that is someone or a group with significant control, vast resources and control of the media. Tell me, how many clubs get access to Good morning America, or a whole city or a global media empire? I can tell you it isn't us, Parra or Manly, seeing as you brought them up.

In terms of contradiction you push forward Easts and Souths as exemplars, citing the vast success of Easts but conveniently ignore the decades of failure of Souths. Even Crowe has taken 12 years to get to where they are now. 12 long years where they have won 1 comp and made the semis maybe twice. Ask the fans what they think of Crowe and most would rather him gone.

There is a world of difference between effective leadership and dictatorship and authoritarian behaviour. I spent many years working in conditions that required all three of those things at different times and the last two never survive the cut.

We have a difference of opinion but your understanding of logical laws and disposition of the facts are all over the place.Don't get to uptight about it,sit back and read my post carefully.I got some good information out of your post,try and be humble and comprehend my argument.

Let me correct you on what a contradiction is. A contradiction is the conjunction of a statement,meaning that a statement and its denial cannot both be true at the same time,in the same place.For example the Bulldogs won today,but today they lost against the Titans.Contradictions MUST be directed towards the same statement bro! Your example of Easts and Souths is not a contradiction.It was a statement to indicate that 1st,Easts are run well,2nd,since Crowe got involved,Souths are in a better position.Taking 12 years to accomplish his objective is irrelevant (it was only 8 years,btw).Souths were close to foreclosure when Crowe got involved in 2006 after Souths got the spoon.We got the spoon in 2008 and I doubt we'll win the comp before 2020.The 12 years you mistakenly advanced towards Souths would be more applicable to our club! What you did was commit a logical fallacy.I challenge you again,where is this great contradiction of all time? I say your argument is made up of a manipulation of emotions,rather than the use of valid reasoning.

Then in expounding your explanation you committed a propositional fallacy,first you are affirming the consequent,then you are proposing the antecedent putting indicative conditions,then patting yourself on the back claiming the consequent is true. I agree and disagree with some of your argument's but please don't try and enforce the fallacy of composition on me.Specific ambiguity arises from the meaning when it is assumed that something is true when in part of a whole,then you assert it must also be true of the whole.

And yes I truly believe that every 'money man' has the ability to influence and lead any sporting club.European soccer is a prime example.A 'money man' can double the cap easily by establishing companies and corporations through shareholders,in order to fund 3rd party agreements.How do you think Easts do it? I personally know of two companies that help Easts in this manner,it's undetectable,because the chain of command and money trail can never be successfully linked to the club.Suddenly you come up with faulty inferences of irrelevant deductive reasoning and move the goal post and start taking about "every money man in the world is somehow the type of leader you want". We are talking about administration of football clubs only,which are a corporation, meaning dealing in finance and commerce.You presented evidence of "global media empire" for your argument in response to a specific claim.You do this after you degraded the worth of 'money man',that is inconsistent comparison or you are appealing to hypocrisy.Your argument can be dismissed because you state a certain position is wrong and should be disregarded but then you acknowledge that vast resources does make a difference.Make up your mind,or elaborate further,because the proponent of your argument fails to act consistently in accordance with your original position.Either money obtained through leadership leads to success,or it doesn't.

As for Souths,Crowe is well connected in the entertainment industry.He can easily forsake an insignificant part of his agreement for a 3rd party,this could make a huge difference to Souths.A simple endorsement for alternate consideration can never be linked to the club."Souths fans want him gone",obviously you don't frequent their leagues club,they know without him they don't have a club,unless the NRL steps in.Unbelievable how you somehow think that with a slight of hand you can commit Onus probandi and shift the burden of proof,when you are making the claim,defend the assertion.You throw a unfounded Argumentum ad populum and then you appeal to it as if it's widespread belief lol.The proposition you claimed to be true holds solely because the majority or many people believe it to be so? But you are not equipped or even informed enough to make these baseless assertions.

I honestly don't know of any leaders in the corporate world that have no money.If you are referring to a manager,that's not a leader,he's a nobody.You have presented a false analogy or at best it is poorly suited.The leader is the main man,the owner or CEO.But if you are referring to a different type of leader,then possibly yes.You need to properly define the word's explanatory meaning.You need to avoid causal oversimplification,otherwise you're hanging your argument with fallacies of single causes.It's irrelevant to me if you assume that, just because you can attest to a simple outcome of your life,you think in reality it may apply and jointly become a relevant number?

When you say "dictators never survive, nor do their systems" you are making an appeal to authority,using only dubious credentials and narrowing an opinion to an overall idea.I agree Dictators don't last,but they are not meant to! What history has proved is that they can fix and steer their charge correctly and exponentially,because they have an initial vested interest.Once the problem is fixed,their usefulness becomes redundant.I believe it's the most expedient,concentrated way for adjustment.Democratic systems survive longer,but they are collective in nature and reluctant to make tough decisions without the group's consent.I guess it can rightfully be argued that it's a false dichotomy or better still a fallacy of bifurcation,in reality there are more alternative possible options.I don't think either of us has explored or advanced a new controversial position but in fairness we only responded to what was challenged.

Did you know Bullfrog personally? I did,I've known him since he had the newsagency at Belmore,my father used to fix his cars.I was his paperboy until my family moved to Kogarah in the mid 70's.I've had many a chat with him asking him on what he called the "reformation".I agree he was a good negotiator and planner,but he ran a tight ship and that was needed at our club.The board and the players (for obvious personal representative reasons) were against the Bulldogs joining Super League,but together with Arthurson he took us down that path.So yes,he did make some dictatorial decisions and his presence convinced everyone he was right.He was more then a dictator bro,he was a god at Belmore.Appeal to his accomplishments can be distorted with assertions and it hurts.So when people mention Bullfrog,I always tell them that unless they have sufficient knowledge,credentials,or training to credibly comments on the subject matter,the elements of the arguments will appeal to my emotions.Bullfrog wasn't the reason the Leagues Club become rich.It was NSW government legislation (Bob Carr),allowing clubs and pubs to increase their poker machine numbers.Because of the area's demographics,the club benefited from people gambling vast amounts of money.I think you get what I'm referring to.

When judging the old board (not Des),I believe we are all committing historian's fallacy.We are all assuming that past decision makers viewed events from the same perspective and had the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision in the present.As emotional fans,we center around presentism and try to use a mode of historical analysis in which past-day events have the same standards,when they were projected into the present and future.I'm sure like me you are bemused that a financially successful club was unable to project the salary cap into the future.I can't accept that the problem was as a result of the wrong cap amount.Des was sacked in September 2017 but the old board went ahead with Foran's and Wood's (our 2 most expensive players) registration in November.They are both on long contracts.The board don't calculate our salary cap and future projections,whoever was entrusted with this job either dropped the ball or the board ignored the figures.What do you think?

Sharing ideas is what we both should engage in.I'm not proud,if I'm wrong I'll register my correction,but I will not stand for Ad hominem attacks and forceful prosodic stress that you seem to enjoy engaging in.I appeal to your understanding,I have spent over thirty years fighting false attribution in Legal Courts.So it's not my intention to advocate and fight appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified,unidentified,biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.When said and done we are both guilty of the fallacy of quoting out of context,selecting and excerpting words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning. Affording kindness is generally a very good compromise,don't you think?

 

[Deathspell]

We already have that advisor you keep talking about Chris Anderson.

Where have I talked about Chris Anderson as an advisor? He is a director,he has enough on his plate to get involved in day to day player management.When I say advisor I don't mean someone who makes fleeting one hour comments.I mean a full time experienced advisor that can help guide Pay and carry some of the load.I don't think it's fair for a rookie coach to have to deal with our huge problems alone.His career could end before it starts,he's in danger of 2 consecutive wooden spoons.

 

[wendog33]

I've been saying for ever that we need to give News Corp a free 25% stake in the Club....watch our positive media profile, and TPA's soar and all the benefits that will follow on from that

 

[wendog33]

We have a difference of opinion but your understanding of logical laws and disposition of the facts are all over the place.Don't get to uptight about it,sit back and read my post carefully.I got some good information out of your post,try and be humble and comprehend my argument.

Let me correct you on what a contradiction is. A contradiction is the conjunction of a statement,meaning that a statement and its denial cannot both be true at the same time,in the same place.For example the Bulldogs won today,but today they lost against the Titans.Contradictions MUST be directed towards the same statement bro! Your example of Easts and Souths is not a contradiction.It was a statement to indicate that 1st,Easts are run well,2nd,since Crowe got involved,Souths are in a better position.Taking 12 years to accomplish his objective is irrelevant (it was only 8 years,btw).Souths were close to foreclosure when Crowe got involved in 2006 after Souths got the spoon.We got the spoon in 2008 and I doubt we'll win the comp before 2020.The 12 years you mistakenly advanced towards Souths would be more applicable to our club! What you did was commit a logical fallacy.I challenge you again,where is this great contradiction of all time? I say your argument is made up of a manipulation of emotions,rather than the use of valid reasoning.

Then in expounding your explanation you committed a propositional fallacy,first you are affirming the consequent,then you are proposing the antecedent putting indicative conditions,then patting yourself on the back claiming the consequent is true. I agree and disagree with some of your argument's but please don't try and enforce the fallacy of composition on me.Specific ambiguity arises from the meaning when it is assumed that something is true when in part of a whole,then you assert it must also be true of the whole.

And yes I truly believe that every 'money man' has the ability to influence and lead any sporting club.European soccer is a prime example.A 'money man' can double the cap easily by establishing companies and corporations through shareholders,in order to fund 3rd party agreements.How do you think Easts do it? I personally know of two companies that help Easts in this manner,it's undetectable,because the chain of command and money trail can never be successfully linked to the club.Suddenly you come up with faulty inferences of irrelevant deductive reasoning and move the goal post and start taking about "every money man in the world is somehow the type of leader you want". We are talking about administration of football clubs only,which are a corporation, meaning dealing in finance and commerce.You presented evidence of "global media empire" for your argument in response to a specific claim.You do this after you degraded the worth of
'money man',that is inconsistent comparison or you are appealing to hypocrisy.Your argument can be dismissed because you state a certain position is wrong and should be disregarded but then you acknowledge that vast resources does make a difference.Make up your mind,or elaborate further,because the proponent of your argument fails to act consistently in accordance with your original position.Either money obtained through leadership leads to success,or it doesn't.

As for Souths,Crowe is well connected in the entertainment industry.He can easily forsake an insignificant part of his agreement for a 3rd party,this could make a huge difference to Souths.A simple endorsement for alternate consideration can never be linked to the club."Souths fans want him gone",obviously you don't frequent their leagues club,they know without him they don't have a club,unless the NRL steps in.Unbelievable how you somehow think that with a slight of hand you can commit Onus probandi and shift the burden of proof,when you are making the claim,defend the assertion.You throw a unfounded Argumentum ad populum and then you appeal to it as if it's widespread belief lol.The proposition you claimed to be true holds solely because the majority or many people believe it to be so? But you are not equipped or even informed enough to make these baseless assertions.

I honestly don't know of any leaders in the corporate world that have no money.If you are referring to a manager,that's not a leader,he's a nobody.You have presented a false analogy or at best it is poorly suited.The leader is the main man,the owner or CEO.But if you are referring to a different type of leader,then possibly yes.You need to properly define the word's explanatory meaning.You need to avoid causal oversimplification,otherwise you're hanging your argument with fallacies of single causes.It's irrelevant to me if you assume that, just because you can attest to a simple outcome of your life,you think in reality it may apply and jointly become a relevant number?
When you say "dictators never survive, nor do their systems" you are making an appeal to authority,using only dubious credentials and narrowing an opinion to an overall idea.I agree Dictators don't last,but they are not meant to! What history has proved is that they can fix and steer their charge correctly and exponentially,because they have an initial vested interest.Once the problem is fixed,their usefulness becomes redundant.I believe it's the most expedient,concentrated way for adjustment.Democratic systems survive longer,but they are collective in nature and reluctant to make tough decisions without the group's consent.I guess it can rightfully be argued that it's a false dichotomy or better still a fallacy of bifurcation,in reality there are more alternative possible options.I don't think either of us has explored or advanced a new controversial position but in fairness we only responded to what was challenged.

Did you know Bullfrog personally? I did,I've known him since he had the newsagency at Belmore,my father used to fix his cars.I was his paperboy until my family moved to Kogarah in the mid 70's.I've had many a chat with him asking him on what he called the "reformation".I agree he was a good negotiator and planner,but he ran a tight ship and that was needed at our club.The board and the players (for obvious personal representative reasons) were against the Bulldogs joining Super League,but together with Arthurson he took us down that path.So yes,he did make some dictatorial decisions and his presence convinced everyone he was right.He was more then a dictator bro,he was a god at Belmore.Appeal to his accomplishments can be distorted with assertions and it hurts.So when people mention Bullfrog,I always tell them that unless they have sufficient knowledge,credentials,or training to credibly comments on the subject matter,the elements of the arguments will appeal to my emotions.Bullfrog wasn't the reason the Leagues Club become rich.It was NSW government legislation (Bob Carr),allowing clubs and pubs to increase their poker machine numbers.Because of the area's demographics,the club benefited from people gambling vast amounts of money.I think you get what I'm referring to.

When judging the old board (not Des),I believe we are all committing historian's fallacy.We are all assuming that past decision makers viewed events from the same perspective and had the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision in the present.As emotional fans,we center around presentism and try to use a mode of historical analysis in which past-day events have the same standards,when they were projected into the present and future.I'm sure like me you are bemused that a financially successful club was unable to project the salary cap into the future.I can't accept that the problem was as a result of the wrong cap amount.Des was sacked in September 2017 but the old board went ahead with Foran's and Wood's (our 2 most expensive players) registration in November.They are both on long contracts.The board don't calculate our salary cap and future projections,whoever was entrusted with this job either dropped the ball or the board ignored the figures.What do you think?
Sharing ideas is what we both should engage in.I'm not proud,if I'm wrong I'll register my correction,but I will not stand for Ad hominem attacks and forceful prosodic stress that you seem to enjoy engaging in.I appeal to your understanding,I have spent over thirty years fighting false attribution in Legal Courts.So it's not my intention to advocate and fight appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified,unidentified,biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.When said and done we are both guilty of the fallacy of quoting out of context,selecting and excerpting words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning. Affording kindness is generally a very good compromise,don't you think?

ex scientia vera

 

[_G-Dog_]

Honestly I can keep asking questions about our structure for hours and I'm sure most of you are asking similar questions.I'm no expert,but I'm not blind.I don't just watch the games,I study, analyze and critique them.I run videos of our games through a sports analysis software and it spits out so many offensive faults,it takes me hours to address them properly.And behold,the same shit appears week after week.If it wasn't for SOME players extra effort and individual brilliance we would have been smashed in every game.A huge thanks to those players that gave us hope during those close games.We all love you.

You should contact the club.. Pay would be interested in your sports analysis software

 

[The DoggFather]

We have a difference of opinion but your understanding of logical laws and disposition of the facts are all over the place.Don't get to uptight about it,sit back and read my post carefully.I got some good information out of your post,try and be humble and comprehend my argument.

Let me correct you on what a contradiction is. A contradiction is the conjunction of a statement,meaning that a statement and its denial cannot both be true at the same time,in the same place.For example the Bulldogs won today,but today they lost against the Titans.Contradictions MUST be directed towards the same statement bro! Your example of Easts and Souths is not a contradiction.It was a statement to indicate that 1st,Easts are run well,2nd,since Crowe got involved,Souths are in a better position.Taking 12 years to accomplish his objective is irrelevant (it was only 8 years,btw).Souths were close to foreclosure when Crowe got involved in 2006 after Souths got the spoon.We got the spoon in 2008 and I doubt we'll win the comp before 2020.The 12 years you mistakenly advanced towards Souths would be more applicable to our club! What you did was commit a logical fallacy.I challenge you again,where is this great contradiction of all time? I say your argument is made up of a manipulation of emotions,rather than the use of valid reasoning.

Then in expounding your explanation you committed a propositional fallacy,first you are affirming the consequent,then you are proposing the antecedent putting indicative conditions,then patting yourself on the back claiming the consequent is true. I agree and disagree with some of your argument's but please don't try and enforce the fallacy of composition on me.Specific ambiguity arises from the meaning when it is assumed that something is true when in part of a whole,then you assert it must also be true of the whole.

And yes I truly believe that every 'money man' has the ability to influence and lead any sporting club.European soccer is a prime example.A 'money man' can double the cap easily by establishing companies and corporations through shareholders,in order to fund 3rd party agreements.How do you think Easts do it? I personally know of two companies that help Easts in this manner,it's undetectable,because the chain of command and money trail can never be successfully linked to the club.Suddenly you come up with faulty inferences of irrelevant deductive reasoning and move the goal post and start taking about "every money man in the world is somehow the type of leader you want". We are talking about administration of football clubs only,which are a corporation, meaning dealing in finance and commerce.You presented evidence of "global media empire" for your argument in response to a specific claim.You do this after you degraded the worth of
'money man',that is inconsistent comparison or you are appealing to hypocrisy.Your argument can be dismissed because you state a certain position is wrong and should be disregarded but then you acknowledge that vast resources does make a difference.Make up your mind,or elaborate further,because the proponent of your argument fails to act consistently in accordance with your original position.Either money obtained through leadership leads to success,or it doesn't.

As for Souths,Crowe is well connected in the entertainment industry.He can easily forsake an insignificant part of his agreement for a 3rd party,this could make a huge difference to Souths.A simple endorsement for alternate consideration can never be linked to the club."Souths fans want him gone",obviously you don't frequent their leagues club,they know without him they don't have a club,unless the NRL steps in.Unbelievable how you somehow think that with a slight of hand you can commit Onus probandi and shift the burden of proof,when you are making the claim,defend the assertion.You throw a unfounded Argumentum ad populum and then you appeal to it as if it's widespread belief lol.The proposition you claimed to be true holds solely because the majority or many people believe it to be so? But you are not equipped or even informed enough to make these baseless assertions.

I honestly don't know of any leaders in the corporate world that have no money.If you are referring to a manager,that's not a leader,he's a nobody.You have presented a false analogy or at best it is poorly suited.The leader is the main man,the owner or CEO.But if you are referring to a different type of leader,then possibly yes.You need to properly define the word's explanatory meaning.You need to avoid causal oversimplification,otherwise you're hanging your argument with fallacies of single causes.It's irrelevant to me if you assume that, just because you can attest to a simple outcome of your life,you think in reality it may apply and jointly become a relevant number?
When you say "dictators never survive, nor do their systems" you are making an appeal to authority,using only dubious credentials and narrowing an opinion to an overall idea.I agree Dictators don't last,but they are not meant to! What history has proved is that they can fix and steer their charge correctly and exponentially,because they have an initial vested interest.Once the problem is fixed,their usefulness becomes redundant.I believe it's the most expedient,concentrated way for adjustment.Democratic systems survive longer,but they are collective in nature and reluctant to make tough decisions without the group's consent.I guess it can rightfully be argued that it's a false dichotomy or better still a fallacy of bifurcation,in reality there are more alternative possible options.I don't think either of us has explored or advanced a new controversial position but in fairness we only responded to what was challenged.

Did you know Bullfrog personally? I did,I've known him since he had the newsagency at Belmore,my father used to fix his cars.I was his paperboy until my family moved to Kogarah in the mid 70's.I've had many a chat with him asking him on what he called the "reformation".I agree he was a good negotiator and planner,but he ran a tight ship and that was needed at our club.The board and the players (for obvious personal representative reasons) were against the Bulldogs joining Super League,but together with Arthurson he took us down that path.So yes,he did make some dictatorial decisions and his presence convinced everyone he was right.He was more then a dictator bro,he was a god at Belmore.Appeal to his accomplishments can be distorted with assertions and it hurts.So when people mention Bullfrog,I always tell them that unless they have sufficient knowledge,credentials,or training to credibly comments on the subject matter,the elements of the arguments will appeal to my emotions.Bullfrog wasn't the reason the Leagues Club become rich.It was NSW government legislation (Bob Carr),allowing clubs and pubs to increase their poker machine numbers.Because of the area's demographics,the club benefited from people gambling vast amounts of money.I think you get what I'm referring to.

When judging the old board (not Des),I believe we are all committing historian's fallacy.We are all assuming that past decision makers viewed events from the same perspective and had the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision in the present.As emotional fans,we center around presentism and try to use a mode of historical analysis in which past-day events have the same standards,when they were projected into the present and future.I'm sure like me you are bemused that a financially successful club was unable to project the salary cap into the future.I can't accept that the problem was as a result of the wrong cap amount.Des was sacked in September 2017 but the old board went ahead with Foran's and Wood's (our 2 most expensive players) registration in November.They are both on long contracts.The board don't calculate our salary cap and future projections,whoever was entrusted with this job either dropped the ball or the board ignored the figures.What do you think?
Sharing ideas is what we both should engage in.I'm not proud,if I'm wrong I'll register my correction,but I will not stand for Ad hominem attacks and forceful prosodic stress that you seem to enjoy engaging in.I appeal to your understanding,I have spent over thirty years fighting false attribution in Legal Courts.So it's not my intention to advocate and fight appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified,unidentified,biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.When said and done we are both guilty of the fallacy of quoting out of context,selecting and excerpting words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning. Affording kindness is generally a very good compromise,don't you think?

Why do I go to a wiki page if I tap on your 3rd paragraph and lower?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

 

[The DoggFather]

Where have I talked about Chris Anderson as an advisor? He is a director,he has enough on his plate to get involved in day to day player management.When I say advisor I don't mean someone who makes fleeting one hour comments.I mean a full time experienced advisor that can help guide Pay and carry some of the load.I don't think it's fair for a rookie coach to have to deal with our huge problems alone.His career could end before it starts,he's in danger of 2 consecutive wooden spoons.

Is Anderson interested in coaching? Or can he convince Hagan to come home and coach us?

 

[CrittaMagic69]

Where have I talked about Chris Anderson as an advisor? He is a director,he has enough on his plate to get involved in day to day player management.When I say advisor I don't mean someone who makes fleeting one hour comments.I mean a full time experienced advisor that can help guide Pay and carry some of the load.I don't think it's fair for a rookie coach to have to deal with our huge problems alone.His career could end before it starts,he's in danger of 2 consecutive wooden spoons.

I don't think it's fair that we have Pay as coach to begin with tbh. He isn't good enough but i guess people are happy to put up with him because we're such a small club these days.

 

[bullanth]

Interesting that now your view seems to be that the coach has nothing to do with establishing how things work in a club. Apparently it is all the ability of the administrators. Of course you have overlooked one fairly important administrator, a bloke who apparently got on reasonably well with Anderson at the time. Crowe had nothing to do with achieving glory or respect. He just had the money to buy players and push out whoever he didn't like. That essentially means every money man in the world is somehow the type of leader you want. Well in my books and I've worked with quite a number of outstanding leaders over the decades, money counts for jack.

The only thing I would agree with is that dictatorship comes from the top - where the hell else would it come from. dictators never survive, nor do their systems. They may have a golden summer here or there but the systems collapse. Bullfrog wasn't a dictator - he was a winner who could negotiate, plan and communicate in a way that those underneath him could buy into it. That was why we were successful over such a long period. We had no money and only built it over decades not minutes. That's precisely what has happened at the Storm. Can't think who established those cultural norms.

As for best run clubs, there is one thing all of the ones you mentioned have in common and that is someone or a group with significant control, vast resources and control of the media. Tell me, how many clubs get access to Good morning America, or a whole city or a global media empire? I can tell you it isn't us, Parra or Manly, seeing as you brought them up.

In terms of contradiction you push forward Easts and Souths as exemplars, citing the vast success of Easts but conveniently ignore the decades of failure of Souths. Even Crowe has taken 12 years to get to where they are now. 12 long years where they have won 1 comp and made the semis maybe twice. Ask the fans what they think of Crowe and most would rather him gone.

There is a world of difference between effective leadership and dictatorship and authoritarian behaviour. I spent many years working in conditions that required all three of those things at different times and the last two never survive the cut.

Yes hard work selling arms in the Middle East,where dictatorships & authoritarian behaviour rule.

 

[bcmf]

Lol klemmer starts for origin and aus but gets benched at the dogs.