Page 2 of 6
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 7:16 pm
by Onions
Cheaper option?? Are you fucking nuts?
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 7:50 pm
by Truthsayer
MarkZZZ wrote:Let me get this straight. The AFL pays a bucket load of money to someone that is not an AFL player because.......? Lets see they saw a heap of potential in him and thought they could turn him into a star? No. They saw that he was a cheaper option than an established good player? No. They thought that he had a reasonably high profile in the NRL and hoped that would create some interest in a fledgling AFL team? I think so. Strange that they had to do that.
Down the track this guy has pockets full of AFL money and the AFL have had their 15 minutes of interest. Was that a good deal seeing that he is performing to the level of interest he has in the game. I for one think the answer is no.
How stupid is it then to turn around and criticize something you should have see coming from the day that stupid idea to recruit a NRL player came into your heads.
I doubt whether you or Mr Eliagh have this straight at all, Mr Mark. The absence of links goes to show that you are hiding the true facts. The real interest in the Suns did not come from Hunt. It came from Ablett Junior.
If Hunt wanted to make some money outside of sport that's up to him. He probably would have done it had he still been playing NRL. If he has done it and I remain to be convinced of this.
I doubt Hunt was a cheaper option to an established AFL player. As you said yourselves he signed a lucrative contract. It was needed given that there would have been issues with whatever contract he was under in the NRL at the time.
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 8:08 am
by Raiderdave
Truthsayer wrote:MarkZZZ wrote:Let me get this straight. The AFL pays a bucket load of money to someone that is not an AFL player because.......? Lets see they saw a heap of potential in him and thought they could turn him into a star? No. They saw that he was a cheaper option than an established good player? No. They thought that he had a reasonably high profile in the NRL and hoped that would create some interest in a fledgling AFL team? I think so. Strange that they had to do that.
Down the track this guy has pockets full of AFL money and the AFL have had their 15 minutes of interest. Was that a good deal seeing that he is performing to the level of interest he has in the game. I for one think the answer is no.
How stupid is it then to turn around and criticize something you should have see coming from the day that stupid idea to recruit a NRL player came into your heads.
I doubt whether you or Mr Eliagh have this straight at all, Mr Mark. The absence of links goes to show that you are hiding the true facts. The real interest in the Suns did not come from Hunt. It came from Ablett Junior.
If Hunt wanted to make some money outside of sport that's up to him. He probably would have done it had he still been playing NRL. If he has done it and I remain to be convinced of this.
I doubt Hunt was a cheaper option to an established AFL player. As you said yourselves he signed a lucrative contract. It was needed given that there would have been issues with whatever contract he was under in the NRL at the time.
TLPG
what has this got to do with Ablett .., true facts or with links ?
we are asking WHY .. the AFL signed an NRL player for a Million dollars who has barely played the game ?.. I mean what F'd up weirdo does that
.. if he wanted to join as turnip has implied
fine .. pay him the minimum wage
but of course we all know the AFL approached him ..& threw buckets of money at him otherwise he wouldn't have gone over .. he has no interest in your lame game .. just the coin that comes with it.
we will continue to theorise that it was a desperate move by a desperate sport .. so out of its depth that it knew this is what it had to do
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 9:13 am
by MarkZZZ
Truthsayer wrote:I doubt Hunt was a cheaper option to an established AFL player. As you said yourselves he signed a lucrative contract. It was needed given that there would have been issues with whatever contract he was under in the NRL at the time.
Do you have trouble reading. The point I was making was that he was more expensive than an established, reasonably good AFL player. They where not paying for his AFL playing ability but the belief that a NRL player with a reasonable amount of recognition and popularity would draw some NRL fans to your game.
I would have thought signing a AFL player who was worth the bucks would have given them a better result.
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 9:22 am
by MarkZZZ
Onions wrote:Cheaper option?? Are you ******* nuts?
onion I am starting to wonder if you and truthslayer are twins, you both obviously fail the comprehension test. Read what I wrote again and then come back and say "Sorry I didn't understand it the first time I read it"
There is really no hope with some people.
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:07 am
by Onions
There's no fucking hope for you, Sleeper! Read what YOU said again and fucking get it that you fucked up!
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:20 am
by MarkZZZ
Here onion I have highlighted it to make it even easier for you to read and hopefully comprehend.
MarkZZZ wrote:Let me get this straight. The AFL pays a bucket load of money to someone that is not an AFL player because.......? Lets see they saw a heap of potential in him and thought they could turn him into a star? No. They saw that he was a cheaper option than an established good player? No. They thought that he had a reasonably high profile in the NRL and hoped that would create some interest in a fledgling AFL team? I think so. Strange that they had to do that.
Down the track this guy has pockets full of AFL money and the AFL have had their 15 minutes of interest. Was that a good deal seeing that he is performing to the level of interest he has in the game. I for one think the answer is no.
How stupid is it then to turn around and criticize something you should have see coming from the day that stupid idea to recruit a NRL player came into your heads.
Now say "Sorry, I was wrong" not holding my breath though.
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 1:06 pm
by Truthsayer
Mr Mark, I will admit I was wrong when you admit to a miscommunication through a very poor statement that was open to such an act. That was poorly worded.
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 2:35 pm
by King-Eliagh
I found Mark's post crystal clear.
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 2:59 pm
by MarkZZZ
Once again an epic fail from both onion and truthslayer. People that take the time to read it would have no trouble getting the gist of what I was writing. Even when pointed out that there was obviously an error on their part and asked to re-read they either don't bother or still don't get it.
My sister is a primary school teacher, maybe I need to consult her in how to communicate with people with your level of comprehension.
There is no hope for some people.
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:32 pm
by Truthsayer
Mr Mark, it would be more prudent if you would put your comments in a clearer manner instead of using one word sentences. I'm sure your sister would consider that lazy writing. You should accept a portion of the blame for the prevailing situation.
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 11:06 pm
by Truthsayer
You should be catering for all common denominators, not just the lowest. Single words sentences fail to do that. It leads to miscommunications and that is your responsibility. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that you contributed to the issue at hand?
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 11:07 pm
by MarkZZZ
Truthsayer wrote:Mr Mark, it would be more prudent if you would put your comments in a clearer manner instead of using one word sentences. I'm sure your sister would consider that lazy writing. You should accept a portion of the blame for the prevailing situation.
I ask myself "could I make the sentences longer? Yes. Do I think it's a good idea? No. I can't make the sentences too long, you and onion have a limited concentration/comprehension level. I have to cater for the lowest common denominator.
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 11:15 pm
by Truthsayer
That was very poorly written yet again. This is not primary school, Mr Mark. You aren't Mr Raider or Mr Onions. I expect better from you.
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 11:30 pm
by MarkZZZ
Truthsayer wrote:That was very poorly written yet again. This is not primary school, Mr Mark. You aren't Mr Raider or Mr Onions. I expect better from you.
This is not primary school? You could have fooled me.
You get what your given/deserve.