#5 Jordan De Goey
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
White Black n Blood
Joined: 28 Nov 2017
|
|
|
|
 |
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
The more I think about this the more I'm pissed off at our club. They have demonised and pilloried this kid beyond a joke. Sure, he needed mentoring, to see a psychologist, to get a job for a few weeks, and to spend some time doing charitable work with those far less fortunate than himself. He probably needed to acknowledge he needed to stop mixing with his boozy mates. But to fine him $20,000 and ban him indefinitely, for something non football related, which has already been dealt with by the police, is a disgrace. The AFL-PA is pathetic for allowing a young player to be bullied and marginalised this way.
Seriously, I'm now convinced that our club is led by a bunch of imbeciles who are so weak and insecure, that they are more interested in sucking up to pisshead journos than really caring about the welfare of Jordan. They pretend its all about his welfare, but the punishments handed out are all about protecting their 'brand'.
Sadly, I reckon our club has completely lost the $£$%^%%$ plot. There are too many 'suits' running our club, whose main concern seems to be to look after their own careers and financial interests. This episode has just about made me lose interest in the season ahead. Side by side used to mean something. |
|
|
|
|
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | The more I think about this the more I'm pissed off at our club. They have demonised and pilloried this kid beyond a joke. Sure, he needed mentoring, to see a psychologist, to get a job for a few weeks, and to spend some time doing charitable work with those far less fortunate than himself. He probably needed to acknowledge he needed to stop mixing with his boozy mates. But to fine him $20,000 and ban him indefinitely, for something non football related, which has already been dealt with by the police, is a disgrace. The AFL-PA is pathetic for allowing a young player to be bullied and marginalised this way.
Seriously, I'm now convinced that our club is led by a bunch of imbeciles who are so weak and insecure, that they are more interested in sucking up to pisshead journos than really caring about the welfare of Jordan. They pretend its all about his welfare, but the punishments handed out are all about protecting their 'brand'.
Sadly, I reckon our club has completely lost the $£$%^%%$ plot. There are too many 'suits' running our club, whose main concern seems to be to look after their own careers and financial interests. This episode has just about made me lose interest in the season ahead. Side by side used to mean something. |
You or I may not know all of the indiscretions that de Goey has made but that doesn't mean the club isn't fully aware of his continual poor lifestyle choices, this was merely the latest and this time it became public property.
Honestly some of you are acting like people don't go out of their way to hide bad behaviour they don't want family, friends or employers to know about and every instance of inappropriate conduct should have been recorded and uploaded to Youtube so we could've kept count and decided if the punishment was fair.
So basically you can accept what most of us have concluded which is the club has been concerned with Jordan's application to being a professional athlete for quite sometime now or the only times he's been out drunk in public in the last 12 months have resulted in a broken hand from a fight and drunk driving and he's the unluckiest individual on planet earth.
I know what sounds the more plausible to me.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
Streak 
Joined: 05 Oct 2004
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: Re: De Goey gone? | |
|
| Skids wrote: | That's probably only 4 or 5 beers, not the smartest thing to drive but, just because someone can kick a leather ball doesn't make them super intelligent does it?! In reality I could drive better than half the clowns on the road with a BAC of 0.1... it's a stupid limit anyway.
A minor indiscretion, he's training the house down isn't he? |
1. If every player on our list was done for drunk driving this weekend, we would get the impression that their heads are not where we'd expect them to be, on the eve of a crunch season. Priorities are screwy.
2. The Club has had more than a few issues with players drink-driving in recent years. E-bloody-nough already.
3. It's de Goey. We needed him early last season, and he wasn't available because he did a few stupid things (and I back the club 100%; you can't reward stupidity and expect a club culture to survive). Now he's ruled himself out indefinitely because he did something stupid. Great player, but maybe he's just too damn stupid to take up locker space. |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: Re: De Goey gone? | |
|
| Streak wrote: | | Skids wrote: | That's probably only 4 or 5 beers, not the smartest thing to drive but, just because someone can kick a leather ball doesn't make them super intelligent does it?! In reality I could drive better than half the clowns on the road with a BAC of 0.1... it's a stupid limit anyway.
A minor indiscretion, he's training the house down isn't he? |
1. If every player on our list was done for drunk driving this weekend, we would get the impression that their heads are not where we'd expect them to be, on the eve of a crunch season. Priorities are screwy.
2. The Club has had more than a few issues with players drink-driving in recent years. E-bloody-nough already.
3. It's de Goey. We needed him early last season, and he wasn't available because he did a few stupid things (and I back the club 100%; you can't reward stupidity and expect a club culture to survive). Now he's ruled himself out indefinitely because he did something stupid. Great player, but maybe he's just too damn stupid to take up locker space. |
He is the classic example of a guy who is built only to play footy (and not much else). Unfortunately for those who want to pontificate, he is bloody good at it, so despite what you all say he will get many many chances to rectify mistakes. His upside is too great to give up on. The good news is that we only need him to play footy. He doesn't have to be a hero to our children. That would be nice, but we have Pendles, Adams and Blair for that.
And if you disagree with that, consider this: even some of those who are super critical of him conclude, "don't suspend him - its not fair that the team should suffer". What is implied by this statement is that we'd rather win a game of footy than live up to the principal of the thing. I am ok with that by the way. I think we just have to be careful to acknowledge that even though we pretend to care. We dont care enough to sacrifice winning games of footy. And we should just acknowledge that so that we are being honest.
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
Streak
Joined: 05 Oct 2004
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: Re: De Goey gone? | |
|
| E wrote: | He is the classic example of a guy who is built only to play footy (and not much else). Unfortunately for those who want to pontificate, he is bloody good at it, so despite what you all say he will get many many chances to rectify mistakes. His upside is too great to give up on. The good news is that we only need him to play footy. He doesn't have to be a hero to our children. That would be nice, but we have Pendles, Adams and Blair for that.
And if you disagree with that, consider this: even some of those who are super critical of him conclude, "don't suspend him - its not fair that the team should suffer". What is implied by this statement is that we'd rather win a game of footy than live up to the principal of the thing. I am ok with that by the way. I think we just have to be careful to acknowledge that even though we pretend to care. We dont care enough to sacrifice winning games of footy. And we should just acknowledge that so that we are being honest. |
His behavior may not sink to the level of dismissable offence, and you make some very valid points. There is a fair amount of hypocrisy when it comes to off-field "indiscretions", because the on-field is implicitly weighed in those considerations (if De Goey were a poor footballer, he may already be gone).
But these events offer us an opportunity to be clear about who we are, and what we stand for. And I don't think the quality of the player should be an absolvable influence - because then we're a Club who'd allow a Tiprat on the squad, because he plays a valuable role.
I agree that the argument of some is "Don't suspend him, because the team will suffer." But I contend that that takes a very narrow view of team welfare. I believe that not suspending him, at the very least, would cause the team to suffer. It sends the message that off-field idiocy is tolerated, and that all that matters is on-field success. It isn't, and it shouldn't be.
We need to be - we can be, and at our best, have been - a Club who both wins games of footy and builds young men into good men. For a Collingwood supporter, the former may be most important. For society, it's the latter. A truly great institution extends its positive influence even to those for whom Ws on the board mean nothing. Our young men go to visit sick kids at the Children's Hospital not because it makes them better players, but because it makes for better young men and a better society.
Taking it to extremes, perhaps. Again, I don't necessarily think De Goey should be sacked. But I do reject the idea that all we have a right to expect of young men we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars is that they kick a ball. For that, there's always soccer. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: Re: De Goey gone? | |
|
| Streak wrote: | ...
Taking it to extremes, perhaps. Again, I don't necessarily think De Goey should be sacked. But I do reject the idea that all we have a right to expect of young men we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars is that they kick a ball. For that, there's always soccer. |
The link given on the bottom of p.15 suggests that EPL players have far more restrictions and expectations placed upon them than AFL players. |
|
|
|
|
mudlark
Joined: 19 Mar 2002
Location: Maroochydore Qld
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | mudlark wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | mudlark wrote: | | Leggie wrote: | He screwed up.
Kick his arse.
Fine him.
Suspend him.
Then move on.
Go Pies |
SUSPEND him??? Why?So he can screw our entire season like last year and bring him back when it's all over rover? Hit him on the head, hard,fine him,LOT'S and put him on a first and final.Screw up again and you're gone from the club.Collingwood cut their nose off to spite their face last year and people laughed out loud at how stupid we were for "Upholding our moral values"??? while all the other clubs stars were given the the rap on the knuckles and a fine.Any talk of suspension is ludicrous and would show how stupid we actually are,nowt the way we are perceived. |
actually i like what the club as done here - in times where he might have got the nod if it was 50/50, he now wont, and in light of goldsack saying hes not as fit as he should be, i reckon hes really going to have to wake up to himself. well done pies |
Good for you.but I believe you dislike the club enough to actually like this garbage. The chief of traffic police said he is almost dumbstruck at the treatment he is getting in the media and that his punishment by the law would be as harsh as it gets. |
what the absolute **** is that! seriously, grow up! |
You're telling me to WHAT? grow up.I was watching hard men play footy before you were even thought of girlie.You click and cluck with glee at our own when they stuff top,as mere mortals do and then try and tell us you're a loyal supporter. I think I saw through you a long while ago. |
|
|
|
|
Damien 
Me Noah & Flynn @ the G
Joined: 21 Jan 1999
Location: Croydon Vic
|
| Post subject: | |
|
So who’s this North dude who did something similar? Story Fizzled out in a second. Pies sell papers. Other teams don’t.
_________________
'Collingwood are the Bradmans of Football'
The Herald - 1930 |
|
|
|
|
Woods 
Joined: 21 Aug 2013
Location: Melbourne
|
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ^ Simpkin is also aided by the apparent absence of info on what exactly his blood alcohol level was and how much it contributed to the accident. |
|
|
|
|
mudlark
Joined: 19 Mar 2002
Location: Maroochydore Qld
|
| Post subject: | |
|
We're all wringing our hands and beating our bleeding hearts about what COULD have happened if JDG had killed someone, but similarly why are we not as concerned if Simpkin had have caused the motor cyclist to swerve into a crowd of people, killing someone and even himself.After all Simpkins was pissed and a "ROLE MODEL"!!!I wonder if he trashed someone's house??? |
|
|
|
|
Skids 
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I tell you what should happen!!
He should lose his licence and get a $2500 fine... like anybody else would!
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
Woods
Joined: 21 Aug 2013
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| mudlark wrote: |
We're all wringing our hands and beating our bleeding hearts about what COULD have happened if JDG had killed someone, but similarly why are we not as concerned if Simpkin had have caused the motor cyclist to swerve into a crowd of people, killing someone and even himself.After all Simpkins was pissed and a "ROLE MODEL"!!!I wonder if he trashed someone's house??? |
Nice try, but you're trying to make chalk out of cheese.
If you are in charge of a vehicle and you swerve off into a crowd of people for any reason you are gone in the eyes of the law. You are responsible for what that vehicle does, and you alone. You can't blame the noisy kids in the back seat, the drunken bloke that walked in front of you, or that you were distracted by seeing Jamie Elliot pissing in a bin. You are gone.
Now you might argue in court that there were mitigating circumstances and if believed you might get a lesser sentence. But you WILL be convicted.
The drunken pedestrian will only be charged with disorderly conduct in public and probably get a fine. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Woods wrote: | ...
The drunken pedestrian will only be charged with disorderly conduct in public and probably get a fine. |
Simpkin will also be charged with jaywalking (Jywalking?), or walking against the red light, or whatever they call it. (And, yes, most people do not regard JUI to be as serious as DUI.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
