Boyd - I'm trying too hard

[theshed]

So now it's somebody? Are you still saying it's one person? Somebody using their heart instead of their heads. Then others co-sign. Got it. So it could be White who was overcome with emotion? It may have been one of the others. One person it couldn't have been is WB. He isn't on the board.

The way you tell it, the board simply went along with this mysterious person who was clearly not thinking as a business person but who ,showing no regard for financial matters ,insisted on this unfavourable to the business contract. The board, savvy in the ways of business collectively thought, hey let's forget business considerations and rubber stamp this unfavourable contract for 'reasons'.

No, you didn't mention WB but your claims are ridiculous. The board, responsible for business decisions decided to offer a contract they agreed was merited. It was the boards decision alone. What you suggest is quite plainly illogical.

It doesn't mean WB's views weren't canvassed, they most certainly were. Still not his decision and it makes no difference what reasons governed his imput, others decided on it's merit. Blame them collectively and no one individually.

Yes, I do believe that the entire board may have been some what swayed by emotion when making the decision. Whether it was one person or a group that is most to blame is purely semantics. But focusing on semantics is your entire posting style because it makes you feel smart when you point out a spelling error or an imperfect use of grammar that no one else cares about but you. Because without that most your opinions are just those of a guy who likes to be contrarian for the sake of looking smarter than others.

You’ve created an online persona entirely based on being the world’s least fun guy at parties. Congratulations.

 

[Huge]

Yes, I do believe that the entire board may have been some what swayed by emotion when making the decision. Whether it was one person or a group that is most to blame is purely semantics. But focusing on semantics is your entire posting style because it makes you feel smart when you point out a spelling error or an imperfect use of grammar that no one else cares about but you. Because without that most your opinions are just those of a guy who likes to be contrarian for the sake of looking smarter than others.

You’ve created an online persona entirely based on being the world’s least fun guy at parties. Congratulations.

Mmm, no. You fucked up by making a baseless claim and now you want to do your octopus impersonation. Wriggle wriggle, deflect. You now claim the entire board acted unprofessionally. So as to not acknowledge you made a baseless claim and to deflect you launch into some pettiness about grammar.

Semantics? Your claim: some man at the Broncos gave Boyd an overly favourable contract.
Now you have a new claim: either the board as a whole were incompetent and acted unprofessionally or one person, acting on behalf of all the board acted unprofessionally.

No matter, at least we agree is wasn't WB, he wasn't on the board.

 

[theshed]

Mmm, no. You fucked up by making a baseless claim and now you want to do your octopus impersonation. Wriggle wriggle, deflect. You now claim the entire board acted unprofessionally. So as to not acknowledge you made a baseless claim and to deflect you lauch into some pettiness about grammar.

Semantics? Your claim: some man at the Broncos gave Boyd an overly favourable contract.
Now you have a new claim: either the board as a whole were incompetent and acted unprofessionally or one person, acting on behalf of all the board acted unprofessionally.

No matter, at least we agree is wasn't WB, he wasn't on the board.

No semantics is exactly what it is. My opinion was that I felt as if Boyd’s contract was made with more heart than brain. You got bogged down in the wording of it to try and act like it was an attack at Bennett which it wasn’t specifically. So you’ve just double downed on telling me what it is that I meant based on the exact definition of the words I chose. Well, this is a forum about footy and not a legal document. So I’m allowed to clarify what I actually meant and not be told by you what I meant.


Maybe it was Bennett, maybe it was Lockyer, maybe it was White, or another person or maybe it was a unanimous decision from every single official and player at the club. I don’t care. I just FEEL as though Boyd’s contract wasn’t a very rational decision. And anybody who reads my original post without trying their best to make it about it seem like a dig aimed at Bennett would interpret it that way. Then you looked like an idiot for being presumptuous and so you’ve had to commit all these posts trying to hang me based on the word “someone” and the word “his”.

 

[tommy]

Boyd was about 30 or even just over when he signed that contract wasn't he? When was the last time we had a player that age given a contract that long @Super Freak ? @Big Pete?

In the words of Gus Gould if it looks like a duck and goes quack then it's probably a duck.

 

[Nashy]

Boyd was about 30 or even just over when he signed that contract wasn't he? When was the last time we had a player that age given a contract that long @Super Freak ? @Big Pete?

I thought I read an article the other day that said we'd never signed someone that long that late in a players career.

 

[Matheos]

Not sure if anyone has commented on this following Thursday’s game.... but what the **** is with Boyd slipping in crucial 1v1 moments as the last line of defence!
I’m beginning to think he is taking the soft option almost by design.

 

[PNG Broncos fan88]

Not sure if anyone has commented on this following Thursday’s game.... but what the **** is with Boyd slipping in crucial 1v1 moments as the last line of defence!
I’m beginning to think he is taking the soft option almost by design.

It is in every opposition's tip sheet now;
> When you make a break, either dummy to support when you get to the fullback or run over him.

 

[Big Pete]

Boyd was about 30 or even just over when he signed that contract wasn't he? When was the last time we had a player that age given a contract that long @Super Freak ? @Big Pete?

In the words of Gus Gould if it looks like a duck and goes quack then it's probably a duck.

Matt Gillett.

 

[Unbreakable]

Matt Gillett.

Coming off a similarly serious neck injury to the one that essentially ended Gorden Tallis' career.

I appreciate that we were "looking after" one of our one-team guys, but there's safer ways to do it, pay him more, but make it a 2 year deal. Pay him less, but guarantee him work at the club after footy. There was so many alternatives to locking him for that 4 year deal, I can't imagine he would've had teams lining up out the door with massive long-term offers after breaking his neck in multiple places and missing the entire season.

 

[Huge]

No semantics is exactly what it is. My opinion was that I felt as if Boyd’s contract was made with more heart than brain. You got bogged down in the wording of it to try and act like it was an attack at Bennett which it wasn’t specifically. So you’ve just double downed on telling me what it is that I meant based on the exact definition of the words I chose. Well, this is a forum about footy and not a legal document. So I’m allowed to clarify what I actually meant and not be told by you what I meant.


Maybe it was Bennett, maybe it was Lockyer, maybe it was White, or another person or maybe it was a unanimous decision from every single official and player at the club. I don’t care. I just FEEL as though Boyd’s contract wasn’t a very rational decision. And anybody who reads my original post without trying their best to make it about it seem like a dig aimed at Bennett would interpret it that way.

If you'd written that (the bolded bit) in the first place there'd be no discussion. In your original post you claimed a single male person gave Boyd an inappropriate contract as a favour, doesn't matter how much you dance, you meant WB. Own it.[/QUOTE]

 

[john1420]

I think by the end of the season the Milf / Dearden combo will be going well. As much as I didn't like Ben Hunt, he did take a lot of pressure of Milford with kicking and general directing of play. Milford was one of the best players in the comp in 2015, and even in 2016 was very good. I think he can get back to that with a halfback that will help.

You need to remember, Milford hasn't had anyone to rely on... Boyd doesn't really help or take any pressure off the play makers, nor does he draw defenders off milford. Similarly Macca doesn't threaten the line much. As most of the time Milford and Nikorima have stuck to one side each, it's very predictable for the defence.

If Milford is still struggling with Dearden, and if we change our fullback, then yeah move him on eventually, But I think wait until we actually have a spine to support him.

The only spine players who could probably do okay, and only 'okay' with the other 3 members of our spine would be Cam Smith, Cronk and maybe Luke Keary. Any other half / hooker would really struggle I think.

I've said it before, for mine, Fullback is the most important position in the modern game. Starts your sets off, last line of defence, helps communicate your defensive line and takes A LOT of pressure off your halves when they are just running near the ball looking for offloads / creating options.

Really good post

To cut boyd some slack, it appears as though daddy wayne has told him its all about him his entire career...

But then you went and did this FMD

 

[theshed]

No semantics is exactly what it is. My opinion was that I felt as if Boyd’s contract was made with more heart than brain. You got bogged down in the wording of it to try and act like it was an attack at Bennett which it wasn’t specifically. So you’ve just double downed on telling me what it is that I meant based on the exact definition of the words I chose. Well, this is a forum about footy and not a legal document. So I’m allowed to clarify what I actually meant and not be told by you what I meant.


Maybe it was Bennett, maybe it was Lockyer, maybe it was White, or another person or maybe it was a unanimous decision from every single official and player at the club. I don’t care. I just FEEL as though Boyd’s contract wasn’t a very rational decision. And anybody who reads my original post without trying their best to make it about it seem like a dig aimed at Bennett would interpret it that way.

If you'd written that (the bolded bit) in the first place there'd be no discussion. In your original post you claimed a single male person gave Boyd an inappropriate contract as a favour, doesn't matter how much you dance, you meant WB. Own it.

Well done.

Again though, I’d like to point out that for a guy who is so anal about everyone in a football forum upholding a flawless grasp of the English language, your comprehension is pretty embarrassing. You do realise I never said “his” right? You do realise that I said “I find it hard to see” right? Suggesting that I am skeptical of it being a rational decision. I didn’t make a claim against any “single male person”.

Let’s read through my original post together shell we?

I was excited too. I thought he could bring some experience and stability into our spine and our defence. Which he did. He came on reasonable coin and his contract would see him play into his early 30’s. I always knew he was a risky signing though. What really gets me about Boyd, and admittedly this isn’t his fault, is his contract. It’s ridiculous, and I find it really hard to see it as anything other than someone looking out for a mate rather than a rational decision. The talent we could have acquired with Boyd’s money is very significant, and for him to take up that much cap space and go back to playing like the uninterested cat he was at Newcastle does my head in.

Edit: Bolded the relevant phrase for the dense.

 

[johnny plath]

So, since this is a similar start to 1999, does anyone remember whether or not Alfie was playing poorly when he announced his retirement, or was he just not meeting his own standards. Anyone remember how long he had left on his contract. Great to see a captain and legend make a huge personal sacrifice for the sake of his team.... over to you Darius.

 

[Huge]

Well done.

Again though, I’d like to point out that for a guy who is so anal about everyone in a football forum upholding a flawless grasp of the English language, your comprehension is pretty embarrassing. You do realise I never said “his” right? You do realise that I said “I find it hard to see” right? Suggesting that I am skeptical of it being a rational decision. I didn’t make a claim against any “single male person”.

Let’s read through my original post together shell we?



Edit: Bolded the relevant phrase for the dense.

Yep. You're right. I misread it and you didn't specify gender. I got that wrong.
You stated it was a someone looking out for a mate. It could have been either gender, there are only two after all.

We shell agree, I got that part wrong. Shell we proceed or just call it a draw where I win the internet?

 

[Mr Fourex]

LOLZ.....and he was going so well. Had you against the ropes....and then he fucked himself.....right at the end.

 

[theshed]

Yep. You're right. I misread it and you didn't specify gender. I got that wrong.
You stated it was a someone looking out for a mate. It could have been either gender, there are only two after all.

We shell agree, I got that part wrong. Shell we proceed or just call it a draw where I win the internet?

​

I'd prefer to agree that " I find it really hard to see it as anything other than someone looking out for a mate rather than a rational decision." and "I just FEEL as though Boyd’s contract wasn’t a very rational decision." is essentially the exact same phrase if you don't focus on semantics to a childish degree.

Then we can move on to also agree with your comment here:

If you'd written that (the bolded bit) in the first place there'd be no discussion.

So yeah, lets agree that had you actually read what I wrote instead of trying to find some anti-Bennett agenda where there wasn't one (at least not specifically anti-Bennett), that there would not have been this discussion. Lets agree that if you weren't such a petty person who's only contribution to this forum is to try and catch people out for having a relaxed approach to grammar it wouldn't be so embarrassing when you cant even live up to the pointlessly high standards you have made it your mission to uphold.


You can call it whatever you want, I'm not trying to win the internet. I couldn't care less who you or other posters deem as the winner. I just think your a bit of a sad person and often drag the board down into petty arguments because you think you're smarter than you are.

I apologise to other posters on here for filling the thread with this shit. I usually avoid it, and I wont continue any further but I just wanted to address Huge's pattern of low quality posting.

edit: formatting ​

 

[Huge]

​

I'd prefer to agree that " I find it really hard to see it as anything other than someone looking out for a mate rather than a rational decision." and "I just FEEL as though Boyd’s contract wasn’t a very rational decision." is essentially the exact same phrase if you don't focus on semantics to a childish degree.

Then we can move on to also agree with your comment here:

So yeah, lets agree that had you actually read what I wrote instead of trying to find some anti-Bennett agenda where there wasn't one (at least not specifically anti-Bennett), that there would not have been this discussion. Lets agree that if you weren't such a petty person who's only contribution to this forum is to try and catch people out for having a relaxed approach to grammar it wouldn't be so embarrassing when you cant even live up to the pointlessly high standards you have made it your mission to uphold.


You can call it whatever you want, I'm not trying to win the internet. I couldn't care less who you or other posters deem as the winner. I just think your a bit of a sad person and often drag the board down into petty arguments because you think you're smarter than you are.

I apologise to other posters on here for filling the thread with this shit. I usually avoid it, and I wont continue any further but I just wanted to address Huge's pattern of low quality posting.

edit: formatting ​

:risas3::applaudit::aaaaa::clap:
No really, you're the best. Love ya work. Nah, nothing you did was petty!

​

I'd prefer to agree that " I find it really hard to see it as anything other than someone looking out for a mate rather than a rational decision." and "I just FEEL as though Boyd’s contract wasn’t a very rational decision." is essentially the exact same phrase if you don't focus on semantics to a childish degree.

Then we can move on to also agree with your comment here:

So yeah, lets agree that had you actually read what I wrote instead of trying to find some anti-Bennett agenda where there wasn't one (at least not specifically anti-Bennett), that there would not have been this discussion. Lets agree that if you weren't such a petty person who's only contribution to this forum is to try and catch people out for having a relaxed approach to grammar it wouldn't be so embarrassing when you cant even live up to the pointlessly high standards you have made it your mission to uphold.


You can call it whatever you want, I'm not trying to win the internet. I couldn't care less who you or other posters deem as the winner. I just think your a bit of a sad person and often drag the board down into petty arguments because you think you're smarter than you are.

I apologise to other posters on here for filling the thread with this shit. I usually avoid it, and I wont continue any further but I just wanted to address Huge's pattern of low quality posting.

edit: formatting ​

Needed to double quote such an epic win!!!:cheer:

 

[NSW stables]

So, since this is a similar start to 1999, does anyone remember whether or not Alfie was playing poorly when he announced his retirement, or was he just not meeting his own standards. Anyone remember how long he had left on his contract. Great to see a captain and legend make a huge personal sacrifice for the sake of his team.... over to you Darius.

From memory (and forgive me if I am wrong because I don't have a good one) I think Alf had a poor one the weekend before where he was actually hooked from the field. I think that is what broke the camels back