The Wayne Bennett Super thread!

[Porthoz]

The only 'proof' someone could have is physical evidence, like a tape recording. Quoting something from Wayne Bennett proves nothing except that is what WB wants people to believe, ergo your stance on this has roughly as many legs as Porthoz believes his does. He doesn't want to share his evidence with BHQ and accepts that people will naturally have doubt as to those sources.

/theend

Spot on!
No sense in continuing to go in circles about this.

Yeah I agree, I had a existing regard for Bennett and have gone on to believe he has acted honourably. Given there is no conclusive evidence it must be assumed that peoples position on the matter has been influenced by previous prejudice.

Feel free to check my views on Bennett prior to this affair. Pretty sure there are a fair few exchanges with AP. :laugh:
There was no prejudice on my part...

P.S. @Huge , you have no clue who my source is, so maybe you should stop making assumptions based on false premises too... :wink:

 

[Socnorb]

Spot on!
No sense in continuing to go in circles about this.


Feel free to check my views on Bennett prior to this affair. Pretty sure there are a fair few exchanges with AP. :laugh:
There was no prejudice on my part...

P.S. @Huge , you have no clue who my source is, so maybe you should stop making assumptions based on false premises too... :wink:

I'll take your word for it port?

 

[Huge]

Spot on!
No sense in continuing to go in circles about this.


Feel free to check my views on Bennett prior to this affair. Pretty sure there are a fair few exchanges with AP. :laugh:
There was no prejudice on my part...

P.S. @Huge , you have no clue who my source is, so maybe you should stop making assumptions based on false premises too... :wink:

You're right , I don't know who your source is. It's also true that person is no more credible than some guy down the pub. Unless that person was there with Murdoch and Bennett, in the room and listening to the exchanges and was also able to monitor every call made by both parties prior to being in the room with one or both then it is as credible as the guy from the pub. Piss poor evidence. It doesn't matter what your source is telling you, that person cannot possibly know what transpired . I'm amazed that someone like yourself cannot grasp that self evident truth. I have made no false assumptions, I've used factual evidence, something provable.

I will say this though, if Murdoch told you directly or Bennett told you directly that WB cold called Murdoch asking that he sack Griffin to enable himself to take over in 2015 it would have more credibility than the guy at the pub....but we both know that's not what happened, and that is an assumption !

 

[Cult]

I'm not so sure they same reaction could be expected if another person said their source told them that Griffin actually called Bennett and said "Hey mate, I don't want the job anymore so if you've got nothing planned for next year, you can have it". Surely you wouldn't just take our word for it?

 

[QUEENSLANDER]

Where on earth did I say that?

If we finish better next year than this, I will suggest WB deserves some credit for that

Crazy concept I know

To be fair, we added milford to our team so we will probably going to finish higher than this year, with or without bennett

 

[Porthoz]

[/B]
You're right , I don't know who your source is. It's also true that person is no more credible than some guy down the pub. Unless that person was there with Murdoch and Bennett, in the room and listening to the exchanges and was also able to monitor every call made by both parties prior to being in the room with one or both then it is as credible as the guy from the pub. Piss poor evidence. It doesn't matter what your source is telling you, that person cannot possibly know what transpired . I'm amazed that someone like yourself cannot grasp that self evident truth. I have made no false assumptions, I've used factual evidence, something provable.

I will say this though, if Murdoch told you directly or Bennett told you directly that WB cold called Murdoch asking that he sack Griffin to enable himself to take over in 2015 it would have more credibility than the guy at the pub....but we both know that's not what happened, and that is an assumption !

We're going in circles again, so for the sake of the thread and BHQ posters sanity, this is my final stance on this:

I still believe my pub guy (and several confirmations from other independent sources since then) over your "factual evidence"... go figure. :bilmem:

 

[theshed]

Except I don't see why our junior system would need overhauling? We have some excellent young players coming through.

Similarly, recent moves like the one to link with Logan set the club up well.

Administratively speaking we are in pretty good shape. The only thing we need is on field performance results to match off field strength.

WB gets no credit for us being good off the field because IMO we already were before he came.

I do t disagree but I should point out that I got lazy while typing that post and didn't explain myself very well.

If Bennet finishes in 3 years without a premiership I won't call it a failure if, for e couple of examples:

- he bloods te right juniors and our current crop of young players develop into long term consistent playing stars.

- if we put in good performances consistently and make the top 4/are competitive during the finals.

- if Hunt/Milford reach their potential as our long term halves.

- if the club is set up to transition into life after Wayne seemlessly (trains up an assistant coach that will continue to build in what he does)

These a some examples but that being said a premiership or 2 during his curren contract would be real nice.

 

[Huge]

We're going in circles again, so for the sake of the thread and BHQ posters sanity, this is my final stance on this:

I still believe my pub guy (and several confirmations from other independent sources since then) over your "factual evidence"... go figure. :bilmem:

That certainly made me smile ! No problem....It does speak volumes about your gullibility especially the bracketed section. The same hearsay gives the original story credence ! I shouldn't be surprised though, the worlds full of people who deny hard evidence over fanciful stories simply because it gives them comfort. You know, religion . The other posters, well I shouldn't worry about their sanity as there isn't much happening in the football world so it's unlikely to affect them.

Logic and reason fails in the face of belief. Now you've actually made me feel sorry for you.

 

[Porthoz]

That certainly made me smile ! No problem....It does speak volumes about your gullibility especially the bracketed section. The same hearsay gives the original story credence ! I shouldn't be surprised though, the worlds full of people who deny hard evidence over fanciful stories simply because it gives them comfort. You know, religion . The other posters, well I shouldn't worry about their sanity as there isn't much happening in the football world so it's unlikely to affect them.

Logic and reason fails in the face of belief. Now you've actually made me feel sorry for you.

That's ok... I'll live with it.

Gotta laugh at the "Wayne said so = Hard evidence" though. :laugh:

 

[broncos4life]

That's ok... I'll live with it.

Gotta laugh at the "Wayne said so = Hard evidence" though. :laugh:

It's kinda the same as ''My source told me" = hard evidence TBF

I'm not having a go or saying I don't believe you, because I do. This is more just a general comment towards any post that contains "I know this for a fact because source". It can be a frustration because people obviously won't reveal there source but it kills discussion because what option to people have to respond? If someone says 'It's this way because my source told me' if you think that it's crap you are basically saying that person is lying.

Like I said not directed at you just something I find very frustrating

 

[Porthoz]

It's kinda the same as ''My source told me" = hard evidence TBF

I'm not having a go or saying I don't believe you, because I do. This is more just a general comment towards any post that contains "I know this for a fact because source". It can be a frustration because people obviously won't reveal there source but it kills discussion because what option to people have to respond? If someone says 'It's this way because my source told me' if you think that it's crap you are basically saying that person is lying.

Like I said not directed at you just something I find very frustrating

Except... I never said it was hard evidence or fact, anywhere!
I've always said this source has proven very reliable, so I believe it, more so after I heard confirmation from other parts, and that is why I feel the way I do about WB.

I'm not asking anyone to take it as gospel, and I certainly understand if people choose to go with a different version.
Calling someone gullible about believing his "pub guy", and then proceed to call Wayne's word hard evidence... surely you can see the irony?

 

[broncos4life]

Except... I never said it was hard evidence or fact, anywhere!
I've always said this source has proven very reliable, so I believe it, more so after I heard confirmation from other parts, and that is why I feel the way I do about WB.

I'm not asking anyone to take it as gospel, and I certainly understand if people choose to go with a different version.
Calling someone gullible about believing his "pub guy", and then proceed to call Wayne's word hard evidence... surely you can see the irony?

I never said I agreed with what huge said either

 

[Foordy]

I've been trying to keep out of the ring for this one. And one thing is clear neither side will back down from what they believe.

In reality, as usual, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle

 

[Huge]

WBs statement is hard evidence. He was involved, he was not a third party, he was directly and personally involved. Every day this is part of court cases. Statements made by people not in attendance, not present at the time of the events is anecdotal evidence. Porthoz, your source does not know unless he/ she is one of the two people involved, either Murdoch or Bennett. This is fact, your source cannot know.

When publicly quizzed, on camera and broadcast to the world he was directly asked the questions, the hard questions. His statements are hard solid evidence. Could he have lied ? Sure he could have but any reasonable person would conclude that that would be highly unlikely. It's unlikely because he was not being charged with some crime, he was clearing up a misconception that you Porthoz keep alive.

What would be a much greater risk is lying, a lie would hurt him more than telling the truth. Are you saying WB cold called Murdoch ? Are you saying WB rang the Broncos board, without being asked to ? Exactly how did it go down ? Your source does not need to named or identified so, ( why didn't I think to ask this before ? ) tell us what really happened. Tell us who rang first, who initiated the events, who started it, when did it start ?

Don't chicken out with some pathetic reason why you don't want to. If your source really did know the 'truth', it will be an easy tell.

 

[Ari Gold]

If the lie isn't exposed, a lie would not be more damning than telling the truth. I mean, look at Andrew Gee and the missing 250k. I assume the truth would be more damning than the current version of events. Otherwise, why is it being hidden?

But ultimately, I just don't give a shit. I care about how Bennett develops Jayden Nikorima and Taylor. I care that he signs players that I don't think he should. But I don't care he potentially got Griffin fired. And if he did, give him a medal for it. And then rip it off his neck for signing Travis Waddell.

 

[Huge]

Okay... An unexposed lie then. Point is though, a lie has the potential to be exposed so why take the risk when telling the 'truth' is just as easy and contains no penalty. It begs the question, why lie if there is no down side to telling the truth ? So I can't wait to hear the 'truth' from Porthoz, as he claims he knows how it all went down. I just want to read what convinced Porthoz that WB lied on national TV .

 

[broncos4life]

Okay... An unexposed lie then. Point is though, a lie has the potential to be exposed so why take the risk when telling the 'truth' is just as easy and contains no penalty. It begs the question, why lie if there is no down side to telling the truth ? So I can't wait to hear the 'truth' from Porthoz, as he claims he knows how it all went down. I just want to read what convinced Porthoz that WB lied on national TV .

Port has said the version of events he has been told numerous times, why make him repeat it?

 

[Foordy]

Okay... An unexposed lie then. Point is though, a lie has the potential to be exposed so why take the risk when telling the 'truth' is just as easy and contains no penalty. It begs the question, why lie if there is no down side to telling the truth ? So I can't wait to hear the 'truth' from Porthoz, as he claims he knows how it all went down. I just want to read what convinced Porthoz that WB lied on national TV .

Damn it, I've been drawn into this argument...

Maybe, Bennett desperately wanted to be back in Brisbane, whether because he wanted to be back with his family, or back at the club he built, or maybe a combination of the two. And maybe he didn't care how he did it. He may not have even meant to deceive people sbout the way it went down, maybe when the rumours surfaced he just tried to put a PR spin on it to put himself in a better light.

Or just maybe, he was 100% honourable in all his actions. Maybe the decision to terminate Griffin was made first, and then the board sort out Bennett, who could accept the job because the club had decided to terminate their existing coach. And maybe the rumours were unfounded.

[MENTION=2221]Porthoz[/MENTION] no longer has respect for Bennett (his right)

[MENTION=1992]Huge[/MENTION] thinks Bennett is a saint and has nothing but love for him (his right).

We will likely never know exactly how things went down. Only time will tell whether bringing back Bennett was a rushed, panicked decision by the board (in the face of several sub par seasons) or an astute move designed to return the club to success.

I'm changing my philosophy on this subject. Even though i don't agree with many of his signings (or even him being back) I'll give them time to see if they are successful. If the are, I'll happily eat humble pie, if they're not I'll say "I told ya so"

/rant