Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

Hey I was suprised the other night with cheese he actually tackled.

burnsy17 wrote:I do hope they've turned the corner, and yes we dont always have to agree on stuff here on nicks...

Look at my thoughts on O'Bree

My brain uses AIML to format responses to your inputs, but I don't have one for that.

Yer, I'm with Burnsy on this one.

They are paid as proffesional athletes, which means they should fully look after their bodies as much as practically possible. Thats why they get paid so much. Cos they have to sacrifice their personal lives for it. Just like a tennis player, Sprinter, Swimmer, etc, etc (who on average get paid less than an AFL player).

I hope the culture has changed a fair bit and our player group become leaders in this area and not the the ones dragging behind other clubs (which it appears now we have been!).

I am more than a little startled that the belief that we can interfere in the private lives of employees has any currency at all in a democracy. The traditional way to deal with underperformers is to warn them, offer remedy and eventually fire them if need be. I'm not sure why we suddenly need to do away with core rights to deal with the problem.

It is not hyperbole to point out what happened to the Jewish communities of Europe when rights were treated flippantly and different laws allowed to be applied to different persons. The minute one sub-group is targeted, even "some wanker who earns more than me doing my dream job", we are all at risk.

Can we control what people read to make them more intelligent?
Can we control people's diets to make them more alert?
Can we control people's lifestyles to make them look better?
Can we we control with whom people associate to make them more moral?

Not only does this obviously violate freedom of speech and association (don't those quaint notions matter anymore?), but it looks awfully like the belief that a central authority rather than the populace knows best, variously known as monarchy, communism or dictatorship.

There is also an economic error at play here. The false assumption in these arguments is that a footballer is paid to perform at his absolute optimum, when in fact he is paid to perform at the minimum rate the market will withstand at the price paid, or in fact according to the terms of his contract once it has been negotiated and signed.

So the whole argument not only supports the undermining of basic rights, but it also constitutes false economics. And, of course, we should hardly be surprised to find both errors coexisting in an argument which, if thought through, undermines the foundations of modern capitalist democracy.

But who cares when it's "some wanker who earns more than me doing my dream job".

pietillidie wrote: ...It is not hyperbole to point out what happened to the Jewish communities of Europe when rights were treated flippantly and different laws allowed to be applied to different persons. The minute one sub-group is targeted, even "some wanker who earns more than me doing my dream job", we are all at risk.

Another nomination in the - "Most Overcooked Hyperbole In A Nick's Post 2009 Award" equating the gross violation of human rights that led to the holocaust with opinions suggesting a footballer's drinking should be restricted - good one!

Congratulations! - You and Jack The Spaniard are neck and neck vying for the plastic tiara and the bag of chicken feathers.

Keep up the good work!

pietillidie wrote:.....I amThere is also an economic error at play here. The false assumption in these arguments is that a footballer is paid to perform at his absolute optimum, when in fact he is paid to perform at the minimum rate the market will withstand at the price paid, or in fact according to the terms of his contract once it has been negotiated and signed.....

Yeah right - tell that to Mick Malthouse! Just where do you pull this rubbish from?

Are you a lawyer pietillidie?


As for Johnno, I hope he kills it this year. I was sure he was gone at the end of last year. When johnno's on fire he's brilliant, and he sure looked good against west coast last week.


Go the Pies

rocketronnie wrote:

pietillidie wrote: ...It is not hyperbole to point out what happened to the Jewish communities of Europe when rights were treated flippantly and different laws allowed to be applied to different persons. The minute one sub-group is targeted, even "some wanker who earns more than me doing my dream job", we are all at risk.

Another nomination in the - "Most Overcooked Hyperbole In A Nick's Post 2009 Award" equating the gross violation of human rights that led to the holocaust with opinions suggesting Didak's drinking should be restricted - good one!

Congratulations! - You and Jack The Spaniard are neck and neck vying for the plastic tiara and the bag of chicken feathers.

Keep up the good work!

Ignoring that, which I shouldn't have added because it's clearly a distraction, do you have any legal, logical or economic arguments for or against the position in the post?

rocketronnie wrote:

pietillidie wrote:.....I amThere is also an economic error at play here. The false assumption in these arguments is that a footballer is paid to perform at his absolute optimum, when in fact he is paid to perform at the minimum rate the market will withstand at the price paid, or in fact according to the terms of his contract once it has been negotiated and signed.....

Yeah right - tell that to Mick Malthouse! Just where do you pull this rubbish from?

An argument to the contrary would be nice if you have time.

pietillidie wrote:

rocketronnie wrote:

pietillidie wrote: ...It is not hyperbole to point out what happened to the Jewish communities of Europe when rights were treated flippantly and different laws allowed to be applied to different persons. The minute one sub-group is targeted, even "some wanker who earns more than me doing my dream job", we are all at risk.

Another nomination in the - "Most Overcooked Hyperbole In A Nick's Post 2009 Award" equating the gross violation of human rights that led to the holocaust with opinions suggesting Didak's drinking should be restricted - good one!

Congratulations! - You and Jack The Spaniard are neck and neck vying for the plastic tiara and the bag of chicken feathers.

Keep up the good work!

Ignoring that, which I shouldn't have added because it's clearly a distraction, do you have any legal, logical or economic arguments for or against the position in the post?

Nah... I'm only here for the hyperbole...

pietillidie wrote:

rocketronnie wrote:

pietillidie wrote:.....I amThere is also an economic error at play here. The false assumption in these arguments is that a footballer is paid to perform at his absolute optimum, when in fact he is paid to perform at the minimum rate the market will withstand at the price paid, or in fact according to the terms of his contract once it has been negotiated and signed.....

Yeah right - tell that to Mick Malthouse! Just where do you pull this rubbish from?

An argument to the contrary would be nice if you have time.

The argument is contained in those lines. As we well know Malthouse is not satisfied with a less than optimum performance from his charges. Players who don't give him that without a valid reason are usually moved on, when the opportunity to do so arises. The idea that the club and him would be satisfied with anything less is, putting it mildly, unlikely.

I may be getting old and senile but wasnt a similar article written about Benny about 2-3 yearsd ago??

To me it seems the suspensions of Shaw and Didak have lead to a little culture change at Collingwood.

The Weed wrote:I may be getting old and senile but wasnt a similar article written about Benny about 2-3 yearsd ago??

My aging memory agrees with you!

^^ Was it 2006???...... the year Johnno finished 2nd in The Copeland??
I sure hope so!!