Page 64 of 188
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 1:04 pm
by jackcass
Lazza wrote:jackcass wrote:King Monkey wrote:If I happened to put Lazza, Defender, 35forever (and a few others) on ignore, does this thread revert to about 10 odd pages minus the monotonous petty squabbling????
Change name from Nicks BB, to "perceptive fellow" vs Sunshine & Lollipops BB.
Fkn over this shit..........
Arguing and disagreeing is natural - but the same fkn argument on every fkn thread???????!!!!!!!!!!!!
At one time I found Jacks Pain slightly amusing - as Collie Dog he's gotten worse and is just downright taking the piss out of this place now.
And sorry 1061.
I take back the Clocking Device accusation, obviously it's actually Daffy Duck.
Tempting isn't it. Mood seems to have lightened the last week or so, so maybe worth persevering.
You can put me on ignore any time Daz.
I'll just come up and tell you the same stuff when we meet anyway....
Thanks Laz but your permission wasn't a requirement
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 1:16 pm
by Lazza
jackcass wrote:Lazza wrote:jackcass wrote:
Tempting isn't it. Mood seems to have lightened the last week or so, so maybe worth persevering.
You can put me on ignore any time Daz.
I'll just come up and tell you the same stuff when we meet anyway....
Thanks Laz but your permission wasn't a requirement
At the very least I would have thought it was a common courtesy.....
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:51 pm
by slydog81
Beams wanting out only 20% of it is due to his dad say Barrett.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:59 pm
by Bob Sugar
slydog81 wrote:Beams wanting out only 20% of it is due to his dad say Barrett.
Yes, 22.5% is go home factor, and 57.5% is cash related.
Seriously though, if true he won't mind us trading him to the Dees for picks 2 and 3.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 3:44 pm
by John Wren
slydog81 wrote:Beams wanting out only 20% of it is due to his dad say Barrett.
the pendulum certainly is swinging.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 3:59 pm
by jackcass
John Wren wrote:slydog81 wrote:Beams wanting out only 20% of it is due to his dad say Barrett.
the pendulum certainly is swinging.
Be interesting to see what Beams has to say when this is all done and dusted.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 4:31 pm
by thompsoc
Defender wrote:slydog81 wrote:Beams wanting out only 20% of it is due to his dad say Barrett.
Yes, 22.5% is go home factor, and 57.5% is cash related.
Seriously though, if true he won't mind us trading him to the Dees for picks 2 and 3.
Sounds great - Beams to Dees for pick 2 and 3!
Go for it!
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 4:49 pm
by Piesnchess
Pick 4 and Aish, nothing less, or they can get rooted. !
Lock it in Pies, lock it in.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 5:08 pm
by Lazza
Piesnchess wrote:Pick 4 and Aish, nothing less, or they can get rooted. !
Lock it in Pies, lock it in.
THIS^^^^^
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 5:14 pm
by watt price tully
I loved Eade's press conference saying at the end re the need for hard bodies & should Brisbane not come to the party (like for like) then we could have a midfield comprising: Greenwood, Beams & Pendles.
http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/video/2 ... odney-eade
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 5:22 pm
by rocketronnie
watt price tully wrote:I loved Eade's press conference saying at the end re the need for hard bodies & should Brisbane not come to the party (like for like) then we could have a midfield comprising: Greenwood, Beams & Pendles.
http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/video/2 ... odney-eade
Except Beams will have developed a mysterious ankle injury in the pre season and will be out for the year most likely. He doesnt want to play for us - period. Eade spinning a positive outcome for being forced to keep him because we asked too much is just stupid. And in that situation did he tell us how we should feel when Beams walks out and goes to Brisbane for nix in the draft in 2015? Sometimes I wonder why we keep that spud in a job...
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 5:25 pm
by watt price tully
rocketronnie wrote:watt price tully wrote:I loved Eade's press conference saying at the end re the need for hard bodies & should Brisbane not come to the party (like for like) then we could have a midfield comprising: Greenwood, Beams & Pendles.
http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/video/2 ... odney-eade
Except Beams will have developed a mysterious ankle injury in the pre season and will be out for the year most likely. He doesnt want to play for us - period. Eade spinning a positive outcome for being forced to keep him because we asked too much is just stupid. And in that situation did he tell us how we should feel when Beams walks out and goes to Brisbane for nix in the draft in 2015? Sometimes I wonder why we keep that spud in a job...
Lay your cards on the table RR: exactly what should we ask for then in return from Brisbane for Beams?
What do you consider to be too low (unders) for a deal to be done that is, too unacceptably low for Collingwood to accede to a trade? What do you consider fair? What is acceptable?
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 5:42 pm
by Flashman
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 5:50 pm
by Brenny
I know you shouldn't take what the Media say with too much belief.
BUT IF Beams is willing to be traded to GWS say, then that worries me from the POV that is there something else down at the club that Beams doesn't like. Is his dad and go home factor only a minor part of it.
I don't know, guess we will need to wait and see what happens come next week I guess.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 5:54 pm
by WarrenerraW
If brisbane don't want to play then we offload his arse to the next highest bidder. why not gws? then he can be with his bum buddy heater. the dees? pick 3 sounds a lot tastier than 5 if you ask me. Or anyone else willing to cough up some serious compensation. I thought it was all about his dad being sick and wanting to be closer to him but the longer this drags on the more we here that that's only part of the reason. Obviously Bucks and the $$$ have a bit more to do with it probably more so than his dad being sick. His no show at the copeland showed his true colours.