I thought Donno was a ball playing loose? Where does this leave him?

Chris Bridge seems to be doing pretty well as a ball playing LF.
Are you sure this wasn't just a cover up for the fact that Langley is incapable of throwing a pass?

I think any of us would do well at LF in that team

I think MP might be referring to the Paul Gallen type lf that is not far removed from the prop type role - hence his easy transition to front row in the state of origin

Is he right, who knows? I think LF is a position where you can change things up

And Danny Addy.

I dunno. You don't have to play another front rower type player at LF but it appears that most clubs play a big damaging running type player there. Langley and Elima are the two best suited to that role at the club. I'm not sure where Addy and Donaldson fit in really. Both need time to come through but they need to bulk up I think if they're to make it - if we're to play with this plan.

I honestly thought the point made about loose forwards was a load of tosh

You don't see Leeds playing Peacock at loose forward, or Wigan playing Fielden there. OK, you might go for a rampaging, hard running 'extra' second rower to charge down the middle - but that's not the same as putting a plodding prop forward like Bryn Hargreaves there!

Besides the whole argument of 'everyone else is doing so we have to' (even if it were true) doesn't really hold water. We should be playing to OUR strengths (assuming we know what they actually are) rather than just trying to ape other teams - and failing.

I agree that Hargreaves and Kopczak are a million miles from being a Paul Gallen type player. So I agree with you that this approach doesn't suit our current squad.

What are our strengths? Dunno. When Langley is fit and Elima is on form we look a bit better. If Whitehead can cut out the indiscipline and errors he'll be fine. After that all our players have flaws, Addy is too shaky in defence, Donaldson offers nothing in attack and both are a bit on the small side. Hopefully time will see them come good but it depends on how much they want to make it. After those two there's nothing much to choose from but hopefully Bateman and Olbison will develop further.

You've missed the point, I've not said play a prop at LF, I've said the roles could be seen to be moving closer together. Plenty of people on here think Langley is playing more like a prop

Edit you're on about MPs response aren't you ?

I'd like to see what Bateman can bring tbh

Yeah, I'm talking about Mick Potter's point, enthusiastically backed up by Stuart Duffy

As for Langley, if he's playing like a prop then play him as one of the four props in rotation. I don't see the need to have a fifth one rotating. I don't think Elima is the answer either, I think he's better running out wide, same goes for Whitehead.

To be honest, given our current squad, I think we'd better going for a more creative player at loose - someone like Addy, or Donaldson if he could develop. Sammut is another possibility

Still rekon Langley should move to Prop should Lynch leave then Elima/Whitehead at 2nd row with Addy/Donaldson at LF depending on who we are playing.

1. Arguing with the punter, is poor form.
2. To take a stance of "you do better then" is even poorer form, petulant and really not the point. Him doing it "free" doesn't make him of value or good quality. I will say it again, poor quality is expensive.
3. Indeed those clubs do, because they realise the significant value they add. It isn't difficult to be creative and facilitate/fund those roles by other means, but what it does take is somebody with the savvy and understanding to do so. There is also a paid marketing executive at the club, as you well know. Even if the club hasn't said grey matter, it comes down to how you allocate resources at a club and where you choose not to. To say "we cannot afford to market the club (with individuals or budget) is absolute commercial suicide.
4. He doesnt have a marketing budget? That, is an absolute untruth, as well HE knows.

Far too much smoke and mirrors from AB.

Can't believe the amount of stick he is getting.

None of us on this forum give up most of our time to the club, so I don't think we can throw this amount of criticism at AB when he is putting more effort in for OUR club than any of us.

Lot's of people put up "effort" in life. Paul Sykes does. Rupert Murdoch does. Eddie Hemmings does.

As for quality....

None of those three you mentioned does their job unpaid. I doubt you do your own job unpaid or otherwise without prospect of financial reward?

You clearly believe you could do better than Bennett, and maybe you could. But that is not the point Ewen is making and to which you replied. Would [iyou [/ido his job unpaid? And with the considerable personal liabilities that attach to being a director?

Not to mention the ungratefulness of a large section of fans?

I for one think we are lucky to have Bennett. You can notice the difference in the quality of the Bull's marketing and the modernization of our brand since he came on board.

To be fair back in the day maybe 8 or 9 seasons ago now and prior to that we did used to have a shop full of different merchandise and a good selection of products not just clothing, but back then it was a man called John and the club decided not to listen to his ideas anymore on merchandising hence why since around 2003 the shop has been poo - Caisley as usual ha ha

Correct they don't, that is the point and given that they are actually paid, reinforces the point that effort doesn't make anybody of quality whether they are paid or not. But then you know that.

Why do you "doubt" what I have or haven't done, paid or otherwise since you have absolutely zero comprehension as to what I do? Spurious even for you and as usual, way off beam sailor. Also, duly noted your continued off radar personal jibes.

The point to which Ewen was eluding to I have answered as you well know; that being merely because AB has "given up" his time, that somehow makes him an outstanding soothsayer, effective and manna from heaven. It doesn't, since poor quality is expensive (I keep repeating it because you continually choose to ignore the very clear point).

Yes I would do his job (unpaid) without question and to far greater effect/success; but then so could a variety of others. However with PH in situ, that would be unworkable nor does it whet my whistle. Perhaps Bennetts ego is a contributory factor in his desire for Directorship, or conversely, his misguided belief he could turn it around. Either way I don't really care. The top and bottom of it is, not quite good enough. Not even close to.

Show me a personal jibe in what I said? You can't, because there isn't one. Just because you say something is so does not make it so.

Show me anything that is spurious in what I said? You can't, because nothing is. Just because you say something is so does not make it so.

Ewen's point was specifically about the unpaid time Bennett puts in. NOT about his ability or effectiveness, despite your obvious attempts to keep bringing the debate back to that. Everything I said was relevant to that, or to endeavour to bring YOU back onto that since it was YOU going off with spurious points outside of Ewen's post that you were replying to.

I'm surprised that you would even entertain the possibility that Bennett might be "...an outstanding soothsayer, effective and manna from heaven", since I have seen no-one else who professes to hold such a view or (unlike you) would consider themselves qualified to. I rather suspect that most, like me, hold the view that he may be the best we are likely to get in the financial circumstances (remembering too that Duckett has a marketing degree, does he not, so add him into the resources mix) and its another pair of hands and chunk of expertise where immediately before he came there was no-one in situ? I'm pretty sure that was the thrust of what Ewen was getting at too.

If you would indeed do his (pretty-well full-time) job unpaid, and if perchance you are telling the truth, then that (added to your previous contributions) would suggest two things to me: 1 - like Bennett, you have sufficient wealth to not have to work; 2 - you have a very big personal issue indeed with Peter Hood - and/or he does with you - since how else would it be "unworkable"? Clearly so big a personal issue that one or other - or both - of you would seem to be putting your apparent personal animosity ahead of trying to do what is best for the club, wouldn't you say?

Only you know if you would and you are, since we can have no way of telling whether your statement is genuine or just so much blustering hot air - can we?

Love the fact that the club has just pulled off a massive achievement in obtaining over 10,000 signatures for next year, yet people are still wanting this success to appear as a failure!

Given that many have stated they didn't pledge, but will buy, indicates we may increase members to over 11/12 thousand.

From me, round of applause to the club, specifically the marketing team.

After all, many estimates on the forum showed that not many people expected over 6000 pledges for next year!!

What a windy reply.

I've no intention of fueling your ongoing pomposity. But again, duly noted this collective "we" siege approach you continue with. Again Adey, speak for yourself not others.

The points I have made and eluded to are plentiful and very clear, I won't be repeating them for you.

I'm not interested in unpaid overtime etc etc, it all comes back to the same, simplistic point. Poor quality.

But then you know that.

I read it twice to make sure but it does appear you have missed out the Pigeon on this occasion

And, once again, your total evasion of my questions and avoidance of the issue being discussed is "duly noted".

As for the epitome of pomposity, I suggest you look in the mirror.

Deliberate, mate.

It got eaten by the vulture.

Well this isnt good we will just have to broaden our horizons and go on the hunt for another pigeon

I had credited you at one point with having a degree of grey matter. It is more apparent that is not the case.

Ewen doesn't need you to fight his corner Cinderella, so pop the soap box away. If he is making a point, he has the ability to continue it should he wish, not you handbagging.

And, (my you're hard work) for the 4th time (it's like talking to a slightly affected child) I made my points clear on the OP. As for your increasingly spurious questions, because you ask them, it makes them neither salient or worthy of an answer.

Had you not got embroiled in somebody else's point and then failed to make your own, then you wouldn't be left in such a tizz. So chill out petal, I've no interest in your continuing windy approach.

Back on topic, despite your copper wire stealing, I've made my thoughts clear on the Pledge approach, AB, PH etc etc. Whether you like that or not, its' futile to continue and I will not indulge you any longer. Rather keep this thread free from our mutual contempt. It's that simple.