No polish.

so it's his fault atleast "one" of Creagh and Simpson didn't come??
Manly could have used some of Simpson money for Creagh and vice versa when they missed out on whoever 1st, , but NEITHER of them came...

One of them could have come Mata...so that's not Monas fault.
Short sightedness..hehehe..geez,! How about we all have an opinion and reply without the condescending tone. Can you play the ball instead of putting down the man as the know-all, wise one, please.
 
I agree with Mat. There is no room for Monas in our 17. Trav is taking his place on the bench. He is our new Dessy. Our utility player.
 
so it's his fault atleast \"one\" of Creagh and Simpson didn't come??
Manly could have used some of Simpson money for Creagh and vice versa when they missed out on whoever 1st, , but NEITHER of them came...

One of them could have come Mata...so that's not Monas fault.
Short sightedness..hehehe..geez,! How about we all have an opinion and reply without the condescending tone. Can you play the ball instead of putting down the man as the know-all, wise one, please.

So you're alleging that an extra $240,000 might not have been used to entice them? :roll:
 
such a shame we missed out on creagh, jsut think if we didnt have monas we could have a decent player on 800K by matas logic
 
[quote author=Noodler93]
so it's his fault atleast \"one\" of Creagh and Simpson didn't come??
Manly could have used some of Simpson money for Creagh and vice versa when they missed out on whoever 1st, , but NEITHER of them came...

One of them could have come Mata...so that's not Monas fault.
Short sightedness..hehehe..geez,! How about we all have an opinion and reply without the condescending tone. Can you play the ball instead of putting down the man as the know-all, wise one, please.

So you're alleging that an extra $240,000 might not have been used to entice them? :roll:

[/quote]

ummm, I never said that some of Monas 240k wouldn't have been used to entice them both (120k extra each for eg). I agree with that. Your argument was that his 240k COST manly in getting BOTH Simpson and Creagh.

i explained why they would have had enough money to provide a better offer to the 2nd blue chip they were after, for which Monas money wasn't required.

Talk about moving the goalposts. 😉
 
No mention of the delicious irony of Monas winning a game for us with a deftly placed chip kick and potentially turning his career around. Wasn't there a much quoted "secret" email penned by club hierachy a few seasons back after the Roosters game where he was pilloried for a chip kick. Precipitated the whole Monasgate affair if you believe some.

Amazing what a difference 60m in field position and a regather can do for popularity.
 
No mention of the delicious irony of Monas winning a game for us with a deftly placed chip kick and potentially turning his career around. Wasn't there a much quoted \"secret\" email penned by club hierachy a few seasons back after the Roosters game where he was pilloried for a chip kick. Precipitated the whole Monasgate affair if you believe some.

Amazing what a difference 60m in field position and a regather can do for popularity.

Not only that, he has been playing well consistently. A little rusty round 2, but hit form 1/2 way through that game.
 
and its also allowed us to bring this thread back to life

For that monas should realy be given the biggest pat on the back
 
That chip kick against the Rorters did seal his fate. It was a different situation to Saturday and thoroughly indicative of his panicked decision making which will occur in BIG games again if we all want to be ostriches about it.
 
Has Monas been tested in any 'big' games mata ?

Would have thought last saturday was a fairly 'big' one in the scheme of things.

And if judging players by what they do in big games, then many could argue Orford isnt the solution either
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
24 19 5 148 44
24 17 7 212 40
24 16 8 120 38
24 15 9 172 36
24 15 9 109 36
24 14 10 21 34
24 13 10 107 33
24 13 11 132 32
24 12 12 125 30
24 12 12 21 30
24 10 14 -76 26
24 9 14 -146 25
24 9 15 -135 24
24 9 15 -181 24
24 8 16 -130 22
24 6 18 -199 18
24 6 18 -300 18
Back
Top Bottom