Bombertalk

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:59 pm**

Playing abilities - YES

If he was to get his shit together and give himself 100% to the club and abide by every rule that they set in place, BUT (and I think the BUT will keep every club away from him) I dont think he is capable of sticking to any plan given to him...

Must be noted though we took risks on other players who were more troubled (just less publicity) than Cousin's with no where near the talent that he posseses...

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2007 2:00 pm**

grassy1 wrote:NO!

I said the same as having him FINALLY Return to LATHLAIN to finish his playing days in the WAFL,as opposed to BLOODY East Fremantle.

Great player.But if he was to play for ESSENDON,it has to made QUITE CLEAR,NO ASSOCIATIONS with UNDERWORLD FIGURES would be Tolerated.One FUCKUP and he is GAWN!

NO ifs or Buts.This is his AND was West Coast's GREATEST FAILING in dealing with his OFF FIELD INDISCIPLINE.

He still hasn't DIVORCED himself from that sort of RUBBISH in PERTH.

We will have him at West Perth Grassy

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2007 2:14 pm**

BenDoolan wrote:
Essendon4eva wrote:I would. Even though Cousins, has problem, I believe our culture is strong enough that he will be influenced in a positive way, before he has a negative impact on our players.

Sure hisa ge comes into question. However he had 6 months off and will have at least another season. With that much time off, not due to physical injury, I think he may have a few years extra then another player his age. Look at Robert Harvey.
By bringing him to the club in his current condition you would compromise the standards in which the club expectes its players to conduct themselves. Matthew Lloyd has lead the charge on a strict code of conduct upon the players within the club. By recruiting Ben Cousins with prior knowledge of his addiction and personal problems, you are seriously jeopardising the standards of the entire playing group. If Cousins can demonstrate that he has been successfully rehabilitated, then the club could consider recruiting him under strict contractual condidtions. But that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Well I think our culture and leadership group are strong enough to have a major influence on Cousins if we were to aquire him, when the AFL allows him to.
I'm not saying the questions marks you raise about Cousins are wrong.

And as far a as contracts go, there shouldn't be too many reegulations on him. It shuld be simple. If he gets in trouble with drugs, booze or the law, he is gone...instantly.

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:21 pm**

NO.

Cousins is a great player, we all know that. Missed 13 games this year and stepped straight back in without missing a beat. Quality player.

But how could the club in all good conscience cut a loyal servant such as MJ, a bloke who bled red and black and popular with fans and teammates, then bring in a bloke like Cousins? What kind of message does that send to the rest of the playing group?

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:02 pm**

azza78 wrote:NO.

Cousins is a great player, we all know that. Missed 13 games this year and stepped straight back in without missing a beat. Quality player.

But how could the club in all good conscience cut a loyal servant such as MJ, a bloke who bled red and black and popular with fans and teammates, then bring in a bloke like Cousins? What kind of message does that send to the rest of the playing group?

Sounds like what happened in '86 when they got rid of Carey and Bradbury and brought in Raines and Richardson....it sent the club backwards on the field and ruined morale.

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:05 pm**

If I thought we could win a premiership within 3 years - I'd say yes.

So therefore, no.

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:25 pm**

Even disregarding his well documented issues, he is basically the same age as Mark Johnson, who Knights axed for reasons including age.

While it's a short term fix, Cousins at Essendon would create, rather than solve, problems later down the track when we would be in contention for a premiership due to the fact that he would be taking a place in the midfield from a kid who would be around when we start being a contender again.

Put me down for no. If Knights was keen to pick up an older player in the PSD, pick up MJ.

Posted: **Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:18 am**

auditor wrote:Would you consider havin Cousins at the Bombers?

Take him in a heart beat.

Posted: **Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:39 pm**

No. No farkin way!

That guy would attract 'undesirables' like flies to a turd. Just a law of nature - he won't change and they won't change. You guys must be kidding if you think our great Essendon culture will reform him. Didn't work for Cole or Stupido, and won't change Cuz who is much older and more set in his ways.

Don't think it would do our sponsorship prospects much good either. Cuz is damaged goods in the public eye, and in marketing perception is everything.

Posted: **Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:41 pm**

I thought about this for a couple of days before deciding that yes I would take him. Dont forget how good our goal to goal line is. With Cousins in to boost the midfield I would be very confident of us finishing in the top 6. I think he would fast track the development of the others in the midfield as well. You cant have all milk drinkers.

Posted: **Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:32 pm**

Is Michael Gardiner still on the sainters list?

Do hammies repeat?

Would he take the opportunity from an up and comer?

Will we win a flag before 2010 with him?

Will we win a flag before 2010 without him?

Can he guarantee NO trouble whatsoever?

Posted: **Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:19 am**

Last question?

NO!

He also can't PUBLICLY DIVORCE himself from UNDERWORLD FIGURES and make such a PROMISE STICK!

Bombertalk

Cousins?

Re: Cousins?