Article on Gardiner

[To the top]

Well, Plugger66, if the previous Board had not taken the steps it did to repay our debt and as a consequence we still had the debt sitting around our necks like a millstone in the current financial circumstances, with a bank therefore yapping at our heels and no guarantees they would extend the Lines of Credit placing the very existance of the club in jeopardy (again!), what would you be saying?

You have to build the blocks, and the concentration on the re-payment of debt was the correct (and only) decision.

It is vindicated now in more ways than one!

Look at our Corporates, raising capital at discounted to market offerings to repay debt, selling assets at any price they can get to repay debt, reducing dividends to repay debt, reducing non-interest operational expenses by re-locating operations off-shore to repay debt or just plain collapsing as asset write-downs take out their Capital & Reserves.

Debt has become the "driver" of our economy.

Plus, look at the Financial Indices on the ASX because this Indices marks the lenders.

Just imagine if St Kilda FC still had a couple of million of debt in the current market.

St Kilda FC would be getting the same message Corporate Australia is getting from its bankers and which is being reported to us daily in the Financial Pages of our press.

And, in this market, where would St Kilda FC squeeze the money from to reduce debt?

Because its revenue streams are under pressure already as are the revenue steams of others.

[saintly]

i have been telling the forum this for years and for one last time

We nearly got Cox but in the end Cox & West Cpoast pulled the deal BUT the deal had been done bar the paperwork.

We almost got Simmonds but Richmond gazumped us with a 5 year deal someting we were not prepared to match.

GT rated ruckmen ... but only GOOD ruckmen ... he felt average and poor ruckmen who got less than 10 disposals in a match and only average to poor tap ruckmen were a waste of space.

but did not try and grow (develop) his own ruckman though.

[Animal Enclosure]

i have been telling the forum this for years and for one last time

We nearly got Cox but in the end Cox & West Cpoast pulled the deal BUT the deal had been done bar the paperwork.

We almost got Simmonds but Richmond gazumped us with a 5 year deal someting we were not prepared to match.

GT rated ruckmen ... but only GOOD ruckmen ... he felt average and poor ruckmen who got less than 10 disposals in a match and only average to poor tap ruckmen were a waste of space.

but did not try and grow (develop) his own ruckman though.

He did but Barry Brooks never had the mongrel to be the ruckman that he promised to be in his junior days. He was given a while to develop as big blokes should but just didn't have the drive to be the no.1 ruckman that we traded for.

[To the top]

Brooks was probably undersized for a lead ruckman, at 198cm and under 100kg, and was more a forward/ruckman and particfularly after his knee injury which came just a few games into his AFL career.

He did have a real leap on him until he did his knee - taking a jumping mark in the VFL.

The ability to jump may have compensated for his lack of a few centimetres and weight - but we will never know.

These things happen in footy.

He had very good all round skills especially for his size, as he showed against Brisbane when actually given a (post injury) game by Thomas and as a forward/ruckman - as distinct from being chosen in a back pocket because Thomas panicked about being exposed by Port Adelaide with Primus and Lade going forward (and the reason Port Adelaide always towel us up - they dominate the rucks).

A defender he was not!

Some seem to judge him by factors he should never be judged against.

And some players do not need to evidence "mongrel", whatever that is except for a player like Mooney looking totally deranged.

Just a wasted talent in the end due to injury and a lack of opportunity at the right time and in the right position.

So was the club at fault or the player?

I do not know the answer to that.

All I know is that the outcome was disappointing.

Bear in mind also that he was a project player at Port Adelaide behind the likes of Primus, Lade, Brogan, Ackland and others, playing for North Adelaide in the SANFL to gain experience before being traded to St Kilda - at what age? 18?

So was the expectation correct at St Kilda?

And, if not, what part did that play?

For mine 198cm players with the skills he had are hard to find.

They do not grow on trees!

Hence the disappointment.

[n1ck]

Brooks was drafted pretty high by Port... and showed alot of promise in he SANFL... hence why we gave up a very high pick for him too. Was given 2 years of development by Port which should have held him in good stead but was very unlucky with his knee injury.

Was rated very, very highly by other clubs both before drafting and after showing some good form in the twos.

[vacuous space]

Brooks was probably undersized for a lead ruckman, at 198cm and under 100kg, and was more a forward/ruckman and particfularly after his knee injury which came just a few games into his AFL career.

Brooks was almost the exact same size Gardiner is and was far more mobile than almost every AFL ruckman kicking around, even after the knee. He had all the necessary tools to be a dominant AFL ruckman. The reason he isn't right now, I suspect, is more mental than physical.