Author Topic: Nathan Foley [merged]  (Read 146322 times)

Offline Coach

  • Hardly A Prude
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 8719
  • Depend on Schulzy
Re: Nathan Foley [merged]
« Reply #795 on: November 28, 2012, 10:45:31 AM »
After. But I believe the brains trust werent sure how bad the injury was yet ;D

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 100494
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Re: Nathan Foley [merged]
« Reply #796 on: December 07, 2012, 05:48:08 PM »
Foley stands tall at Tigerland
By Tony Greenberg
richmondfc.com.au
Fri 07 Dec, 2012


A ruptured Achilles tendon ruled him out for the rest of the season in July, and he’s now again on the path to recovery.

Richmond has shown faith in the talented on-baller by signing him to a new three-year deal.

The man affectionately known as ‘Axel’ is undoubtedly due for a change of luck on the injury front.

Let’s hope that eventuates because he is a key ingredient in coach Damien Hardwick’s recipe for success.

Read the full article here: http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/6301/newsid/152194/default.aspx

Offline Crazy_Ivan

  • Premiership Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 379
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Nathan Foley [merged]
« Reply #797 on: December 07, 2012, 06:05:10 PM »
A 3yr deal?Should have been 2 at the most.

Offline Mr Magic

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 6887
Re: Nathan Foley [merged]
« Reply #798 on: December 07, 2012, 10:02:10 PM »
A 3yr deal?Should have been 2 at the most.

Agree crazy. Must be performance based.

TigerTimeII

  • Guest
Re: Nathan Foley [merged]
« Reply #799 on: December 07, 2012, 10:10:27 PM »
should have been delisted

Offline Loui Tufga

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4853
  • Beaver BLT
Re: Nathan Foley [merged]
« Reply #800 on: December 07, 2012, 10:43:44 PM »
I'll have a CC & dry......Make it a triple!

Offline Crazy_Ivan

  • Premiership Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 379
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Nathan Foley [merged]
« Reply #801 on: December 07, 2012, 11:36:00 PM »
A 3yr deal?Should have been 2 at the most.

Agree crazy. Must be performance based.
You would think so.

Offline Coach

  • Hardly A Prude
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 8719
  • Depend on Schulzy
Re: Nathan Foley [merged]
« Reply #802 on: December 08, 2012, 12:29:24 AM »
A 3yr deal?Should have been 2 at the most.

Agree crazy. Must be performance based.

It's not. If I were Foley I would tell them to GF if they offered me a performance based deal. Lucky for him he is dealing with morons though

Offline Yeahright

  • Moderator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9394
Re: Nathan Foley [merged]
« Reply #803 on: December 08, 2012, 01:53:25 AM »
A 3yr deal?Should have been 2 at the most.

Agree crazy. Must be performance based.

It's not. If I were Foley I would tell them to GF if they offered me a performance based deal. Lucky for him he is dealing with morons though

Why? He should accept performance based considering his luck.

Offline Coach

  • Hardly A Prude
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 8719
  • Depend on Schulzy
Re: Nathan Foley [merged]
« Reply #804 on: December 08, 2012, 02:16:24 AM »
A 3yr deal?Should have been 2 at the most.

Agree crazy. Must be performance based.

It's not. If I were Foley I would tell them to GF if they offered me a performance based deal. Lucky for him he is dealing with morons though

Why? He should accept performance based considering his luck.

Have a look at my last bit again. If Cameron comes to me (Foley, easily in our top 10 players) and says "hey champ, sign this. performance based chief".....I would say 'get stuffed, I will walk to another club in the PSD then.' And Nathan could attempt to do that. Although he and his manager would know he'd probably struggle to pass a medical, so instead they decide to bend Craig Cameron over yet again. Foley and his manager walk away with poo eating grins slapping each other on the arse

tony_montana

  • Guest
Re: Nathan Foley [merged]
« Reply #805 on: December 08, 2012, 02:24:16 AM »
A 3yr deal?Should have been 2 at the most.

Agree crazy. Must be performance based.

It's not. If I were Foley I would tell them to GF if they offered me a performance based deal. Lucky for him he is dealing with morons though

Why? He should accept performance based considering his luck.

Have a look at my last bit again. If Cameron comes to me (Foley, easily in our top 10 players) and says "hey champ, sign this. performance based chief".....I would say 'get stuffed, I will walk to another club in the PSD then.' And Nathan could attempt to do that. Although he and his manager would know he'd probably struggle to pass a medical, so instead they decide to bend Craig Cameron over yet again. Foley and his manager walk away with poo eating grins slapping each other on the arse

But was it only CC that offered foley the contract?  :shh

Offline Yeahright

  • Moderator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9394
Re: Nathan Foley [merged]
« Reply #806 on: December 08, 2012, 02:25:24 AM »
A 3yr deal?Should have been 2 at the most.

Agree crazy. Must be performance based.

It's not. If I were Foley I would tell them to GF if they offered me a performance based deal. Lucky for him he is dealing with morons though

Why? He should accept performance based considering his luck.

Have a look at my last bit again. If Cameron comes to me (Foley, easily in our top 10 players) and says "hey champ, sign this. performance based chief".....I would say 'get stuffed, I will walk to another club in the PSD then.' And Nathan could attempt to do that. Although he and his manager would know he'd probably struggle to pass a medical, so instead they decide to bend Craig Cameron over yet again. Foley and his manager walk away with poo eating grins slapping each other on the arse

Okay I get your point, I just don't see why he shouldn't accept one IF they were set on giving him one

Offline Smokey

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9279
Re: Nathan Foley [merged]
« Reply #807 on: December 08, 2012, 08:43:55 AM »

But was it only CC that offered foley the contract?  :shh

On here it will be.

Offline WA Tiger

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14257
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Nathan Foley [merged]
« Reply #808 on: December 08, 2012, 09:13:45 AM »
I am just glad we still have him, with him fit all year we will be right. It really hurt us when he went down again, I just hope he can go all year. :pray
DIMMA - You will be held ACCOUNTABLE...

“We are really excited about what we have brought in. We have got great depth of players that can take us where we need to go. We are just putting some cream on the top at the moment,” he said.

"Rucks:
Shaun Hampson is the No.1 man"

Offline Crazy_Ivan

  • Premiership Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 379
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Nathan Foley [merged]
« Reply #809 on: December 08, 2012, 10:44:26 AM »
A 3yr deal?Should have been 2 at the most.

Agree crazy. Must be performance based.

It's not. If I were Foley I would tell them to GF if they offered me a performance based deal. Lucky for him he is dealing with morons though

Why? He should accept performance based considering his luck.

Have a look at my last bit again. If Cameron comes to me (Foley, easily in our top 10 players) and says "hey champ, sign this. performance based chief".....I would say 'get stuffed, I will walk to another club in the PSD then.' And Nathan could attempt to do that. Although he and his manager would know he'd probably struggle to pass a medical, so instead they decide to bend Craig Cameron over yet again. Foley and his manager walk away with poo eating grins slapping each other on the arse
Really,So if Foley and his Manager think he,ll struggle to pass a medical with other clubs, then don,t you think CC would have exactly the same info from our MEDICAL staff on Foley,s condition? :whistle