Dazz the wests side of things only exists because of Balmain. We choose Parra that night and you are like Norths….gone. I agree Balmain are currently stuffed, but so were u in 1999....we saved u so u should save us. And i feel crap saying "u and we"....that should not be in Wests Tigers vocabulary anymore but it is because of guys like u
Respectfully , that's not the case I'm trying to pursue here.
The whole problem is that the BALMAIN side of the joint venture are basically self harmers.
Since it's inception Balmain has had the upper hand in the running of the club ( Ironically 2005 Magpie Juniors, CEO , club itself had its BEST year !! )
HUMPHREYS like his equally corrupt father…..COMPLETELY stuffed the club with his PRO BALMAIN attitude.
**It's easy to explain.......if you are a flatmate of someone who CAN'T pay their bills......you are gunna be a little miffed if that slacker... ( and his own egotistical problems ) has the say on what colour the lounge room is painted. BALMAIN have run roughshod over the Magpies with this joint venture since Wayne Pierce was initial WT coach.**
Ever since then, EVERY distabilising event in the club has come via someone ( official/player/sponsor ) from the Balmain side. Incluiding the Benji / Sheens / Farah drama.
Why should the people of Campbelltown have an EX MANLY Ceo (Balmain Sanctioned BTW )THREATEN them...when we are playing A: Out of town teams NOT big drawers B: Campbelltown Stadium crowd that night this MANLY CAT went on about was after a wild wet windy day.....( Campbelltown is usually a minimum of 5 degrees less than even Parra !! ) Game attendees claim the crowd was MUCH bigger than that posted ???
You Balmanazis need to take a good hard look at YOUR side. Their should be NO SIDES at all in this argument. It's been the Humphrey's ,Elias's, Roache's, Farah's of this club.....and their over inflated egos KILLING this ....what could be GREAT CLUB !!
The situation is more similar to friend A (Magpies) being broke so their well off friend B (Balmain) buys friend A a house to live in.
But then when friend B has no money left they move into that house they bought friend A, which they now live in together. If friend B wasn't pulling their weight around the house would it be fair of friend A to kick them out?