Really don't understand the need for multiple vice-captains but the club has today named Gibbs & Jamison in the roles.
Question is, do we really need two vice-captains though ??
Gotta admit, I am old school about these things but this works way better for me :
(c) Murphy
(vc) Gibbs
(dvc) Jamison
it's neither here nor there.....
Guys who we'd be expecting to play leadership roles. Fine by me.
It just means the actual decision on who steps in when the captain can't do it is deferred until it actually happens.
I don't really have an issue with two vice-captains but I would prefer vice and deputy vice.
As it is, it is putting off a decision that should have been made.
Don't have a huge problem with it.
It's not like one is an 'heir apparent' as Murphy will probably last at least as long as either of them.
The real decision is probably a few years away. At that stage we may see a Buckley or Cripps slotting into that role.
No issue with it. Just produce some great footy.
Must be that time of year again, time for Sheiks annual rant about captaincy/leadership groups.
Sounds allright to me.
If im not wrong, was Jamison previously part of the leadership group, and then stepped down from the leadership group, and restored again?
Now he is Vice Captain?
If im not wrong, was Jamison previously part of the leadership group, and then stepped down from the leadership group, and restored again?
Now he is Vice Captain?
Both VCs actually. Same years as well.