Just a phone call away from scandal

intersting... your thoughts?

i think it is totally [censored], keep on going jimmy!!! <_<

great to see passions running hot for the dees, but lets keep everyone on the same train. hope they sort it out

"And I turned around and walked away, without making a scene or being a drama queen about it. I don't take his remarks as a personal insult, it's just his characterisation of our club in this way that I object to."

"I then jumped on the phone to the Herald Sun so I could splash it all over the papers", Coglin said*.

>_>

<_<

*may not have actually said this

I can see why Coglin would be annoyed about the implication that Jim was making about the club culture, particularly when it sounds like he had a personal commitment to women having a role in the club.

I mean, I find it pretty off myself. "We are just a phone call away from scandal" is pretty much saying "our players are a group of potential (or even practising) pack rapists."

I wonder how the players themselves feel about it?

The two things I really find really odd about the whole situation though are:

1. If Jim is legitimatley concerned about this problem - why would he raise it in front of 300 guests in the MCG's Olympic Room? How could he possibly think that this would improve matters?

2. Stynes said of the three-quarter time confrontation: "He is a smart man, Michael, he should come and talk to me, and he didn't talk to me yesterday, he abused me. I'll talk to him if he comes to me and clear up any misunderstadings he may have."

&

Coglin said he confronted Stynes at three-quarter time. "He didn't say a word to me, not a single word," Coglin said.

"We are just a phone call away from scandal" is in fact a commonly-used phrase among AFL administrators who know that players can get into strife in countless ways, and the club cannot control everything they do. Stynes' use of it says precisely nothing about our playing group.

Coglin looks hyper-sensitive by my reading of the Hun. Stynes' comments look to be a pretty general commentary on AFL culture. If he says he wants to shift the emphasis more to women and the young that does not necessarily imply an attack on the previous administration.

We really do have to knuckle down together at Melbourne. During the pre-season I was talking to a couple of friends who have close to zero interest in football (originally from NSW). The one insight they had to offer of Melbourne was that it was highly factionalised. Interesting, isn't it, that people who know nothing about our game, and care even less have that impression of our club.

Coglin and all of us need to knuckle down and harden up.

Didn't we have a few scandals over the past few years, none of a sexual nature but the betting scandal, not once but twice.

The one insight they had to offer of Melbourne was that it was highly factionalised. Interesting, isn't it, that people who know nothing about our game, and care even less have that impression of our club.

Factionalised ? Noooo. I won't have it. Surely not. There'd be nobody that has already posted in this thread that would be factionalised, or have an axe to grind.

(Where's that Yze Magic photo of a storm in a teacup when you need it.)

.

I suspect that you are correct when you suggest that Coglin might feel a little oversensitive about his legacy. Particularly given that, going by these forums at least, the public perception of the last board is quite a lot lower than Jim’s own estimation. And, no doubt he is probably still a little annoyed by the way in which Jim went about his coup. Furthermore, in contacting the newspapers after his confrontation with Jim, Coglin’s interest in the matter seems to include the preservation of his reputation and that of his old board. But, having said that, I don’t think that his actions (highlighting the club’s position as the most advanced in terms of the status of women) have done the club any harm (quite possibly the opposite).

Despite what your friends (who know nothing about football) might think, I don’t place much importance on “knuckling down and hardening up” if this means censorship and walking in lockstep. Of course, if Jim’s assertion that Coglin was simply being abusive is true, then this is not exactly constructive dialogue. But then, Jim’s suggestion that Coglin should “come and talk to [him]” so that he can “clear up any misunderstadings he [Coglin] may have” seems a bit rich also, given that Jim apparently refused to discuss the matter in the first place. Without further information, it is hard to gauge if Coglin’s reaction was appropriate or not, but he clearly had some reason to feel personally aggrieved. It is a shame that this situation could not be sorted out amicably on the day.

By contrast, Jim’s statement that we are but a phone call away from scandal is the kind of thing that can damage the club. And to represent this as a meaningless football platitude, given the context in which it was said, is highly disingenuous. Once again I find myself wondering what possible benefit Jim could hope to glean from raising this matter with the 300 guests in the Olympic Room? The only thing that I can come up with is that Jim’s discussion of this issue might be good for his own profile i.e. it makes him look like he cares about women and women’s issues (and who is to say that he doesn't?). I do not think that it was probably Jim’s intention to disparage the previous board by neglecting the work that they had done in this area, but it seems that he did - and that he did so simply for the sake of self-aggrandizement. Self-aggrandizement which came at the expense of the reputations of the sport, the league, the club, the players and the previous administration. I suspect that this was what really got up Coglin’s nose.

H is right, and the wall of text proves it.

Go and fight your battle somewhere else, no one here cares, the only thing we're interested in is the future.

H is right, and the wall of text proves it.

Go and fight your battle somewhere else, no one here cares, the only thing we're interested in is the future.

I'm sorry for providing a thoughful, relevant and thorough response to this issue. In future I will try to just agree with the whatever most people seem to think and limit my posting to off-topic personal jibes.

By the way, contrary to the article, Jim didn't state that "he" was nuturing but rather that "we (the club) were nuturing an environment of exclusivity (sic.) and ignorance” towards women when he took over. I think that this makes it pretty clear that Coglin and others have reason to feel aggrieved, given all of the great initiatives that Coglin lists in the article. And by "others" I don't simply mean "other members of the previous board."

Despite what your friends (who know nothing about football) might think, I don’t place much importance on “knuckling down and hardening up” if this means censorship and walking in lockstep. Of course, if Jim’s assertion that Coglin was simply being abusive is true, then this is not exactly constructive dialogue. But then, Jim’s suggestion that Coglin should “come and talk to [him]” so that he can “clear up any misunderstadings he [Coglin] may have” seems a bit rich also, given that Jim apparently refused to discuss the matter in the first place. Without further information, it is hard to gauge if Coglin’s reaction was appropriate or not, but he clearly had some reason to feel personally aggrieved. It is a shame that this situation could not be sorted out amicably on the day.

I'm pretty sure Coglin said he walked away from Stynes, possibly before Stynes could figure out what the hell coglin was so upset about. I would've been perplexed myself if someone had have so completely misinterpreted what I was saying.

"And I turned around and walked away, without making a scene or being a drama queen about it. I don't take his remarks as a personal insult, it's just his characterisation of our club in this way that I object to.

By contrast, Jim’s statement that we are but a phone call away from scandal is the kind of thing that can damage the club. And to represent this as a meaningless football platitude, given the context in which it was said, is highly disingenuous. Once again I find myself wondering what possible benefit Jim could see in raising this matter with the 300 guests in the Olympic Room? The only thing that I can come up with is that Jim’s discussion of this issue might be good for his own profile i.e. it makes him look like he cares about women and women’s issues (and who is to say that he doesn't?). I do not think that it was probably Jim’s intention to disparage the previous board by neglecting the work that they had done in this area, but it seems that he did - and that he did so simply for the sake of self-aggrandizement. Self-aggrandizement which came at the expense of the reputations of the sport, the league, the club, the players and the previous administration. I suspect that this was what really got up Coglin’s nose.

I take that statement to mean that if something happens, it only takes a phone to turn it into a scandal.

And Jimmy is smart enough to know that players are human and they make mistakes, its just about limiting the scope of those mistakes.

Jimmy raising this to 300 guests is the club acknowledging the need to be better prepared to deal with these sorts of issues rather than ignoring them with a 'It won't happen to us' attitude until it is far too late.

What is the problem with being proactive and transparent about these sorts of issues?

Personally, I applaud Jimmy and the club for the stance they have taken.

I see the former board as being irrelevant in this discussion, Coglin is just an egocentric hot-head -- the key issue is improving the club's framework for prevention, education and dealing with these issues.

Coglin is just an egocentric hot-head

Having spoken with Michael Coglin on many occasions at the footy watching Sandy, and at Casey, I can assure you that he's anything but the description you use. He was obviously personally aggrieved by Jim's speech, which was probably clumsy, and felt the need to correct a couple of observations. If anyone is egocentric it's Stynes.

That said, in the scheme of things relating to the MFC it's a minor diversion. But it won't stop some peddling personal agendas. It will only encourage them. Thankfully, most see their jaundiced views for what they are.

I'm pretty sure Coglin said he walked away from Stynes, possibly before Stynes could figure out what the hell coglin was so upset about. I would've been perplexed myself if someone had have so completely misinterpreted what I was saying.

There was also this bit.

"He didn't say a word to me, not a single word," Coglin said.

I take that statement to mean that if something happens, it only takes a phone to turn it into a scandal.

And Jimmy is smart enough to know that players are human and they make mistakes, its just about limiting the scope of those mistakes.

Fair enough, but if I was a player I would resent this implication: The Cronulla rugby team are a group of pack rapists. Our boys are a football team also. "We are all only a phone call away from another scandal. I am not that naive to think our players are totally innocent when it comes to the way they treat and respect and communicate with women." They might be pack rapists.

Jimmy raising this to 300 guests is the club acknowledging the need to be better prepared to deal with these sorts of issues rather than ignoring them with a 'It won't happen to us' attitude until it is far too late.

What is the problem with being proactive and transparent about these sorts of issues?

This bit I just simply do not buy. I do not see how talking about this to the Olympic Room guests is supposed to be a "proactive" measure that is likely to lessen the chance of MFC pack rape. I am glad that Jim is prepared for all contingencies but I just don't see why he should be discussing his concerns about the players in the Olympic Room.

Personally, I applaud Jimmy and the club for the stance they have taken.

I see the former board as being irrelevant in this discussion, Coglin is just an egocentric hot-head -- the key issue is improving the club's framework for prevention, education and dealing with these issues.

I am also glad that Jim is mindful of the status of women in the MFC and AFL. And I agree that if this was all that Jim had said, then Coglin has no right to get worked up over it and butt in.

But Jim made Coglin, and the old board and indeed, every person who has had anything to do with the club, relevant to the discussion when he stated that he inherited a cutlure that was hostile to female supporters when he took over last year. Clearly this was not the case. I am glad that, thanks to Coglin's determination to rectify the matter, the club is now on the record as being the best in the league in these terms. This should be a source of pride for all of us.

Having spoken with Michael Coglin on many occasions at the footy watching Sandy, and at Casey, I can assure you that he's anything but the description you use. He was obviously personally aggrieved by Jim's speech, which was probably clumsy, and felt the need to correct a couple of observations. If anyone is egocentric it's Stynes.

That said, in the scheme of things relating to the MFC it's a minor diversion. But it won't stop some peddling personal agendas. It will only encourage them. Thankfully, most see their jaundiced views for what they are.

It must really kill you to agree with me.

The Cronulla rugby team are a group of pack rapists.

he stated that he inherited a cutlure that was hostile to women supporters when he took over last year.

An accusation of not being inclusive doesn't equal "hostile".

Also, your assertion that the Cronulla players are "pack rapists" is ridiculously over emotive and inaccurate in my opinion.

It must really kill you to agree with me.

I think you and Coglin are making a mountain out of a molehill, but he may well have some argument if Stynes' speech was clumsy and misrepresented the previous Board. You're just using the issue to peddle your personal bias.

I replied to Enforcer because I like Michael Coglin very much and wanted to state that I don't believe that he's egocentric, or a hothead, as asserted.

An accusation of not being inclusive doesn't equal "hostile".

Also, your assertion that the Cronulla players are "pack rapists" is ridiculously over emotive and inaccurate in my opinion.

Wow - if you have been reduced to semantics then my spelling and grammar must really be improving.

Does your agreement mean that you have a personal agenda here also? Or has no-one ever asked you what your agenda is? Are you, perhaps, just here to discuss the MFC?

We might have even more in common!

Coglin...me thinks he doth protest too much !!! <_<

Barely an issue. Stynes is not known for clumsy rhetoric.

There was also this bit.

Fair enough, but if I was a player I would resent this implication: The Cronulla rugby team are a group of pack rapists. Our boys are a football team also. "We are all only a phone call away from another scandal. I am not that naive to think our players are totally innocent when it comes to the way they treat and respect and communicate with women." They might be pack rapists.

This bit I just simply do not buy. I do not see how talking about this to the Olympic Room guests is supposed to be a "proactive" measure that is likely to lessen the chance of MFC pack rape. I am glad that he is prepared for all contingencies but I just don't see why he should be discussing his concerns about the players in the Olympic Room.

I am also glad that Jim is mindful of the status of women in the MFC and AFL. And I agree that if this was all that Jim had said, then Coglin has no right to get worked up over it and butt in.

But Jim made Coglin, and the old board and indeed, every person who has had anything to do with the club, relevant to the discussion when he stated that he inherited a cutlure that was hostile to women supporters when he took over last year. Clearly this was not the case. I am glad that, thanks to Coglin's determination to rectify the matter, the club is now on the record as being the best in the league in these terms. This should be a source of pride for all of us.

Right, he didn't say a word, but did Coglin give him a chance to?

Like i said, if I was Jimmy, I'd have been perplexed and would have been speechless for a moment. Coglin said he turned and walked away. Sounds to me like he paused for a few seconds then walked off before Jim could gather himself.

Coglin had been fuming for a while, thinking of what he'd say to Jim; Jim had no warning that he'd have to defend himself against what he'd naturally think was completely inoffensive to anyone.

WOW. To say that Cronulla are a team of pack rapists - gross generalisation and no charges were laid.

There's a lot of conjecture on that topic and I'm not going to pretend I know enough about the situation to brand anyone guilty of anything.

I think the players would have found absolutely no offence in that comment whatsoever.

They AREN'T all innocent and they know it (as do I, through certain things I've witnessed personally).

I think the players would have a semblance of empathy for the Cronulla players and understand how easily these situations can eventuate.

Announcing it is getting it out in the public forum that MFC are being proactive in ensuring this sort of scandal does not occur.

The issue is not pack rape, it is players putting themselves in risky situations and not being mindful of the consequences of their actions.

Look, I see where you're going, but I think you're looking to find something offensive in there, but its just not. Its reality.

Jimmy is not trying to brand anybody as anything, but its a simple fact of life that sh%& happens and people stuff up.

He ha simply admitted there is room for improvement, there is no shame in that. And he's right.

And for what its worth, whether the old board like it or not, the perceived slight against them is correct.

They were derelict in their duty. If coglin thinks putting a few females on the board and supporting breast cancer research solves the problem, he has no idea.

NB. In actual fact, i think you'll find in the very near future it'll be very popular for players to make 'tupac' style videos of girls giving consent before anything happens.

Then one will get out - it'll be a huge story.

if Stynes' speech was clumsy and misrepresented the previous Board.

Stynes has said that he inheirted a club that excluded and ignored women.

When Stynes inherited the club, the MFC represented the benchmark for the active inclusion of women and women's issues.

An that is the bet you can come up with?

if Stynes was clumsy and misrepresentative then Coglin (not me) may well have some argument?

No wonder you think I look biased.

"I was incandescent with rage" said Coglin when he rang the Herald Sun to record his disapproval of Stynes' speech.

Why ring the Herald Sun after approaching Stynes at 3/4 time already. What a disgrace.

Personnal agendas are no good for the Melbournefc.

Better we look to the future, and take note that Stynes implied that we would "be naive to think we didn't have any work to do in these areas."

Instead of abusing him, a candid discussion should have taken place so Coglin could have seeked clarification.

Too late now.

Having spoken with Michael Coglin on many occasions at the footy watching Sandy, and at Casey, I can assure you that he's anything but the description you use. He was obviously personally aggrieved by Jim's speech, which was probably clumsy, and felt the need to correct a couple of observations. If anyone is egocentric it's Stynes.

That said, in the scheme of things relating to the MFC it's a minor diversion. But it won't stop some peddling personal agendas. It will only encourage them. Thankfully, most see their jaundiced views for what they are.

Fair call. I don't know the man, never met him.

But i think he has grossly misinterpreted what Stynes said and become quite upset about it, confronting Stynes, no less. Hence the hot head.

And he seems to be only concerned with his reputation being harmed, which isn't the issue, the intent or the result of what Stynes said.

Hence the egocentric.

This issue is so much broader than Colgin's understanding and I think Jimmy is someone whose opinion should be respected on this topic, being a former player and someone that has spent a lot of time working with youths.

Right, he didn't say a word, but did Coglin give him a chance to?

etc.

Whatever mate -you have no idea. You have already characterised Coglin as an "egocentric hot-head" based on nothing but your refusal to accept that Stynes' farts might stink. You will note that I was quite even handed on what may or may not have occured during the confrontation.

pack rapists blah blah

Largely irrelevant. You might not feel insulted by being likened to the Cronulla crew - but then you are probably quite a different person to me.

Announcing it is getting it out in the public forum that MFC are being proactive in ensuring this sort of scandal does not occur.

And?

Look, I see where you're going, but I think you're looking to find something offensive in there, but its just not. Its reality.

Here's reality: Jim inherited a club with a tradition of excellence in respect to the treatment of women and women's issues.

Here's what Jim said: "we (the club) were nuturing an environment of exclusivity (sic.) and ignorance” towards women.

I didn't have to look very hard.

And for what its worth, whether the old board like it or not, the perceived slight against them is correct.

They were derelict in their duty. If coglin thinks putting a few females on the board and supporting breast cancer research solves the problem, he has no idea.

And finally, the truth is revealed. If I look biased, it is because my posts are read in relation to drivel like that.

YOU have no idea.

YOU have no idea.

haha right, so when you get bored of making lots of arguments but no ground, then you resort to insults?

hey, I'll happily concede defeat to an idiot any day.

I just refuse to make rash judgements or incorrect assumptions.