Just a phone call away from scandal...

[Jarka 767]

I'm so glad that you guys have all tried to change the subject (Cronulla ethics, Ron Barassi etc. etc.). It is one of the few ways in which I can feel 100% assured that I have won the argument.

When Jim spoke of the "exclusivity" and ignorance he supposedly inherited in the club, he did so specifically in relation to female and youth members. Anyone who heard his speech would know this.

Furthermore, Jim continued to place emphasis upon the role of women in the club.

Coglin, clearly proud of the club's record on women's issues, rightly took umbrage at this and did us all a favour by setting the record straight.

End of story.

Oh, and by the way, I'm quite pleased with Stynes' work on the Demon and Youth Summits. Such are the benefits of a life of reason.

Hazy, i don't have an issue with someone challenging Stynes or the club. It's healthy and can only improve the way we operate, but why take it to the press? How could that possibly help the club?

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

I, for one, havn't heard the speech, and I imagine that most people would want to have heard it before commenting on what he said.

In relation to coglin calling the Herald sun, it appears to me as if all he is doing is trying to cause a problem and destabilise the club. A couple of people here have vouched for him, but I cannot understand the reason for calling up a newspaper to make this public. Why not sort it with the club, in house, directly? Why cause a fuss in public (read: media)?

Hazy, i don't have an issue with someone challenging Stynes or the club. It's healthy and can only improve the way we operate, but why take it to the press? How could that possibly help the club?

As I recall he took it to Stynes before he took it to the press. I have said previously that I wasn't party to the exchange between Coglin and Stynes but my guess is that Coglin was upset at Stynes' portrayal of the club culture as it pertained to women and wanted the record set straight.

Ultimately, and perhaps as a result of his conversation with Stynes, it seems as though Coglin decided that the media was the best means for doing this.

Whether or not this is true is hard to say - perhaps Stynes might have been willling and able to set it straight himself in a more, dare I say, inclusive manner.

Either way however, by highlighting and preserving the proud record of the MFC on women's issues, Coglin has done the club a favour.

Unlike some, I find it is difficult to see how Coglin's objection in the Herald Sun might damage the club. Although I guess Stynes might feel a bit embarrassed about the whole affair, and Coglin has probably made it harder for himself to contribute to the Stynes board in future (unless you count keeping them honest - which hopefully won't be an ongoing concern anyway). Then again, Stynes refused the help of the previous board when he took over so probably no loss there in any case.

[H_T 3,043]

I'm so glad that you guys have all tried to change the subject (Cronulla ethics, Ron Barassi etc. etc.). It is one of the few ways in which I can feel 100% assured that I have won the argument.

There was an argument?.. ...I thought it was a 'candid discussion' Hazy.

By the way, I believe Enforcer 25 asked you a question or 3?

[QueenC 74]

add to that, where is there any evidence of any cronulla player doing anything illegal?

my sources tell me that the female in question went to work the next day and bragged about it to her work mates. only after time had elapsed and she realised that maybe what she did was embarrassing did she report it to the police. the police spoke to her back when it happened (7 years ago i thought) and again when she contacted them recently. both times they decided that no offense had been committed.

i am not commenting on the moral right/wrong of any act that took place. but then again, i am not going to comment the morality of swingers, single parent families, the lack of water flowing down the murry, wind turbines affecting local bat populations or the gunns pulp mill in tasmania. but if the police believe no offense was committed, what right does anyone have to judge the behaviour, or sack someone, for something that happened nearly a decade ago, and was investigated at the time?

Exactly right Deanox, including the fact that another woman has publicly stated that the "victim" gloated about bedding a few NRL players.

But FWIW group sex is not gang rape, and despite what Four Corners want out of this particular piece of journalism it doesn't change that fact.......

None of the parties involved in the Cronulla scandal (for what it was) has been accused of that so those making that assertion (Hazy) may want to a little careful. Just that she felt poorly after doing what she did, which however many people she chose to do it with. Moral judgments aside that is about the crux of the matter. And it has blown Sydney up over the past week.

As for this Melbourne related nonsense, there has been a massive debate on here. One side wanting to think that Jim is and always will be wrong, the other thinking the opposite. Neither are right. I haven't heard the speech but my guess is it was probably open to misinterpretation and misinterpreted it was. I have no problem with Coglin wanting to correct any perceived inaccuracies he may have heard, and if it had stopped at two blokes discussing what is best for their football club then so be it. Hopefully it will help in the long run.

But it goes beyond that once the media get involved. I can't understand why you would call the Herald Sun for the simple purpose of protesting against one statement made in a speech. Would anyone in the press or outside of that room really cared about the comment beyond Coglin and his legacy (which he is more than entitled to be protective of) if the media weren't dragged into it.

The unfortunate result here is that whether he meant to or not (I don't know) this shakes the club and from my point of view that really could of and should of been avoided.

[Roost It 1,434]

Either way however, by highlighting and preserving the proud record of the MFC on women's issues, Coglin has done the club a favour.

In this media driven sport world where image is so important how could ringing the Herald Sun on such an issue be doing the club a favour? Surely your axe is ground down to the handle by now. The thing I love the most about your posts is how much you hark on about balance and reason. It really is laughable. People with the best interests of this club at heart don't ring crappy newspapers to vent their thoughts on what the President has said. They organise a meeting and thrash it out together.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

There was an argument?.. ...I thought it was a 'candid discussion' Hazy.

By the way, I believe Enforcer 25 asked you a question or 3?

"Candid discussion" were your words...

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

Enforcer is free to start a new thread about his irrelevant questions if he has given up on this discussion.

He's also free to (barely) speak for himself.

[QueenC 74]

They organise a meeting and thrash it out together.

Amen......

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

As for this Melbourne related nonsense, there has been a massive debate on here. One side wanting to think that Jim is and always will be wrong, the other thinking the opposite. Neither are right. I haven't heard the speech but my guess is it was probably open to misinterpretation and misinterpreted it was. I have no problem with Coglin wanting to correct any perceived inaccuracies he may have heard, and if it had stopped at two blokes discussing what is best for their football club then so be it. Hopefully it will help in the long run.

But it goes beyond that once the media get involved. I can't understand why you would call the Herald Sun for the simple purpose of protesting against one statement made in a speech. Would anyone in the press or outside of that room really cared about the comment beyond Coglin and his legacy (which he is more than entitled to be protective of) if the media weren't dragged into it.

The unfortunate result here is that whether he meant to or not (I don't know) this shakes the club and from my point of view that really could of and should of been avoided.

It is not about sides wanting Jim to be right or wrong. If Jim says 2+2=5 he is wrong no matter how much people want him to be right.

When Jim said he inherited a culture of "exclusivity" and ignorance towards women in the club, he was similarly and irrefutably wrong.

You may not care about Coglin's legacy and Coglin's reputation. Fine.

However, as you were part of the club culture the Jim so poorly descibed, I would be surprised if you were not concerned about the legacy and reputation of your football club. Coglin protected this in the media after what he clearly found to be a fruitless discussion with Stynes. Perhaps you can do the same by letting us know what your thoughts are on the initiatives that were taken by the club to promote the inclusion of women over the last few years.

[deanox 9,903]

was he talking about our clubs culture, or was he talking about football players in general? or society in general? or football as a code?

without hearing the speech (and I'm not sure if you have heard it either), we are not in a position to debate the semantics or the context of comments that are now being reported, by someone who spoke to someone who got angry when he heard the speech, and someone who is clearly interested in putting his own side across. he was enraged, insulted whatever words he used to describe it, and that in itself indicates that what he says was said probably already has his own slant on it, and is probably not a true and correct reproduction of the speech.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

In this media driven sport world where image is so important how could ringing the Herald Sun on such an issue be doing the club a favour? Surely your axe is ground down to the handle by now. The thing I love the most about your posts is how much you hark on about balance and reason. It really is laughable. People with the best interests of this club at heart don't ring crappy newspapers to vent their thoughts on what the President has said. They organise a meeting and thrash it out together.

Well it all depends on what image you are most concerned about.

A ) You are most concerned about Jim's image

Then by all means promote Jim's revisionist history of the role of women in the MFC and do not correct his public mistake.

B ) You are most concerned about the club's image

Ask Jim to publicly retract his false statements and failing that, dispute them in the media. (I'm guessing that this is what Coglin did)

The thing I love about everyone else's posts, is that in the mad rush to blame hot-headed, egocentric Coglin, nobody has considered that:

It was Stynes who made this issue public when he gave his speech in front of 300 notaries.

and

It was Stynes who damaged the reputation of the club with the fictional account of the MFC club culture that was contained therein.

[Roost It 1,434]

It was Stynes who damaged the reputation of the club with the fictional account of the MFC club culture that was contained therein.

So you heard the speech first hand?

I notice in replying to my post you manage yet again to denigrate Stynes and his efforts. What about two people talking about this without the need to run off to hype riddled newspaper. No reply to that or do you think Coglin yelling at Stynes at 3/4 time constitutes a meeting. Coglin and his contempories may have a good track record on woman but the club has always been seen as exclusive. I'm damn glad someone is finally trying to change that.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

was he talking about our clubs culture, or was he talking about football players in general? or society in general? or football as a code?

without hearing the speech (and I'm not sure if you have heard it either), we are not in a position to debate the semantics or the context of comments that are now being reported, by someone who spoke to someone who got angry when he heard the speech, and someone who is clearly interested in putting his own side across. he was enraged, insulted whatever words he used to describe it, and that in itself indicates that what he says was said probably already has his own slant on it, and is probably not a true and correct reproduction of the speech.

Whatever mate. You might think I'm biased but you have no grounds for suggesting that I made any of this up. I have always been accurate with the facts in the past - even if people don't always agree with my interpretations of them.

The most relevant part of Jim's speech is contained in the article linked at the top of this thread. Coglin claims that he was so taken aback that he wrote it down.

here it is:

"He [Jim] said that when he and his board came in to office, and I wrote this down, he was nurturing an environment of exclusivity, I think he meant exclusion but he said exclusivity, and ignorance towards women and young supporters."

This is what Jim said in his speech. His intended meaning was clear. There is not getting away from it. Ask anyone you know who might have been there.

Or, alternatively, you could invent your own reality. It's probably easier for you than coming to grips with the fact that Jim is not the messiah.

He's just a very naughty boy.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

So you heard the speech first hand?

I notice in replying to my post you manage yet again to denigrate Stynes and his efforts. What about two people talking about this without the need to run off to hype riddled newspaper. No reply to that or do you think Coglin yelling at Stynes at 3/4 time constitutes a meeting. Coglin and his contempories may have a good track record on woman but the club has always been seen as exclusive. I'm damn glad someone is finally trying to change that.

I see. You doubt whether I even heard the speech, yet you are quite happy to claim with certainty that Coglin was yelling at Stynes.

If you are always this pig-headed, then I suspect that your track record with women is not quite so enviable.

[deanox 9,903]

Whatever mate. You might think I'm biased but you have no grounds for suggesting that I made any of this up. I have always been accurate with the facts in the past - even if people don't always agree with my interpretations of them.

The most relevant part of Jim's speech is contained in the article linked at the top of this thread. Coglin claims that he was so taken aback that he wrote it down.

here it is:

"He [Jim] said that when he and his board came in to office, and I wrote this down, he was nurturing an environment of exclusivity, I think he meant exclusion but he said exclusivity, and ignorance towards women and young supporters."

This is what Jim said in his speech. His intended meaning was clear. There is not getting away from it. Ask anyone you know who might have been there.

Or, alternatively, you could invent your own reality. It's probably easier for you than coming to grips with the fact that Jim is not the messiah.

He's just a very naughty boy.

biased? making this up? when did I suggest either?

who does coglin say that stynes said was nuturing an environment of exclusivity? 'he'? then coglin goes on to say 'i think he meant'...

invent my own reality? i think not. but i havnt heard the speech, only read one biased (we know coglins view is biased, because he took afront to it) transcript of one line (which coglin admits he has altered words to make sense of it).

i don't think jim is the messiah. i think he is doing a good job in charge, but he is just the president. it is the club that needs to move forward together, not just jim. and coglins act of running to the media, is typical of someone trying to destabilise or bignote. and given that coglin has held position in the past, re is someone who would realise this.

[Roost It 1,434]

I see. You doubt whether I even heard the speech, yet you are quite happy to claim with certainty that Coglin was yelling at Stynes.

If you are always this pig-headed, then I suspect that your track record with women is not quite so enviable.

So you didn't hear the speech but have spent your morning rabbiting on about Coglin's need to run off to a newspaper with his gripe. And now you question my record with woman. As a father I'd normally be offended by this but from you it's another reason for a laugh. I'm not sure if I've seen another poster with such a negative agenda as you have with Stynes. I know, let's get one of the last dozen or so boards to step up again and see where we'll be in a year's time. You'd have some credibility if any of them had been able to achieve what Stynes and co. have in the first year in charge. The fact remains that going to the Herald Sun was a mistake and makes the club look like amateurs once again. Strong clubs keep these issues in house and sort them out without the help of the Herald Sun.

[Jarka 767]

As I recall he took it to Stynes before he took it to the press. I have said previously that I wasn't party to the exchange between Coglin and Stynes but my guess is that Coglin was upset at Stynes' portrayal of the club culture as it pertained to women and wanted the record set straight.

Ultimately, and perhaps as a result of his conversation with Stynes, it seems as though Coglin decided that the media was the best means for doing this.

Whether or not this is true is hard to say - perhaps Stynes might have been willling and able to set it straight himself in a more, dare I say, inclusive manner.

Either way however, by highlighting and preserving the proud record of the MFC on womens issues, Coglin has done the club a favour.

Unlike some I find it is difficult to see how Coglin's objection in the Herald Sun might damage the club. Although I guess Stynes might feel a bit embarrassed about the whole affair, and Coglin has probably made it harder for himself to contribute to the Stynes board in future (unless you count keeping them honest - which hopefully won't be an ongoing concern anyway. Then again, Stynes refused the help of the previous board when he took over so probably no loss there in any case.

Coming from the point of view from rank a file member it appears that Coglin went to the media for completely selfish purposes, not to help the club, and I'm sure that you are well aware that perception is far more important than intent.

[GM11 776]

I see. You doubt whether I even heard the speech........

Were you there? Yes or No.

Never yet heard Jim Stynes denigrate the football club or past administrations.

A few chips on a few shoulders ? I think so.

[titan_uranus 24,983]

my sources tell me that the female in question went to work the next day and bragged about it to her work mates. only after time had elapsed and she realised that maybe what she did was embarrassing did she report it to the police. the police spoke to her back when it happened (7 years ago i thought) and again when she contacted them recently. both times they decided that no offense had been committed.

Are your sources the HUN? This (the fact that she bragged) has been talked about in the media.

If you are always this pig-headed, then I suspect that your track record with women is not quite so enviable.

Hazy, you've presented your argument in the best possible fashion, and you may well be right.

But to make assertions about Roost It of that manner is way out of line IMO.

Resorting to insults, hmm, maybe you feel you're losing the argument now?

I'm not a mod, so I can't actually stop you from doing anything, but I just think you shouldn't have made that particular comment.

FWIW, I take the view that Coglin shouldn't have gone to the media, regardless of Stynes' comments and whether or not they're true. But I respect your argument.

[Rogue 585]

"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."

Rubbish.

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.

It's a realistic assessment of where you're at when you have 40 young boys/men.

I'm sure you can think of some examples not only from other codes like NRL, but the AFL and even our own Club.

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.

Clearly it's a case of differing interpretations.

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.

It would seem very surprising that Stynes would not respond unless he felt Coglin was being abusive - not engaging is the best way to ensure there's no escalation of conflict at the time.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

biased? making this up? when did I suggest either?

who does coglin say that stynes said was nuturing an environment of exclusivity? 'he'? then coglin goes on to say 'i think he meant'...

invent my own reality? i think not. but i havnt heard the speech, only read one biased (we know coglins view is biased, because he took afront to it) transcript of one line (which coglin admits he has altered words to make sense of it).

i don't think jim is the messiah. i think he is doing a good job in charge, but he is just the president. it is the club that needs to move forward together, not just jim. and coglins act of running to the media, is typical of someone trying to destabilise or bignote. and given that coglin has held position in the past, re is someone who would realise this.

From memory, what Stynes actually said is that "we (i.e. "the club") were nuturing an environment of exclusivity and ignorance..." Due to the way in which Coglin has been quoted, the pro-noun has been changed to denote the fact the Coglin was referring to Jim taking over the role as chairman. Either way the meaning is clear.

Coglin raises Jim's use of the term "exclusivity" ("I think he meant") because what Jim probably meant to say was "exclusion". Maybe Jim grew up speaking Gaelic or something, who knows? Once again, the meaning is clear either way. Your desperate search for ambiguity is futile.

You have heard it from me and you have read it in the paper. When you find someone else you know who has heard the speech first-hand then you will hear it from them also.

But, feel free to nuture your own environment of exclusion and ignorance to your heart's content.

The club cannot "move forward together" if the President is telling fibs about the club that he inherited. Neither do these fibs encourage club stability. It seems to me that if anyone was bignoting, it was Jim - and he did so not just at the expense of Coglin, but at the expense of the club also.

And lets not forget that Jim probably could have set it right if he wanted to - after all, Coglin went to Jim before the media.

I think I'll take a break now. It seems like you and your fellow fundamentalists need some time to regroup (or preferably, to come to your senses). I mean, "exclusivity/exclusion: therefore all information is invalid"? Come on.

[Nasher 33,613]

It would seem surprising that Stynes would not respond if someone spoke to him in a mature way, but it would be understandable if he did not respond to something he viewed as abusive - it's the best way to ensure there's no escalation.

What's the definition of 'abusive'? If Coglin is being hung because 'Jim said' he was being 'abusive', then our justice system has gone horribly, horribly wrong.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Are your sources the HUN? This (the fact that she bragged) has been talked about in the media.

Hazy, you've presented your argument in the best possible fashion, and you may well be right.

But to make assertions about Roost It of that manner is way out of line IMO.

Resorting to insults, hmm, maybe you feel you're losing the argument now?

I'm not a mod, so I can't actually stop you from doing anything, but I just think you shouldn't have made that particular comment.

FWIW, I take the view that Coglin shouldn't have gone to the media, regardless of Stynes' comments and whether or not they're true. But I respect your argument.

Fair cop - I normally try to be a little better than that. I guess I'm a little tired. He just left himself wide open and it was to hard to pass up.

FWIW If we assume that Jim wasn't prepared to make a public retraction/revision of his comments, then what should Coglin have done? Should he have simply permitted Jim's falsehood to go unchallenged?

[Jarka 767]

I think I'll take a break now. It seems like you and your fellow fundamentalists need some time to regroup (or preferably, to come to your senses). I mean, "exclusivity/exclusion: therefore all information is invalid"? Come on.

This last paragraph reflects poorly on you and your argument.

There are two issues, the first is Coglin's irrational belief that he has be wronged, and the second was his actions by taking it to the media.

I'm now amazed that this club survived past the previous board, using this issue as an example of how they operate is scary. I blame myself though, I was one of the idiots who voted them in. <_<

[titan_uranus 24,983]

Fair cop - I normally try to be a little better than that. I guess I'm a little tired. He just left himself wide open and it was to hard to pass up.

Yeah I know, that's why I questioned it. Good on you for accepting you were in the wrong.

[Rogue 585]

What's the definition of 'abusive'? If Coglin is being hung because 'Jim said' he was being 'abusive', then our justice system has gone horribly, horribly wrong.

Try a closer reading of my comment before flying off the handle about injustice in the world

I deliberately used the phrase 'if he viewed it as abusive', which doesn't require anyone else to define it as abusive.

Even if there was or is some objective measure of 'abusive' that could be applied it is irrelevant, given that the only interpretation that matters in the context of Stynes' subsequent actions is Stynes' own interpretation.

It's not about 'hanging' anyone, but offering a sensible explanation of why Stynes may not have engaged with Coglin at the match yet is willing to discuss the issue with him at some point.

Given that Coglin admits he "was incandescent with rage" and promptly turned around and walked away after talking to Stynes, it's hardly a contrived explanation either.

Regardless, your comment about the 'justice system' is moot anyway since this isn't a court, it's an internet forum - I suggest that's the wrong place to be looking for 'justice'