Just a phone call away from scandal...

[Jaded No More 68,872]

Hazy, as I've already stated several times in this thread, I agree with you that Coglin (and anyone else for that matter) has every right to challenge Stynes on this topic or another that they feel strongly about. Stynes is not untouchable and he has to answer to the members.

I agree with this, and I think that, in light of the fall out, Stynes should come out and reply in some sort of public manner.

If he truly believes the club has excluded women in the past, he needs to come out with cold hard evidence to support this line of thought. Otherwise, he needs to state that his comments were wrong, or wrongly worded.

Either way, as the public head of this football club, it is his responsibility now to fix this issue, even if he believes that he is right in his comments. We do not need highly regarded members of this club fighting each other once more, just as we are finally making giant steps towards meaningful unity.

The one thing we can all agree on, is that the Melbourne Football Club is one that we all cherish and love, and none of us, particularly Jim and Mick want to see it suffer because of a difference of opinion.

[H_T 3,043]

I'd have another go at reading it..........

Cheers. Think I left out "your" in the last sentence of your post, when reading it first time around. Ie. ...'settling in your court'...'instead of settling in court.'

Just for the record the Stynes motives smell horrible to me.

Exactly what motives are they? Isn't it encouraging the players to be responsible and show respect towards women?

edit: re-worded question.

[Guest bruno]

Is he bitter? YES. Does he miss the limelight? YES. Is he driven by ego as many here have suggested? YES. Does he possess an unnerving commitment to the issue of gender and football? DUNNO.

[H_T 3,043]

Interesting first post Bruno, welcome.......long time reader, first time poster.

[Rogue 585]

Here is an exerpt from my second post in this thread:

Here is another one from a susequent post:

When you initially replied to me you certainly weren't taking a balanced view - first my suggestion that Stynes may have failed to engage Coglin because he wanted to avoid escalation was 'flaccid tripe' that 'only makes sense if all benefit of the doubt was given to Stynes and none to Coglin', and then you put it alongside alternatives explanations such as swine flu.

However, you did indeed suggest it was a possibility in earlier posts, as you've shown.

Jim was propogating a falsehood about the club that was besmirching it's good reputation. A falsehood that needed to be addressed.

I haven't seen anyone draw the long bow that you have re: our players and pack rapists, and with such a small audience the impact on the Club's reputation - even if we take a reasonably dim view of Stynes' comments - is questionable.

Assuming that we agree the comments needed to be addressed, it is not clear that contacting the Herald Sun was the best way to achieve that. The positive angle about Melbourne and women was buried ~80% of the way down the article, and for someone who's been on a Board of a football club it should be no surprise that the angle taken was the conflict.

I imagine that what the majority of readers took from the Herald Sun article was a tale of current board v previous board in-fighting, so if we assume that Coglin had good intentions - and I disagree with those who state that his actions suggest he has bad intentions and/or doesn't love the Club - I don't think he's succeeded in his aim.

[Guest Rojik of the Arctic]

Equal worst story of the week. Ties for 1st with the "Strippergate" rubbish.

[grazman 7,411]

. Taking a stance that is unified is most important, hopefully all parties can realise this.

So even if he thinks Styne's is badly misrepresenting the club he should just shut up.

"Unity" is the handmaiden of "Groupthink" which is the bridesmaid to an "escalating commitment to a failing course of action"

I can see you're a fan of groupthink, because those that dissent are marginalised and ridiculed - as you've done to Mick.

The one thing we can all agree on, is that the Melbourne Football Club is one that we all cherish and love, and none of us, particularly Jim and Mick want to see it suffer because of a difference of opinion.

You were right in the first instance about Styne's clarifying his position, but the issue here is not a simple difference of opinion, and I doubt that Mick would even have approached Jim if it was, it's about the misrepresentation of the club as a whole.

[Jarka 767]

You were right in the first instance about Styne's clarifying his position, but the issue here is not a simple difference of opinion, and I doubt that Mick would even have approached Jim if it was, it's about the misrepresentation of the club as a whole.

Graz, you're half right. There are two issues here, the first you've already made good points about, as have others. The other issue is Coglin going to the media, or perhaps his motivation and intent.

Thsi question has not been resolved but I guess only one person knows the real reason why and unless he is willing to come onto demonland we'll never know. You know my opinion on that issue

[Roost It 1,434]

Those sort of questions are more easily answered if you strip away the preconceived idea of the individual who made the comment and look at the comment itself.

The comment was wrong. MFC had NOT nurtured the attitude towards women Stynes talked of. Three female Board members, the Pink Lady day and our initiatives regarding the Women in Football function attest to that.

I think Stynes deliberately misrepresented what had happen at the club prior to his Chairmanship.

Why would he do that??? Answer that question and you're a long way to understanding the issue.

You're not alone High Tower, the answer is unpalatable and many will rationalize it away.

So are you suggesting Stynes has an an alterior motive in all of this. This is a guy who has spent the last 10 months attempting to unify the club. Why would he puposefully slander a previous board with it's members in the room. I very much doubt this was his intention and your alluding to this and some bigger conspiracy is ludicrous. I've no doubt that if Coglin and Stynes could spend an hour together then this would all be sorted out. Let's hope they do. Unfortunately for the whole club we can't take this out of the Herald Sun.

[Hannabal 4]

So are you suggesting Stynes has an an alterior motive in all of this. This is a guy who has spent the last 10 months attempting to unify the club. Why would he puposefully slander a previous board with it's members in the room. I very much doubt this was his intention and your alluding to this and some bigger conspiracy is ludicrous. I've no doubt that if Coglin and Stynes could spend an hour together then this would all be sorted out. Let's hope they do. Unfortunately for the whole club we can't take this out of the Herald Sun.

Those that know Stynes don't think that he's above a bit of grand standing or chest beating. What better way to highlight your achievements than make the place look ordinary when you arrived ?

I support Coglin and his decision not to allow Stynes to misrepresent the whole club - not just the previous Board. I think Mick was probably a tad over sensitive, but if he felt so aggrieved at the untruth that was publicly paraded, especially when the opposite is true, then I can understand his sentiments and admire his personal values. I'm led to believe that a couple of other Board members were dismissive of Coglin's concerns. I'm not suggesting that he needed placating, but their attitude may have strengthened his resolve.

I suspect Coglin went to the paper as he believed it to be the only way he could rectify mistruths sprouted about the club he loves. No public retraction was going to be forthcoming from Stynes. And he did so in the full knowledge that it would hurt him personally. I believe that he pulled the wrong rein, but that doesn't mean I'm right. At the end of the day he got his point across and in my opinion the issue hasn't damaged the MFC. Perhaps he achieved what he set out to do.

One thing I do know is that Mick Coglin only has the club's best interests at heart.

[Nasher 33,613]

...

Excellent post. Summed up my feelings in one.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Well, I think I can stop responding to everyone individually now - I just don’t think that there is anywhere left for the Coglin-haters to wriggle. I agree with Nasher that is has at least been a very entertaining ride. At times, I was a little reminded of the

.

Thankfully, we have heard from someone else who was at the speech and who has corroborated my report (no surprises there). We have also heard from several posters who have met or who know Michael Coglin personally, and they have all been at pains to point out what a reasonable man his is and how passionate he is about the club.

It seems most posters are now amenable to the facts that, Jim was wrong to say what he did about the club’s culture, what he said was untrue, Coglin was right to try and sort it out and the record needed to be set straight publicly. The sticking point seems to be whether or not Coglin should have gone to the media.

I have been repeatedly asked why Coglin would take it to the media. My consistent reply has been that Coglin, after getting no response from Jim, took it to the media because it was the best/only way for him to rectify the public mistruths that Jim spread about the club’s supposed “exclusivity” and “ignorance” of women. That is, Coglin was defending the reputation of his football club.

For some reason, some people don’t seem to think that this answers the question but I cannot think how this reply could be any more direct, relevant and cogent. My theory is that people are so enchanted with the Stynes story and loved him so much as a player (as did I) that they simply can’t process this information as it reflects poorly on Stynes’ behaviour in this instance. Perhaps it is some kind of psychogenic amnesia resulting from the trauma of having to admit that one's most cherished idol is but a mortal man (I don't know if anyone watched 4 corners last night, but that would be a pretty extreme example). In any case, given that my direct answers do not seem to be helping, I thought perhaps that some of you might benefit from asking yourselves some questions.

1. Jim himself has said that “He is a smart man, Michael (Coglin).” Coglin must have known that by going to the papers, he would provoke the scorn of thousands of our dimmer supporters, some of whom would go on to call him a “turd” who “needs his head kicked in”. So, if Coglin was only worried about his own reputation and not the club’s, why would he have done it? And why do so many people feel the need to assassinate Coglin’s character anyway?

2. Why did Jim publicly compare our players to the Cronulla boys? Even if it is fair, how can it possibly benefit the club to have Jim make this comparison in the Olympic Room? Is it worth insulting our players like this merely so that Jim can be “seen to be proactive” about the issue? Is Jimmy being “seen to be proactive” actually of any benefit to the club anyway? Does this benefit outweigh the costs associated with publicly disparaging our players like this?

3. Why would Jim publicly lie (either deliberately or out or ignorance) about our club’s enviable record on women and women’s issues? Why are so many posters here simply unable to entertain that this was the case? If Jim was most concerned about the club being “seen to be proactive” why wouldn’t he highlight the ways in which it has been proactive over the last few years?

4. At the start of his speech, which largely focused upon gender issues, why was “Miss Universe” the only guest (out of several whom Jim introduced) who was asked to stand up from her seat?

5. Why would Jim refuse to speak to Coglin at 3/4 time? If he was worried about escalation/discussing it in the stands, why didn’t he just say so? E.g. “Look Michael, here’s my card, why don’t you give me a call after the game and we can discuss it then?”

6. Why does everyone blame Coglin for making this issue public when it was Jim who publicly stuffed up in front of 300 people? What would you have done in Coglin’s shoes if you wanted to publicly set the record straight about the club’s history, but Jim refused to talk to you?

7. If Jim was worried about a story on “in-fighting” being run in the newspaper, he still could have done something about it even after refusing to speak to Coglin. Why didn’t Stynes just defuse the situation by telling the reporter that, actually, he did stuff up and Coglin was right about the club’s admirable track record on women? This could have been another story about how Jim’s “inclusiveness” is good for the club. “I’m so glad that Michael came to put me straight about the club’s record on women. It would be a great shame if people forgot all the good work that he and the club have done over the last few years.” Coglin, the club and even Jim himself all could have come out smelling of roses – so if Jim’s first priority was the good of the club, why didn’t he just admit that he was wrong? Or is it that he couldn’t?

Cheers

P.S. Apologies to the less literate demonlanders who prefer to neither read or write too much, nor understand an issue too deeply.

[H_T 3,043]

Those sort of questions are more easily answered if you strip away the preconceived idea of the individual who made the comment and look at the comment itself.

The comment was wrong. MFC had NOT nurtured the attitude towards women Stynes talked of. Three female Board members, the Pink Lady day and our initiatives regarding the Women in Football function attest to that.

I think Stynes deliberately misrepresented what had happen at the club prior to his Chairmanship.

Why would he do that??? Answer that question and you're a long way to understanding the issue.

You're not alone High Tower, the answer is unpalatable and many will rationalize it away.

Those that know Stynes don't think that he's above a bit of grand standing or chest beating. What better way to highlight your achievements than make the place look ordinary when you arrived ?

I support Coglin and his decision not to allow Stynes to misrepresent the whole club - not just the previous Board. I think Mick was probably a tad over sensitive, but if he felt so aggrieved at the untruth that was publicly paraded, especially when the opposite is true, then I can understand his sentiments and admire his personal values. I'm led to believe that a couple of other Board members were dismissive of Coglin's concerns. I'm not suggesting that he needed placating, but their attitude may have strengthened his resolve.

I suspect Coglin went to the paper as he believed it to be the only way he could rectify mistruths sprouted about the club he loves. No public retraction was going to be forthcoming from Stynes. And he did so in the full knowledge that it would hurt him personally. I believe that he pulled the wrong rein, but that doesn't mean I'm right. At the end of the day he got his point across and in my opinion the issue hasn't damaged the MFC. Perhaps he achieved what he set out to do.

One thing I do know is that Mick Coglin only has the club's best interests at heart.

You guys are on the same page, so too Hazy. Maybe it has taken me until now, to see through the smoke and mirrors. If there is some truth to 'grand standing' or 'making the place look ordinary prior to arrival', it's disappointing. Particularly whilst spruiking a unified club and togetherness, on top of our off-field achievements to date. IMO you should keep looking to the future.

I respect your posting and I've enjoyed this thread. I hope this issue hasn't damaged the MFC. I can't help but think there maybe some underlying scars from this, that may one day re-appear. I hope I'm wrong.

If Coglin really had the club's best interests at heart, was Melbourne's leading selling paper the Herald-Sun his only option to achieve what he set out to do? I agree with Hannabal here, he pulled the wrong rein IMO.

Equally, is Stynes stubborn enough to not retract his statement once the facts have been brought forward before him?

Once more, I've enjoyed this thread...now it's time to watch the Tigers eat their own....

edited.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Nice book Hazy, I'm waiting for the film.... <_<

Hey, If you're happy to shoulder the burden of specifically replying to posters like HT and repeatedly asking the relevant questions as they are called for, then that suits me fine.

Having a little dig at me will proabably make your job easier too, so knock yourself out.

Personally, I don't think a long post is anything to be ashamed of and I was getting a little tired of holding so many conversations at once. I'm sure you'll feel the same if this thread goes on for another 5 pages.

[Roost It 1,434]

Roost It I reckon ALL AFL Club Chairman do the job for the good of the club but also for the good of themselves. Every Chairman we've had from Gutnick on have done it at Melbourne and if you think Stynes is different you're in la la land.

I'd say there would be very few people on earth who, at one level of their being, don't do things "for the good of themselves" I certainly don't think Stynes is club chairman just for the good of the club, he would certainly be "getting" something out of it. HSOG can write his little essay's on the topic and berate others for not writing and/or reading as much as he does but it doesn't change the fact that his reasoning for Coglin going to the media is weak, even if he wants to call it "direct, relevant and cogent"

And Hannabal I'd say that Coglin does a fair job of grand standing and chest beating on this issue.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

I'd say there would be very few people on earth who, at one level of their being, don't do things "for the good of themselves" I certainly don't think Stynes is club chairman just for the good of the club, he would certainly be "getting" something out of it. HSOG can write his little essay's on the topic and berate others for not writing and/or reading as much as he does but it doesn't change the fact that his reasoning for Coglin going to the media is weak, even if he wants to call it "direct, relevant and cogent"

And Hannabal I'd say that Coglin does a fair job of grand standing and chest beating on this issue.

1. Jim himself has said that “He is a smart man, Michael (Coglin).” Coglin must have known that by going to the papers, he would provoke the scorn of thousands of our dimmer supporters, some of whom would go on to call him a “turd” who “needs his head kicked in”. So, if Coglin was only worried about his own reputation and not the club’s, why would he have done it? And why do so many people feel the need to assassinate Coglin’s character anyway?

[e25 5]

EEEEEsus.

i come back a day later and you're still going!

Stop jumping at shadows, you're worse than Coglin. You're reading much much more into it than there really was.

and FWIW i think jimmy is doing a great job AND he's completely right in what he said, regardless of your interpretation.

The old board were rubbish and are obviously too ignorant to realise it.

Move on.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

EEEEEsus.

i come back a day later and you're still going!

Stop jumping at shadows, you're worse than Coglin. You're reading much much more into it than there really was.

and FWIW i think jimmy is doing a great job AND he's completely right in what he said, regardless of your interpretation.

The old board were rubbish and are obviously too ignorant to realise it.

Move on.

doubleplusungood post

[rpfc 28,292]

Everyone (mostly) has argued well, it's time to move on. Opinions won't change from here.

I mean, we are no longer awful at playing football, surely we should be talking about that.

We're a bit awful, but much less awful than before...

[e25 5]

Everyone (mostly) has argued well, it's time to move on. Opinions won't change from here.

I mean, we are no longer awful at playing football, surely we should be talking about that.

We're a bit awful, but much less awful than before...

Careful saying stuff like that. Past board members might get offended.

And someone might analyse your words, then analyse mine, then someone will analyse that analysis and we'll all be flooded with useless information.

[e25 5]

Did you see that? No reply. I gave him a whole minute too. This is an outrage.

I'm incandescent with rage.

See you guys later, I'm off to talk to the Herald Sun...

[Dee Fan 3,247]

What better way to highlight your achievements than make the place look ordinary when you arrived ?

Are you suggesting that it wasn't ordinary when he arrived?

The previous board left the club in a shambles and Mick was on the board. Going to the press was like rubbing salt in to a very open wound.

I've met Mick several times and quite like him but I won't forgive him if this affects our club in any way.

It never ceases to amaze me when I see some of the factions getting in to it on here as they do, I support the club not the board they will come and go the club remains constant.

I doubt I have ever read as much carp in my life as I have on this thread especially from Hazy whatever.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Are you suggesting that it wasn't ordinary when he arrived?

The previous board left the club in a shambles and Mick was on the board. Going to the press was like rubbing salt in to a very open wound.

I've met Mick several times and quite like him but I won't forgive him if this affects our club in any way.

It never ceases to amaze me when I see some of the factions getting in to it on here as they do, I support the club not the board they will come and go the club remains constant.

I doubt I have ever read as much carp in my life as I have on this thread especially from Hazy whatever.

Don't worry Hannabal's posts are completely irrelevant because he has admitted to having a personal involvement with a former board member - Coglin. He is a "lackey" a "crony" a "minion." He might even be a former board member himself! If I were you I wouldn't bother addressing the substance of his posts, just continue to point this out over and over again. Clearly he has an agenda and everything he says, no matter how factual, is thus invalid.

Such facts might include the level of female representation on the previous board, the pink lady initiative and women in football functions.

[Demon Tragic 0]

Are you suggesting that it wasn't ordinary when he arrived?

The previous board left the club in a shambles and Mick was on the board. Going to the press was like rubbing salt in to a very open wound.

I've met Mick several times and quite like him but I won't forgive him if this affects our club in any way.

It never ceases to amaze me when I see some of the factions getting in to it on here as they do, I support the club not the board they will come and go the club remains constant.

I doubt I have ever read as much carp in my life as I have on this thread especially from Hazy whatever.

With you all the way RobbieO. The previous board left the club with record debt and a severe image problem (we didn't have one). At the end of the day factions will always argue, as they think they are always right and can do a better job than the others. Totally self serving. The way I see it, you can break it down like this.

A) Did Jim accurately represent the clubs previous record in relation to women in football? NO

B) Was Mick yelling at Jim at 3/4 time the best way to deal with his grievance? NO

C) Did Mick seek any further meeting with Jim before running to the muck rakers at the HUN? NO

D) Did Jim take the opportunity to set the public record straight when the HUN called? NO

Sounds to me like big boys behaving badly. Honestly now, who does this bad behaviour serve? Certainly not the club.....

Factions can fight all they like, the only thing that matters to me is

"LONG LIVE THE MIGHTY MELBOURNE DEMONS!"

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

A ) Did Jim accurately represent the club's previous record in relation to women in football? NO

B ) Was Mick yelling at Jim at 3/4 time? Almost certainly NOT

C ) Did Mick seek a meeting with Jim? YES

D ) Did Jim seek a meeting with Mick? NO

E ) Did Jim leave Mick much option other than either calling the HUN or shutting up and going away? NO

F ) Did Jim take the opportunity to set the public record straight when the HUN called? NO

Sounds to me like the big boy is behaving badly. Honestly now, who does this bad behaviour serve? Certainly not the club.....

edited for accuracy