This is head-banging-on-the-keyboard worthy...

No-one will move HSOG, and HSOG will not move those who believe he-who-has-no-name (Jimmy).

Give up everyone and talk about the footy.

How good was Bate?

Very impressive kicking display. And harassed more than usual.

That's part of what this thread is about...

Indeed.

You would never Believe anything Jim Stynes said anyway Hazy. The Last Board that included Michael had there chance & they completely Buggered it all (including the club) right up.

So i believe similiar to an old coach or an old player they should keep the mouth closed. (As Paul Gardiner has done) Leaking to the Hun is not a good option & never will be.

What's so funny Hazy??? I don't find any of this funny at all.

I work in the media, & for many years that was in a newsroom so i have a pretty good idea how the system works.

This story is a classic beat up but you will not give a straight answer, apart from putting the Boot into the present Board which you take great delight in doing, on this forum quite regulairly. If the old board was still in charge its quite possible we would be called GC 17.

Six pages of absolute crap on an overblown incident get over it folks, no one will change their view on this matter.

What's so funny Hazy??? I don't find any of this funny at all.

I work in the media, & for many years that was in a newsroom so i have a pretty good idea how the system works.

This story is a classic beat up but you will not give a straight answer, apart from putting the Boot into the present Board which you take great delight in doing, on this forum quite regulairly. If the old board was still in charge its quite possible we would be called GC 17.

hahahah

Feel free to start a new thread if this topic does not interest you.

Silence, minion.

You had a question embedded in that garbage ? But as you're attention seeking I'll highlight our differences:

You are so tarnished by bias that any decent points you might make become almost irrelevant to many posters. We hadn't heard your opinion of the current Board since you were giving sole credit to a supporter for getting Kaspersky as a major sponsor. In fact you found it comical and mocked the administration. You conveniently overlooked the comments from Kaspersky's AsiaPac CEO that Stynes' impressive youth work and social vision outlined at their meeting made them decide that the MFC would be a valued and ideal partner. You comment on every miniscule political detail when it suits you, yet overlooked the Betezy sponsorhip that followed. You also failed to comment when the announcement was made that we'd become a section of the MCC. You're glued to political threads when you think there's an ounce of mileage - much like this thread, but predictably become morbidly silent at the hint of good news.

You're a grubby political mendicant mired in deceit by your unwillingness to admit your allegiances. You're a stale remnant of the unstable past, a Board junkie, a suckhole - probably started out as a coterie member, but thankfully your stench is being neutralised by the small steady incremental steps the club has collectively taken. I know you have trouble with the spelling, but most here believe we're heading for a sustained period of success on and off the field. But I doubt you'll ever enjoy it.

It's a pity that you're using this thread to attention seek and target Stynes under the guise of supporting Mick Coglin. The thread probably would have run its race by now if not for you. I'm sure Mick's wrapped to have you as his spokesperson perpetuating the rift whilst massaging your own ego. Some mate.

I know what the Topic is Mr ex Board Member, & i will continue to ask you to answer the question.

We shall see who Rusts first....

Hazy, you can do better than that.

I think this thread is just about done.

That's part of what this thread is about...

Yes...

You are so tarnished by bias that any decent points you might make become almost irrelevant to many posters. We hadn't heard your opinion of the current Board since you were giving sole credit to a supporter for getting Kaspersky as a major sponsor. In fact you found it comical and mocked the administration. You conveniently overlooked the comments from Kaspersky's AsiaPac CEO that Stynes' impressive youth work and social vision outlined at their meeting made them decide that the MFC would be a valued and ideal partner. You comment on every miniscule political detail when it suits you, yet overlooked the Betezy sponsorhip that followed. You also failed to comment when the announcement was made that we'd become a section of the MCC. You're glued to political threads when you think there's an ounce of mileage - much like this thread, but predictably become morbidly silent at the hint of good news.

You're a grubby political mendicant mired in deceit by your unwillingness to admit your allegiances. You're a stale remnant of the unstable past, a Board junkie, a suckhole - probably started out as a coterie member, but thankfully your stench is being neutralised by the small steady incremental steps the club has collectively taken. I know you have trouble with the spelling, but most here believe we're heading for a sustained period of success on and off the field. But I doubt you'll ever enjoy it.

It's a pity that you're using this thread to attention seek and target Stynes under the guise of supporting Mick Coglin. The thread probably would have run its race by now if not for you. I'm sure Mick's wrapped to have you as his spokesperson perpetuating the rift whilst massaging your own ego. Some mate.

Well said, if i wasn't busy at work i may have taken the time to write something similiar. Forward & Upwards for this club thankyou. I for one have had enough of the Divisions & Factions.

A whole bunch of nonsense about why my posts are supposedly irrelevant because I am supposedly a former boardmember or something.

Funny how when people respond to you, you think that they should respond to the substance of what you are writing, your close association with former boardmembers notwithsatnding.

Apparently when they respond to me, they should just ignore what I have said and go on a rant about my supposed identity. Oh, and take cheap shots at my spelling.

hahahah

Silence, minion.

Feel free to start a new thread if this topic does not interest you.

Don't think that I'm an apologist for the previous Board - I'm not. I can however distinguish between issues and judge them on their merits. If you want to start a thread about the performance of the previous Board then do so. This thread is about Jim's foot in mouth grandstanding gone wrong.

This is where we have a problem it's all a matter of, he said this, I said that but the facts are none of us were there to witness all the conversations and that includes the ones between the Jimmy, Michael and the journalist. You put it down to Jimmy grandstanding, and you are really only surmising that he was.

In twenty year from now Jimmy will be remembered as the man who saved the MFC and people will have forgotten that the previous board were the ones he saved us from. This speech could have been a clumsy attempt by Jimmy to bring the female issue to the fore, or if you want to be a conspiracy theorist an attempt to hammer the final nail into the coffin of the previous board. Which one would you like to believe, I guess that depends on which faction you belong to, that's if you belong to one at all. Me, I belong to no group or faction I just go to the football to see us win.

All this carp written by the hazy one is just supposition and guesswork he wouldn't have any more first hand knowledge than any one else and refuses to answer a simple question. Were you there at the lunch and did you hear the speech?

I'll throw another one up, was he there to witness the conversation between Jimmy and Michael at 3 quarter time? If not then he is making most of his story up because without that first hand knowledge he wouldn't have a clue.

Funny how when people respond to you, you think that they should respond to the substance of what you are writing, your close association with former boardmembers notwithsatnding.

Apparently when they respond to me, they should just ignore what I have said and go on a rant about my supposed identity. Oh, and take cheap shots at my spelling.

Great retort.

And I don't have a "close association with former Board members".

Feel free to start a new thread if this topic does not interest you.

Why do you continue to ask me to begin a new thread when i am asking questions of you in this one??You clearly have a vendetta against Stynes & the present Board. Even though he was the one who commenced our ressurection.

I worked with Bev O'Connor until about 2002 so i would often ask what was going on.

She is still involved to some degree, i know she has compared functions in the last 10 months.

She would be a better person to get a balanced view on this subject.

Me, I belong to no group or faction I just go to the football to see us win.

Ditto. Stynes and Co are doing a great job. In fact it's beyond my expectations.

Hazy is obviously connected somehow to the old Board. We could win the next 5 Premierships with Jim as President & Good old Hazy would be looking for Faults.

You're probably right. To be fair, I'm sure some would be justified.

That is now a win confirmed on two fronts. Subject Change and Personal Abuse.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

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

i had a laugh about that, because I only read it after I had posted...

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.

my point is that we are not arguing over what was said. nor are we arguing over the content of what was said. we are arguing over a biased recollection of individual excerpts, in which the scribe has admitted to making changes to some words because he believed the speaker made mistakes. we also have no context to these excerpts in the frame of the speech etc and are making our own minds up about what exactly he was refering to (on field? off field? membership base? playing group? club as a whole?). I didn't hear the speech so I can't comment. That is why I asked if you heard the speach.

You clearly haven't.

Maybe I am Michael Coglin after all?

if you are in fact coglin, i would back stynes version of all events based on the way you rant and rave on here...

Things I've learnt from this thread...

2. Posters are prepared to believe either Stynes or Coglin's version of events as gospel while completely dismissing the opposites stance. It's this belief which ultimately influences their argument.

5. There are no facts, just points of view.

which are why I was asking if anyone had actually heard the speech and could comment directly.

I want to know & have for a long time why Hazy has a strong Vendetta against the new board. I doubt he was on the last board but i believe he had connections who are no longer involved. Cosidering the state the club was in 12 Months ago i find his arguements quite out of line.

You guys are still talking about me? Wow.

If you are so obsessed with me that you can't stick to the issue then once again, I suggest you start a relevant thread.

Personally, I have had enough of this topic now. I don't think that there is much more for me to add, and whilst shooting fish in a barrel can be amsuing for a while, I have now grown tired of it.

Anyone who is so infatuated with the Stynes story that they cannot bring themselves to believe what me, Brocky and Michael Coglin (and no, I'm not Michael Coglin by the way, nor do I claim to speak for him ) have all reported about the speech, is free to live in their imaginary world. Clearly there is nothing I can do to persuade any of you fanatics of the truth of the matter - I will just have to wait until you all speak to someone else who was there. (notice how no-one who was there has contradicted me on what Jim said?)

At that stage, you can either think about it and quietly revise your opinions, or, more likely, do as some others on here have done and try to concoct some way in which Jim's revisionist history about our club's culture is actually true.

Either way, my arm is getting sore from throwing pearls in this pig sty. I won't be wasting any more of my time on the matter.

Either way, my arm is getting sore from throwing pearls in this pig sty. I won't be wasting any more of my time on the matter.

We'll see you next time someone alludes to the previous board.

And no, that is not an invitation for anyone to bait HSOG into another wall of text.

Talk about the footy, Green is back! Happy times.

You guys are still talking about me? Wow.

If you are so obsessed with me that you can't stick to the issue then once again, I suggest you start a relevant thread.

Personally, I have had enough of this topic now. I don't think that there is much more for me to add, and whilst shooting fish in a barrel can be amsuing for a while, I have now grown tired of it.

Anyone who is so infatuated with the Stynes story that they cannot bring themselves to believe what me, Brocky and Michael Coglin (and no, I'm not Michael Coglin by the way, nor do I claim to speak for him ) have all reported about the speech, is free to live in their imaginary world. Clearly there is nothing I can do to persuade any of you fanatics of the truth of the matter - I will just have to wait until you all speak to someone else who was there. (notice how no-one who was there has contradicted me on what Jim said?)

At that stage, you can either think about it and quietly revise your opinions, or, more likely, do as some others on here have done and try to concoct some way in which Jim's revisionist history about our club's culture is actually true.

Either way, my arm is getting sore from throwing pearls in this pig sty. I won't be wasting any more of my time on the matter.

A lot of words once again with not even a HINT of an answer in sight...Yrs Hazy you will be back, once again sticking up for your Train Wreck of a Board. I only wish an answer

We'll see you next time someone alludes to the previous board.

And no, that is not an invitation for anyone to bait HSOG into another wall of text.

Talk about the footy, Green is back! Happy times.

I have it on good authority that if the old board was still in power, Green would never have gotten injured in the first place