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.

Hannabal is totally correct. Mick is not a hot head. I have had some strong debates with him in regard to some matters but is right to defend the position of the MFC in regard to women over the past several years.

Whilst in favour of his motives on the issue Jimmy should have made it very clear that MFC was distanced from what he was stating. It is a very dangerous subject to be commenting on & MFC would be better served by refraining from the debate.

Nothing to be gained and long way back might be of issue.

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

Yeah, probably couldn't get a word in after being taken a-back by the abuse. Probably also thought that at that particular time, was not the place nor the time to discuss either.

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

Ok, where is the evidence of this?

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

And now you are quoting the herald sun quoting Coglin quoting Jim Stynes? and then adding your own editorial??

"He 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."

To be honest, i think the club has exclusive towards many groups in the past and the club is trying to change that image and culture.

They are now making efforts to be more inclusive.

This ties in with the issue of respect towards women, but it is not the whole issue, and you are misunderstanding it just as Coglin has.

You need to see this in a broader sense.

And stop being so bloody pious about being compared with Cronulla. What a joke. Our players are not that far removed from them at all.

If you disagree with this then you really lack some perspective.

"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.

For all you know, Coglin was seeking a candid discussion.

I suspect that after seeking to rectify the matter with Jim personally and receiving an unsatisfactory (i.e. no) response. Coglin may have felt compelled to go to the papers so that the club's historic inclusion of women became a matter of public record which would be impervious to "clumsy" speeches. But then it is possible also that he simply abused him (although we are talking about a former MFC board member here, not Collingwood). I didn't witness it.

Either way, I'm glad that he got in touch with the papers, because now the club can remain proud of it's acheivements in this area and not be ashamed, as Jim would have us (erroneously) feel.

For all you know, Coglin was seeking a candid discussion.

I suspect that after seeking to rectify the matter with Jim personally and receiving an unsatisfactory (i.e. no) response. Coglin may have felt compelled to go to the papers so that the club's historic inclusion of women became a matter of public record which would be impervious to "clumsy" speeches. But then it is possible also that he simply abused him (although we are talking about a former MFC board member here, not Collingwood). I didn't witness it.

Either way, I'm glad that he got in touch with the papers, because now the club can remain proud of it's acheivements in this area and not be ashamed, as Jim would have us (erroneously) feel.

What were the cirumstances by which Martin Pike left the club?

Either way, I'm glad that he got in touch with the papers, because now the club can remain proud of it's acheivements in this area and not be ashamed, as Jim would have us (erroneously) feel.

It can? Really?

And if we don't agree with this point of view its cos Jim twisted our views?

I think he's just a realist, but he wasn't even making a judgement on the past board anyway. Purely that there is always room for improvement.

I just refuse to make rash judgements or incorrect assumptions.

Ok, where is the evidence of this? etc.

Sorry mate, I didn't realise I was in a battle of wits with an unarmed (and one-eyed) man.

I'll just go back to rolling my boulder up this here hill. It will be far more productive.

P.S. Jimmy was a player once. I wonder if you think that he might be different to those Cronulla boys.

Sorry mate, I didn't realise I was in a battle of wits with an unarmed (and one-eyed) man.

I'll just go back to rolling my boulder up this here hill. It will be far more productive.

No its fine, you can have this one, cos you clearly don't see the big picture.

You and your mate Coglin have blinkers on. Keep doing what you do.

Yeah, probably couldn't get a word in after being taken a-back by the abuse. Probably also thought that at that particular time, was not the place nor the time to discuss either.

I know you'd like to think so but you just don't know, do you?

For all you know, Coglin was seeking a candid discussion.

Stynes: "he didn't talk to me yesterday, he abused me".

Doesn't really sound like a sit down "candid discussion to me".

Sounds like in no uncertain terms that he had the podium!

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

"He heard me out. I said there are the facts and you ought to be ashamed of yourself....I turned around and walked away..."

Stynes: "he didn't talk to me yesterday, he abused me".

I know you'd like to think so but you just don't know, do you?

I know you'd like to think so but you just don't know, do you?

Correct. Just like Coglin was "seeking a candid discussion", we just don't know, do we?

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

My first thoughts exactly.

I

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.

Coglin has gone out of his way to protest something that, if he had kept his cool, would not have gone beyond those present at the lunch.

Instead he rings the Hun to big-note himself and to "defend the previous board's record on women's issues". Except that if he had not done that, no-one would have queried their record.

What a goose

Correct. Just like Coglin was "seeking a candid discussion", we just don't know, do we?

Correct. And you will note that not once in my balanced appraisal have I claimed otherwise:

it is possible also that he [Coglin] simply abused him [Jim] ... I didn't witness it.

However, my favourite sniper, conspiracy theorist and much respected forum member, Hannabal Hugh, seems to have quite a strong opinion on the matter:

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 (hot-headed and egocentric) ... If anyone is egocentric it's Stynes.

Coglin has gone out of his way to protest something that, if he had kept his cool, would not have gone beyond those present at the lunch.

Instead he rings the Hun to big-note himself and to "defend the previous board's record on women's issues". Except that if he had not done that, no-one would have queried their record.

What a goose

More accurately, it was the club's record that Jim "queried" (i.e. falsified) in front of 300 influential guests. And the club's record that Coglin defended.

I have acknowledged that Coglin may have felt some added motivation to preserve the veracity of the the club's admirable record, due to his instrumental role in creating it.

It's sad that the previous board felt the need to take this to the media, clearly their only interest is point scoring and grandstanding, and for what result? In this current climate with this issue so hot the only thing they could possibly achieve is damage to the Melbourne brand. Not only did they almost completely screw the club when they were in power they're now hell bent on achieving the same.

Do everyone a favour and support the club, if you have an issue with someone at the club talk to them about it, don't go to the media. Bunch of self serving, primma donnas. For a long time I was a big supporter of the previous board, I stood up for them during many heated debates here on demonland but no more, this latest stunt is pathetic.

Wait. I have just 3 questions.

all this picking at other people's words because jim simply said that the club, when he took over, had problems with exclusivity.

Does anyone disagree with this?

Does anyone think the club has not become more inclusive since Jim took over?

Does anyone think becoming more inclusive has had / would have a negative effect on the club?

I'd like to know who would say yes to any of these 3 questions.

There's 3 good questions, that I would like to know too. Incidently, I say 'no' to all three.

The floor is now yours..

Wait. I have just 3 questions.

all this picking at other people's words because jim simply said that the club, when he took over, had problems with exclusivity.

Does anyone disagree with this?

Does anyone think the club has not become more inclusive since Jim took over?

Does anyone think becoming more inclusive has had / would have a negative effect on the club?

I'd like to know who would say yes to any of these 3 questions.

No, No & No.

I don't believe Jim's use of the word "exclusivity" was intended to apply to women alone.

His focus has been to embrace every Demon..man ,woman & child.

Demon Summit, Youth Summit, past presidents, past players , business people...the list goes on.

I have been a passionate supporter all my life, but I never ever felt a part of it. I do now.

Since Jim took over, I have spoken Jim himself, Cameron Schwab, Chris Connolly, Dean Bailey, Ron Barassi & a number of the playing group. I would never have had those opportunities previously.

That to me is the breaking down of exclusivity.

I have never been a critic of the previous board. I felt they did the best they could.

But this whole thing smacks of petty jealousy.

No, No & No.

I don't believe Jim's use of the word "exclusivity" was intended to apply to women alone.

His focus has been to embrace every Demon..man ,woman & child.

Demon Summit, Youth Summit, past presidents, past players , business people...the list goes on.

I have been a passionate supporter all my life, but I never ever felt a part of it. I do now.

Since Jim took over, I have spoken Jim himself, Cameron Schwab, Chris Connolly, Dean Bailey, Ron Barassi & a number of the playing group. I would never have had those opportunities previously.

That to me is the breaking down of exclusivity.

I have never been a critic of the previous board. I felt they did the best they could.

But this whole thing smacks of petty jealousy.

Great post GM666.

Wait. I have just 3 questions.

all this picking at other people's words because jim simply said that the club, when he took over, had problems with exclusivity.

Does anyone disagree with this?

Does anyone think the club has not become more inclusive since Jim took over?

Does anyone think becoming more inclusive has had / would have a negative effect on the club?

I'd like to know who would say yes to any of these 3 questions.

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?

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.

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 supporters. 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.

...

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)?