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.

Subject change, I win. (Although it is probably technically a draw given the cheap shot I took about your record with women).

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).

You remind me of a politician defending his position when he knows it's wrong. You still can't explain why Coglin would go to the media except for your John Howardesque remark about 'doing the club a favour" No wonder you're taking a break your argument has so many holes you've gone off to by a bucket.

You remind me of a politician defending his position when he knows it's wrong. You still can't explain why Coglin would go to the media except for your John Howardesque remark about 'doing the club a favour" No wonder you're taking a break your argument has so many holes you've gone off to by a bucket.

"Doing the club a favour" is a reason, and an entirely valid one, even if you don't think so. The comment Jim made about exclusion (exclusivity) and ignorance is nonsense and just as damaging to the club as anything Coglin has done or been quoted as saying, from what I gather in this thread.

BTW how is what Coglin has done in the media "self serving" as so many have put it? He has -- presumably knowingly, because the guy is not an idiot -- opened a massive can of worms upon himself and has brought the wrath of a very large portion of our fan base upon himself. He has risked alienating himself from the club altogether when he should be in a position of high standing given his previous role as a (voluntary) board member. Enlighten me, in what way has he been "served" by all of this?

What you've said in this post is akin to "la la la I'm not listening".

Subject change, I win. (Although it is probably technically a draw given the cheap shot I took about your record with women).

Did you read the lsat 2 sentences. And anyway what did you win exactly. You don't confront the pertinent point with any meaning or substance in any of your posts.

By the way if you feel the need to apologise try being man enough to do it properly.

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.

You remind me of a politician defending his position when he knows it's wrong. You still can't explain why Coglin would go to the media except for your John Howardesque remark about 'doing the club a favour" No wonder you're taking a break your argument has so many holes you've gone off to by a bucket.

What was he supposed to do? Someone had to defenc the reputation of the club - clearly that someone wasn't going to be Jim.

Rubbish.

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.

Clearly it's a case of differing interpretations.

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.

This might make some sense if you gave the all benefit of the doubt to Stynes and none to Coglin.

It still wouldn't change the fact that Jim was propogating a falsehood about the club that was besmirching it's good reputation. A falsehood that needed to be addressed.

And it still wouldn't change the fact that if I were an MFC player, I would not appreciate being likened to a Cronulla rugby player for no apparent benefit to the club.

"Doing the club a favour" is a reason, and an entirely valid one, even if you don't think so. The comment Jim made about exclusion (exclusivity) and ignorance is nonsense and just as damaging to the club as anything Coglin has done or been quoted as saying, from what I gather in this thread.

BTW how is what Coglin has done in the media "self serving" as so many have put it? He has -- presumably knowingly, because the guy is not an idiot -- opened a massive can of worms upon himself and has brought the wrath of a very large portion of our fan base upon himself. He has risked alienating himself from the club altogether when he should be in a position of high standing given his previous role as a (voluntary) board member. Enlighten me, in what way has he been "served" by all of this?

What you've said in this post is akin to "la la la I'm not listening".

Rubbish. "Doing the club a favour" is not a reason, it's an off hand remark by a poster who doesn't have a valid reason why someone else would go to the media instead of seeking to settle this with Stynes. I stand by my comment that strong clubs settle these things in house. I haven't called Coglin self serving but I will continue to question why he would go to the Herald Sun on this. I certainly am listening but what I'm getting back is hsog's political agenda against Stynes.

Did you read the lsat 2 sentences. And anyway what did you win exactly. You don't confront the pertinent point with any meaning or substance in any of your posts.

Your last two sentences:

he 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.

Going to the Sun was not a mistake and it was not Coglin's first port of call. Jim was. It seems as though Jim didn't handle the matter very well after he was confronted.

Strong clubs do not feel the need to falsify and denigrate their past acheivements in order to make themselves look good in the present. Coglin cannot be blamed if Jim's comments and the reaction that they elicited caused Jim to look amateur. Jim's behaviour was amateur. If this means the club looks a little amatuer by association then this is probably a small price to pay to prevent the club from looking like it has a history of excluding and ignoring women.

By the way if you feel the need to apologise try being man enough to do it properly.

And you could learn to accept them more graciously.

Rubbish. "Doing the club a favour" is not a reason, it's an off hand remark by a poster who doesn't have a valid reason why someone else would go to the media instead of seeking to settle this with Stynes. I stand by my comment that strong clubs settle these things in house. I haven't called Coglin self serving but I will continue to question why he would go to the Herald Sun on this. I certainly am listening but what I'm getting back is hsog's political agenda against Stynes.

Coglin's end goal was to get Stynes to retract it, or at the very least, clarify it, because what he said to a room full of guests did look bad. Wouldn't you say talking to him about it at three quarter time is, at the very least, opening a dialogue for solving it in house? Did you miss the bit where he tried to have a conversation about it, but was greeted with silence? Oh that's right, we're still assuming that he was "abusive" about it.

Tell me then. What would you do in this situation. Here is the potential scenario. I'm trying to see it from Coglin's POV here.

- The President, in front of a house full of guests, makes a remark that the club is promoting ignorance and exclusion (exclusivity). As a former board member who put a great deal of effort in to dealing with womens' issues in his time as board member, you believe this to be completely false, and a kick in the guts of the club.

- You seek out the president at a football match, in an attempt to open a dialogue. You make your point. Your point is responded to with complete and utter silence. Your attempt at solving the situation in house has now gone out the window -- the President clearly has no comment.

- Dispite this, you're still aggrieved with the comments, and are still concerned about the president himself damaging the reputation of the club. The boss himself won't listen.

What's your next plan of attack?

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.

Neither had I until his speech.

I have heard plenty of it on here though.

Underwhelming. Guns at 40 paces?

This might make some sense if you gave the all benefit of the doubt to Stynes and none to Coglin.

Try reading the post again - it has nothing to do with giving the 'benefit of the doubt' to (ie. judging) either party.

Whether Coglin's incandescent rage came across as abusive by some (non-existent) 'objective' measure is moot.

Also note the use of 'if', since I'm not arguing my version of events is the correct one (unlike yourself).

However, it's certainly not contrived to suggest one might stay silent to avoid escalation.

Rubbish. "Doing the club a favour" is not a reason, it's an off hand remark by a poster who doesn't have a valid reason why someone else would go to the media instead of seeking to settle this with Stynes. I stand by my comment that strong clubs settle these things in house. I haven't called Coglin self serving but I will continue to question why he would go to the Herald Sun on this. I certainly am listening but what I'm getting back is hsog's political agenda against Stynes.

For the umpteenth time he did try to settle it with Stynes.

As for self-serving - why did Jim choose to couch his Cronulla/gender observations in the false context of past failings on behalf of the club?

Could he not have instead used this opportunity to promote our good record on womens issues?

And as for agenda - ask yourself what your agenda is when you come on here. Hopefully this will help you see just how stupid and irrelevant these sorts of comments are.

Try reading the post again - it has nothing to do with giving the 'benefit of the doubt' to (ie. judging) either party.

Whether Coglin's incandecent rage came across as abusive by some (non-existent) 'objective' measure is moot.

No, I refuse to read that flaccid tripe again.

Stynes stuffed up.

Coglin approached him to fix it.

It wasn't fixed.

Coglin went to the media.

Why is it so surprising that Jim remained silent? there are any number of possibile reasons. Here are just a few off the top of my head.

1. He was embarassed because he didn't realise that Coglin was in the audience.

2. He was hoping that if he ignored it, that it would just go away.

3. He was utterly dumfounded by the novelty of someone questioning his actions.

4. Swine Flu

yawn!

Coglin's end goal was to get Stynes to retract it, or at the very least, clarify it, because what he said to a room full of guests did look bad. Wouldn't you say talking to him about it at three quarter time is, at the very least, opening a dialogue for solving it in house? Did you miss the bit where he tried to have a conversation about it, but was greeted with silence? Oh that's right, we're still assuming that he was "abusive" about it.

Tell me then. What would you do in this situation. Here is the potential scenario. I'm trying to see it from Coglin's POV here.

- The President, in front of a house full of guests, makes a remark that the club is promoting ignorance and exclusion (exclusivity). As a former board member who put a great deal of effort in to dealing with womens' issues in his time as board member, you believe this to be completely false, and a kick in the guts of the club.

- You seek out the president at a football match, in an attempt to open a dialogue. You make your point. Your point is responded to with complete and utter silence. Your attempt at solving the situation in house has now gone out the window -- the President clearly has no comment.

- Dispite this, you're still aggrieved with the comments, and are still concerned about the president himself damaging the reputation of the club. The boss himself won't listen.

What's your next plan of attack?

I'd go to the Herald Sun!!

-For starters I don't believe it entirely false. I think this club has fostered an "exclusive" and elite image way after it became anything but. With successive past admnistrations hanging their hat on the name Melbourne and what they thought that represented and precious little else.

-A heated discussion in front of other fans is not the place for it.

-I think it's pretty clear that Coglin was angry and if he was so worried about the club's reputation why go the Herald Sun.

-I have little doubt that this will be sorted out by those involved. But it won't be because he went to the Herald Sun. It will be because the two of them will thrash out together away from the media.

Why is it so surprising that Jim remained silent? there are any number of possibile reasons. Here are just a few off the top of my head.

1. He was embarassed because he didn't realise that Coglin was in the audience.

2. He was hoping that if he ignored it, that it would just go away.

3. He was utterly dumfounded by the novelty of someone questioning his actions.

4. Swine Flu

...but of course it couldn't possibly be:

5. He was hoping to avoid escalation.

EDIT: Just in case anyone reads this post in isolation, I'm not arguing that #5 is the reason Stynes said nothing, I simply offered it as a reasonable alternate explanation to Hazyshadeofgrinter's conclusions (unsurprisingly, all of which paint Stynes in a negative light).

1. He was embarassed because he didn't realise that Coglin was in the audience.

2. He was hoping that if he ignored it, that it would just go away.

3. He was utterly dumfounded by the novelty of someone questioning his actions.

4. Swine Flu

...but of course it couldn't possibly be:

5. He was hoping to avoid escalation.

Could be. I am open to that possibility. Although it does smell suspiciously like option 2.

Still, even if this were the case, it didn't leave Coglin with much option did it?

EDIT: It seems as though you are not arguing much then huh? A bit of a shame I responded so reasonably, no? Makes you look a little silly.

I'd go to the Herald Sun!!

-For starters I don't believe it entirely false. I think this club has fostered an "exclusive" and elite image way after it became anything but. With successive past admnistrations hanging their hat on the name Melbourne and what they thought that represented and precious little else.

Do you or do you not think that the club has had a culture of excluding and ignoring women over the last few years?

-A heated discussion in front of other fans is not the place for it.

We still don't know how "heated" this allegedly "abusive" discussion was. We do know that if Stynes said absolutley nothing then Coglin could hardly make an appointment with him to resolve the matter elsewhere.

-I think it's pretty clear that Coglin was angry and if he was so worried about the club's reputation why go the Herald Sun.

You have it arse backwards. Coglin went to the Sun because he was worried about the club's reputation. It seems as though he had little option. the MFC is bigger than Jim Stynes.

-I have little doubt that this will be sorted out by those involved. But it won't be because he went to the Herald Sun. It will be because the two of them will thrash out together away from the media.

It has been sorted. It was sorted this morning in the paper when Coglin set the record straight - no thanks to Jim. Hopefully, the truth of the matter will reach the ears of all 300 of the people that Jim misled.

I might add that whilst this solution might be a little embarassing for Stynes, it has probably come at a greater cost to Coglin who, it appears, was willing to knowingly subject himself to the hatred of the nuffie brigade for what he saw as the best thing for the club.

What was he supposed to do? Someone had to defenc the reputation of the club - clearly that someone wasn't going to be Jim.

The vast majority of the club didn't believe that the club needed to be saved, only someone's fragile ego

1. For starters I don't believe it entirely false. I think this club has fostered an "exclusive" and elite image way after it became anything but. With successive past admnistrations hanging their hat on the name Melbourne and what they thought that represented and precious little else.

2. A heated discussion in front of other fans is not the place for it.

3. I think it's pretty clear that Coglin was angry and if he was so worried about the club's reputation why go the Herald Sun.

4. I have little doubt that this will be sorted out by those involved. But it won't be because he went to the Herald Sun. It will be because the two of them will thrash out together away from the media.

1. It is entirely false. Stynes was not talking about exclusivity, he was talking about exclusion -- or at least it would seem so -- and ignorance towards women. I've got no idea why you're talking about past administrations hanging their hat on the Melbourne name. What's that got to do with exclusion (of women) and ignorance (towards women)?

2. Again, who says it was heated other than Jim? Besides, the whole issue didn't need to be sorted out there and then, but a dialogue could've been opened. Jim, instead of responding with silence, could have said "this isn't the time or place to discuss it, let's discuss it at X time/place". It might not have been the time and the place (and I agree there) but it didn't need to be the end of the road. By zipping his lip and staring with no response, Stynes ends any chance of reasonable discussions.

3. To motivate Jim in to action over his poor comments. Discussing it with him clearly went nowhere, he was talking to a brick wall. We're going around in circles here.

4. What use is thrashing it out away from the media now? It's too late for that. Stynes might as well just let it slide now, Coglin has already well and truly been painted as the villain.

I don't know exactly what was said regarding the issue but I would have thought that as a club and a code, we should always be looking at the way in which we treat Women. I doubt there is a football club in Australia that hasn't considered a review of it's treatment of the fairer sex. The media is on hyper allert these days, we should always be looking to be making an affort in this regard.

The vast majority of the club didn't believe that the club needed to be saved, only someone's fragile ego

If Jim had his way, the vast majority of the club would believe that the MFC has a history of excluding and ingoring women.

What a great shame that would be.

Seems to me like you are more worried about Jim's ego than the reputation of the club.

I don't know exactly what was said regarding the issue but I would have thought that as a club and a code, we should always be looking at the way in which we treat Women. I doubt there is a football club in Australia that hasn't considered a review of it's treatment of the fairer sex. The media is on hyper allert these days, we should always be looking to be making an affort in this regard.

Then you will be pleased to learn that the MFC has been the leader in this field for the last few years - despite what some would have you believe.

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.

Nasher, this club almost died due to the inhouse fighting and different factions trying to stab each other in the back. I have absolutely no issue with anyone questioning Stynes or the current board. I do have a problem, however, with someone using the media against the club, regardless of what his intentions were, that's been the result. I don't believe that Stynes would refuse to hear Coglin's opinion, everything that I've had to do with him and heard about him reinforces this view. It would appear to be completely out of character.

As I've said earlier there are two clear and distinct issues, Coglin has every right to pursue the first but he did the wrong thing with the second.

HERESY!