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.

You couldn't be more wrong, the only thing that concerns me is the health of the Melbourne Football, and it's image is directly related to that. Only petty individuals tries to debate issues through the media.

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.

Sorry, mate you got it wrong. You seem to be another demonland unfortunate who is stuck at the cognitive developmental stage where MFC = Stynes.

It turns out that they are not the same thing. the MFC is bigger than you, me Coglin and Stynes put together. With any luck, it willl be here long after we are all gone.

Coglin was not using the media against the Club. He was using it for the club.

It is a shame that he was forced to use it at all.

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

Are you?

You certainly won't open to alternative explanations to your own initially.

A bit of a shame I responded so reasonably, no?

It's certainly not a shame. Perhaps you could respond reasonably all the time?

I don't think 'flaccid tripe' is a reasonable response.

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

If we hold that it is the case - and I haven't argued that it is or isn't, I wasn't there - I don't think it logically follows that the only option left is to call the Herald Sun.

EDIT: It seems as though you are not arguing much then huh?

What are you talking about?

Makes you look a little silly.

Why is that?

I'm not the one taking unprovoked (or provoked) pot shots at other users because they hold a different opinion to me.

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.

I guess that's where our true difference of opinion lies Jarka. For all the reasons that you statede above -- everything I've heard and had to do with him -- I don't believe Coglin would fly off the handle and abuse the president in a manner he is being accused of. Period. I also don't think he'd hit the media unless he was genuinely concerned about the impact of Stynes comments and felt he had no other option to make a wrong a right.

Given that you have refused to confirm you heard the speech first hand, I can only assume you didn't.

You are quoting questionable third hand reports of what was said, and in what context.

You are just not credible.

I guess that's where our true difference of opinion lies Jarka. For all the reasons that you statede above -- everything I've heard and had to do with him -- I don't believe Coglin would fly off the handle and abuse the president in a manner he is being accused of. Period. I also don't think he'd hit the media unless he was genuinely concerned about the impact of Stynes comments and felt he had no other option to make a wrong a right.

He has admitted that he was quite emotional about it though...let's rehash back to his quotes...

"I was incandescent with rage." Quite clearly he states what frame of mind he was in.

"He heard me out. I said here are the facts and you ought to be ashamed of yourself." Quite clearly Stynes stopped and listened to him and quite clearly Coglin made it a personal matter with his last comment.

"And I turned around and walked away, without making a scene or being a drama queen about it." Quite clearly he stated that he didn't wait for a response, he walked away. Remember these are Coglin's own words, no one else's.

With Coglin being incandescent with rage would he have even heard anything that Stynes may have said? Clearly he was only interested in talking to Stynes and giving him a piece of his mind.

One more thing - Did Coglin try and talk to him about it again before going to the media? If yes then shame on Stynes, if no then shame on him.

You certainly won't open to alternative explanations to your own initially.

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

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. Without further information, it is hard to gauge if Coglin’s reaction was appropriate or not, but he clearly had some reason to feel personally aggrieved. It is a shame that this situation could not be sorted out amicably on the day.

Here is another one from a susequent post:

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.

I think you will find that I am part of a very "exclusivity" minority of posters who have entertained all of these possibilites.

I don't think 'flaccid tripe' is a reasonable response.

Flaccid tripe is a reasonable response becasue it is a perfect description of your post.

Your "argument" rests upon the false assumption that I have not entertained the possibility that Jim stayed stone cold silent in order to "prevent the situation from escalating." This is utter nonsense as you would know if you spent less time telling people to re-read your posts and more time reading those to which you are responding.

To cap it all off - this is the argument you have when you are not having an argument.

If we hold that it is the case - and I haven't argued that it is or isn't, I wasn't there

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

Ok so, you present a highly specific hypothetical example (tenuous)

You maintain that I refuse to accept it as a possibility (wrong)

You then say that you are not really arguing that this hypothetical example is the case because, you admit, you have no idea. (tenuous)

And then you cap it all off with:

I don't think it logically follows that the only option left [in this case] is to call the Herald Sun.

That is, if we persist with this specific thought experiment that is so tenuous that you yourself are unwilling to make it your contention, you think that there might be some other, unnamed logical possibility other than calling the Sun.

What an utter waste of time.

Ther were plenty of other things Coglin could have done. He could have saved himself the trouble and kept mum.

He could have tried to undercut the boss and seen if Schwab or someone could get Jim to come around and be reasonable.

But it is pretty rich to criticise Coglin for going to the media even in this rare hypothetical instance that you pose.

Because:

1: he tried to sort it out with Jim first and was given the silent treatment.

&

2: he was determined to preserve the good image of the club, even at his own expense.

What if Coglin is actually just a butterfly dreaming that he is a pincipled ex-boardmember?

Given that you have refused to confirm you heard the speech first hand, I can only assume you didn't.

You are quoting questionable third hand reports of what was said, and in what context.

You are just not credible.

You wish.

Care to present an alternative?

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

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.

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.

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.

I have shown no hatred nor have I condascended Coglin in anyway. I just don't think he should have gone to the Herald Sun, and as yet you have failed to show why he needed to. If talking/abusing/yelling/whatever at Stynes at the football constitutes exploring avenues other than dragging the club into the Herald Sun then things have changed for the worse. As far as having it arse about have a look at your comments. "Coglin went to the Herald Sun because he was worried about the club's reputation" I mean, please this very sentence makes you the "nuffie"

everything I've heard and had to do with him -- I don't believe Coglin would fly off the handle and abuse the president in a manner he is being accused of. Period. I also don't think he'd hit the media unless he was genuinely concerned about the impact of Stynes comments and felt he had no other option to make a wrong a right.

I completely agree with you on both points, however I think that in the end, the decision to go to the media was the wrong one.

Negative publicity is the last thing we need, especially if it involves off field instability and board feuds (which is not to say this is happening, but we know the media will blow anything out of proportion).

We've had a very positive weekend on the field, and for it to conclude in sensationalist negative journalism, which in the end will achieve nothing positive for the club, is a real shame.

Jim should not have spoken publicly about the issue of women's treatment IMO, but privately I hope the club is acutely aware that our players are just as capable of acting badly, as any other young AFL/NRL player.

Wearing red and blue (unfortunately) does not absolve you from stupidity, and I am guessing that Jim was trying to communicate that in his address, but it came out wrong.

Both Jim and Mick love the club unconditionally, both want to see it thrive and both have made significant contributions to the team. What a shame that poorly chosen words have caused both to come under fire.

He has admitted that he was quite emotional about it though...let's rehash back to his quotes...

"I was incandescent with rage." Quite clearly he states what frame of mind he was in.

Yes, sounds like this was a refence to his frame of mind during the speech, not at 3/4 time. It also sounds loquacious.

"He heard me out. I said here are the facts and you ought to be ashamed of yourself." Quite clearly Stynes stopped and listened to him and quite clearly Coglin made it a personal matter with his last comment.

Well he is paraphrasing but that is fair enough. t sounds more like Coglin confronted Jim and Jim listened. (without saying anything - but more on this later).

"And I turned around and walked away, without making a scene or being a drama queen about it." Quite clearly he stated that he didn't wait for a response, he walked away. Remember these are Coglin's own words, no one else's.

He did not state that he did not wait for a resonse - these are your words. What he did state was that he left without making a scene (a hard thing for an abusive man to do by the way).

He also stated that "He didn't say a word to me, not a single word." Predictably, you left this out. Predicatably because it is a very strage comment for a man to make if he has just launched a tirade without giving his opponent an oportunity to respond.

The peice de resistance though is your suggestion that Coglin was so angry, that he simply coudln't hear Jim's polite attmpts at conflict resolution:

With Coglin being incandescent with rage would he have even heard anything that Stynes may have said?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh wait, I forgot this bit too:

One more thing - Did Coglin try and talk to him about it again before going to the media? If yes then shame on Stynes, if no then shame on him.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

I have shown no hatred nor have I condascended Coglin in anyway. I just don't think he should have gone to the Herald Sun, and as yet you have failed to show why he needed to. If talking/abusing/yelling/whatever at Stynes at the football constitutes exploring avenues other than dragging the club into the Herald Sun then things have changed for the worse. As far as having it arse about have a look at your comments. "Coglin went to the Herald Sun because he was worried about the club's reputation" I mean, please this very sentence makes you the "nuffie"

He went to the boss and got nothing. The whole thing was the boss' fault anyway.

How you can still keep trying to blame Coglin for going to the media, when he was practically forced to by Jim's false claims, Jim's silent treatment and then Coglin's own conscience, is beyond me.

For a "storm in a tea-cup" this would be the quickest thread to 100 posts that I can recall.

HSOG is right to point out the previous board would be the very opposite of what is rife around footy clubs - encapasulated in the Hun front page story of the "Prahran stripper".

Jimmy should have referenced footy culture in general, rather than single out the MFC when he arrived. The 700 odd players are a reflection of the greater society, and a club will soon get another "phone call." That isn't a slight on any club or its players, it is just the disappointing way of things.

And Coglin has a right to be "incandescent with rage" over the direct reference to the club when Jimmy arrived but where he loses me is the point where, instead of hashing it out with Stynes, he contacts the Hun.

And for what purpose?

The defense of an extinct board.

I just don't think that is a good enough reason to go to the papers and put a torch on the club.

There's a lesson boys and girls, you shouldn't make phone calls when you're angry...

This is why I'm glad we got rid of the old board. Leaking this to the media straight away over pissy issues that could be sorted out in private sounds like the bad old days. The club would be 100% better off if Coglin kept his distance.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Instead of rubbishing other posters just give us a reasonable reason why anyone with the club's best interests at heart would take their gripe to the Herald Sun. Explain how this benefits the club. Please don't peddle out the same lines you've been using. You know the ones "Doing the club a favour" "he was using the Herald Sun for the club" Step back and have another look. He should not have gone to the Herald Sun, it's not how to do things and those who think it is also don't have the club's best interests at heart

I completely agree with you on both points, however I think that in the end, the decision to go to the media was the wrong one.

Negative publicity is the last thing we need, especially if it involves off field instability and board feuds (which is not to say this is happening, but we know the media will blow anything out of proportion).

We've had a very positive weekend on the field, and for it to conclude in sensationalist negative journalism, which in the end will achieve nothing positive for the club, is a real shame.

Jim should not have spoken publicly about the issue of women's treatment IMO, but privately I hope the club is acutely aware that our players are just as capable of acting badly, as any other young AFL/NRL player.

Wearing red and blue (unfortunately) does not absolve you from stupidity, and I am guessing that Jim was trying to communicate that in his address, but it came out wrong.

Both Jim and Mick love the club unconditionally, both want to see it thrive and both have made significant contributions to the team. What a shame that poorly chosen words have caused both to come under fire.

Jim was not merely commentiong on Cronulla-type problems. He also directly dsiparaged the club and everyone in it for belonging to a culture which featured the ignorance and exclusion of women.

Given that you are of the opinion that "negative publicity is the last thing we need", I expect hat you are not only dissapointed by Jim's ill-advised choice of topic (i.e. Cronulla etc.), but by his negative revisionist take on one of the best off-field stories at the club. It would be nice to think that Jim might have eventually, publicly retracted his statements about this, but now we will never know. We can only assume however, that Coglin was of the opinon that this was highly unlikely. What choice would you have made?

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.

Agree.

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.

Perhaps it smells of personal agenda(s).

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.

I'm sure most people/supporters would understand and respect that.

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.

It seems muck-raking has taken it's toll. I don't see any favours for the club in this instance, from supposedly wanting to set "the record straight" with regard to the alleged past.

For a "storm in a tea-cup" this would be the quickest thread to 100 posts that I can recall.

HSOG is right to point out the previous board would be the very opposite of what is rife around footy clubs - encapasulated in the Hun front page story of the "Prahran stripper".

Jimmy should have referenced footy culture in general, rather than single out the MFC when he arrived. The 700 odd players are a reflection of the greater society, and a club will soon get another "phone call." That isn't a slight on any club or its players, it is just the disappointing way of things.

And Coglin has a right to be "incandescent with rage" over the direct reference to the club when Jimmy arrived but where he loses me is the point where, instead of hashing it out with Stynes, he contacts the Hun.

And for what purpose?

The defense of an extinct board.

I just don't think that is a good enough reason to go to the papers and put a torch on the club.

There's a lesson boys and girls, you shouldn't make phone calls when you're angry...

1. He went to Stynes first.

2. He went for the defence of the club's reputation, as well as his own, and his board's.

How's this for a lesson - if you make a mistake you should fix it - they don't go away on their own.

He went to the boss and got nothing. The whole thing was the boss' fault anyway.

How you can still keep trying to blame Coglin for going to the media, when he was practically forced to by Jim's false claims, Jim's silent treatment and then Coglin's own conscience, is beyond me.

You don't get it do you, if he loved the club he wouldn't be airing dirty laundry to the whole world. These things should be dealt with in house. It makes the club look dis-functional at a time when the club has to be exactly the opposite. He has put his own agenda ahead of the clubs. There's a way to try and resolve all problems and if he wasn't happy with the response he got from Stynes during his one way conversation at the ground why didn't he try another form of correspondence the next day or in a manner that wasn't going to cause publicity? He wasn't forced to do anything in the media, if he was a humble man he would have accepted Jim's opinion and tried all ways to resolve or understand what Jim was trying to say and then resolve his issue with Stynes or the club in another way.

We will never know the truth of what exactly happened when Coglin spoke to Stynes unless you were an eye witness, this is another reason it shouldn't have been spoken about in the media. It allows people to form ill informed negative opinions of people at the club. He has attempted to damage Stynes reputation through the media and in effect hurt the club and also in my opinion damaged his own image. It hasn't helped the club so why would you bother? My answer is because he's a selfish individual and not a team player.

There are no winners in this. It reflects badly on the club which ever way you look at it. The club does not need this continual in-fighting. I've had it up to here^.

This really is making a mountain out of a mole-hill in my opinion.

However, I do hope that Jim Stynes and Michael Coglin arrange a meeting and sort out this misunderstanding.

Instead of rubbishing other posters just give us a reasonable reason why anyone with the club's best interests at heart would take their gripe to the Herald Sun.

I don't see any favours for the club in this instance, from supposedly wanting to set "the record straight" with regard to the alleged past.

Let's say you have a dear friend who is loving and respectful to women.

You and your buddy are at a party when Jim Stynes stands up and tells 300 prominent people, each of whom know your friend, that your buddy is actually a misogynist.

Let us also say that your friend is pretty fragile at the moment and can't afford to have these nasty, false rumours flying around about him.

You're pretty ticked off about what Jim said, especially considering that your buddy can't really stand up for himself, but it Jim's party and you don't want to make a scene, so you wait a while before you discuss it with him

An hour later, you approach Jim to find out what it was all about and to set him straight about your buddy. Maybe it was an honest mistake and Jim will somehow be able to se the record straight after he knows the truth. But even after you have given irrefuable evidence that what Jim said about your buddy is completely back-to-front, Jim just sits there and doesn't say a word. You are shocked at the way that Jim ignores you. You had always thought that Jim was a pretty inclusive guy.

You think about trying to set the record straight about your buddy with some of Jim's mates, but then you realise that Jim's kind of the leader of the gang and that you aren't likely to get anyware.

Even worse, sticking up for your buddy like this is beginning to affect your own reputation.

All you can really do is write a blog about it. You will probably lose a lot of cred for going up against Jim like this but at least your friend's name will be cleared. Jim might look a little bad and this might even reflect poorly on you and your buddy for "snitching" on him like this but what else could you do? And besides, he brought it on himself anyway.

He shouldn't have made those comments about your friend and he shouldn't have ignored you when you tried to sort it out with him personally.

You don't get it do you, if he loved the club he wouldn't be airing dirty laundry to the whole world. These things should be dealt with in house. It makes the club look dis-functional at a time when the club has to be exactly the opposite. He has put his own agenda ahead of the clubs. There's a way to try and resolve all problems and if he wasn't happy with the response he got from Stynes during his one way conversation at the ground why didn't he try another form of correspondence the next day or in a manner that wasn't going to cause publicity? He wasn't forced to do anything in the media, if he was a humble man he would have accepted Jim's opinion and tried all ways to resolve or understand what Jim was trying to say and then resolve his issue with Stynes or the club in another way.

If the club looked disfunctional it was because Jim stuffed up. That is not Coglin's fault.

Coglin decided to put the interests of the club ahead of Jim's (and his own).

Why should he expect Jim to behave any differently the next day when Jim just completely blanked him? Why didn't Stynes contact Coglin given that Stynes was the one in the wrong?

How else could Coglin have set the record straight on a matter that Jim made public, by non-public means, when Jim refused to do so?

It wasn't a matter of Jim's opinion. Jim's opinion was contrary to the facts. Facts win. Why should Coglin be humble and not Jim?

We will never know the truth of what exactly happened when Coglin spoke to Stynes unless you were an eye witness, this is another reason it shouldn't have been spoken about in the media. It allows people to form ill informed negative opinions of people at the club. He has attempted to damage Stynes reputation through the media and in effect hurt the club and also in my opinion damaged his own image. It hasn't helped the club so why would you bother? My answer is because he's a selfish individual and not a team player.

Is this a joke?

We will never know the truth of what exactly happened when Coglin spoke to Stynes unless you were an eye witness, this is another reason it shouldn't have been spoken about in the media. It allows people to form ill informed negative opinions of people at the club. He has attempted to damage Stynes reputation through the media and in effect hurt the club and also in my opinion damaged his own image. It hasn't helped the club so why would you bother? My answer is because he's a selfish individual and not a team player.

Why indeed?

This really is making a mountain out of a mole-hill in my opinion.

However, I do hope that Jim Stynes and Michael Coglin arrange a meeting and sort out this misunderstanding.

I think that it has already been held. It doesn't sound like it went very well.

What choice would you have made?

For one, I wouldn't assume that a club president, and former player would go out of his way to make negative comments about his club.

The choice of words, and indeed topic, was poor. But Jim has never taken pot shots at past administrations, and has in fact gone out of his way to bring everyone back into the fold. Taking that into account, I think his comments were general and not at all a reflection of our past as a club (but may have come across that way due to the way it was expressed).

As a female supporter, I don't feel excluded in any way by my club, however I don't feel particularly included either. I'm a member, and whether I'm male or female seems to matter little to the MFC (which is neither bad nor good). In general though, I should note that AFL is not a female-friendly industry and there are still stereotypes out there regarding women being involved in football. It would be great if more opportunities were opened up to women to get involved on a professional level, and I think all clubs can do more to support that.

Additionally, as a young supporter who goes out with friends on weekends, I have seen plenty of Melbourne boys behaving like dills, and agree with Jim that we're one phone call away from a scandal (as is EVERY other club!).

I think that it has already been held. It doesn't sound like it went very well.

Just great... :angry: