Just a phone call away from scandal...

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

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!).

This assumption has not been made. Although I have proposed that possibility. One can only wonder what Coglin was assuming at the time. Either way, Jim should have known better by the end of 3/4 time.

Jim stated that, when he arrived at the club, there was a culture of ignorance and exclusion towards women. You don't think that this reflects on our past as a club? What does it reflect on? WHy did he say it? And also - what would you have done in Coglin's shoes?

[iw_s 0]

Andrew Leoncelli and Peter Spargo were both at the lunch on Saturday. I'm not sure about Karen Hayes. All three served on the former board and all three are on the current board. I wonder what their view is?

I didn't go to the lunch, I didn't hear Jimmy's remarks and I haven't seen a transcript. Indeed, the only record of what was said is from what Damien Barrett has reported in the Herald Sun today.

[Bonkers 994]

No it's not a joke. If you know anything about being part of a successful organization you know when to toe the party line. Jim's the leader of the club and Coglin is breeding disrespect towards him. There's quite a few reasons why Stynes would decline to discuss the matter, one of them being it would have been in a public forum when a private setting would have been more appropriate. I guess Coglin wouldn't know about decorum or appropriate behaviour.

Even if what Jim Stynes said was wrong, Coglin has taken the remarks as a personal vendetta. If he loves the club he should retract his comments and discuss his differences with Stynes in a private setting instead of trying to divide the club.

[Roost It 1,434]

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.

Blah blah blah

And a good reason why he went to the Herald Sun?

[demon3165 2,804]

At the end of the day who gives a rats arse this a storm in a tea cup, ( I bet this has been settled now between the two ) move on four pages of he said and he said this back I think there are more important things to discuss.

[DemonDan... 77]

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

This meeting should involve someone smacking this Michael Coglan fool in the mouth. Who is he anyway? I can tell you who Jim stynes is..

My grandparents, before they left us- bless 'em -knew Jim Stynes due to their heavy involvement in the irish club of aus and they couldn't express how much of a 'lovely man' Jim is and how much he does for the community and in particular youth, as we all know.. and this was 15 yrs ago! This coglan turd could put a cross against Jims name for what? Because he wants 15 mins of 'look-at-me'? How could what Jimmy said be interpreted as offensive to anyone?

[censored].

[Wiseblood 24,637]

I want to know if HSOG actually heard the speech first hand. Everytime someone asks the question he "changes the subject", which according to him indicates that you've "won an argument".

[Brocky 4]

I was at the lunch and when I heard Jim say, "...we were nurturing an environment of exclusivity and ignorance towards women...", and that is a quote, I took it the same way Mick Coglin did. It was a clear inference that before the current boards' time there was bad attitude towards woman at the club and that the previous board was in some way responsible for creating this attitude.

[iw_s 0]

Perhaps they are both right. After all, here is what Damian Barrett wrote:

"Stynes said he wanted to highlight Melbourne - along with all AFL clubs - needed to look at how they treat women. Yet Coglin saw it as Stynes misrepresenting the club in its past attitude to women and women's issues."

The club achieved plenty in the past. But more may be needed from all AFL clubs.

[Brocky 4]

Perhaps they are both right. After all, here is what Damian Barrett wrote:

"Stynes said he wanted to highlight Melbourne - along with all AFL clubs - needed to look at how they treat women. Yet Coglin saw it as Stynes misrepresenting the club in its past attitude to women and women's issues."

Jim used the word "we". The context was in regards to the MFC, not all AFL clubs.

[Nasher 33,617]

...

Good post.

At the very least, this thread provided me a good afternoon of entertainment.

[iw_s 0]

Jim used the word "we". The context was in regards to the MFC, not all AFL clubs.

In his speech? Or to Barrett? He said this to Barrett: "We are all only a phone call away from another scandal. I am not that naive to think our players are totally innocent when it comes to the way they treat and respect and communicate with women."

[Brocky 4]

In his speech? Or to Barrett?

In his speech. The context was definitely the MFC.

[Jarka 767]

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

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).

'Sounds like' is another phrase for 'I don't know but I'll make something up that favours his position.

Sounds like you're now guessing what he was thinking at the time

He did not state that he did not wait for a response - 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 didn't want to make a scene but he was prepared to go to the media? Do you realise how ludicrous that sounds. He didn't wish to make a scene in front of, perhaps a dozen people? But he was more than happy for it to go out to thousands via one of the two major newspapers in Melbourne....yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense

I know exactly what he said because it's in the paper, those are his words, not mine.

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.

It's not strange at all for someone who is 'incandescent with rage' Infact it's completely in character of someone who has let their emotions control their actions.

I could have quoted the whole article and I'm more than happy to because it all reflects poorly on Coglin. You think otherwise because you're loyal to him, everyone knows this.

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:

Wrong, I never said that Styne's 'politely attempted some form of conflict resolution.' Typical of someone to make something up who is losing an argument. In fact in my last post I actually questioned that if Coglin tried to meet Stynes again and he declined then that would refect poorly on him. Your accusation is not logical.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh wait, I forgot this bit too:

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

I'm not surprised by this response, and others that I've read since this one was made. Your argument is getting more and moe desperate. The facts remain that Coglin screwed up by going to the media. Any sympathy he may have had from the rank and file members were instantly lost in that moment.

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. It's sad because you obviously don't read replies in full, you just see what you want to argue against. You are so obviously loyal to a group of people that it's clouding your reasoning and judgements and this isn't the first time it's happened and I'd be surprised if it was last. What you are though is a reminder that the correct decision was made.

[iw_s 0]

In his speech. The context was definitely the MFC.

You were there, Brocky?

[Brocky 4]

You were there, Brocky?

Yes I was, see my post a few above this one, post 135.

[Jarka 767]

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

Is that surprising after Coglin went to the media? Surely even you in your blind defence could understand that simple fact.

[iw_s 0]

Yes I was, see my post a few above this one, post 135.

Ta, thanks for that. I missed it.

[Goodvibes 3,596]

I don’t know Michael Coglin particularly well, but on the rare and brief times that I’ve had the pleasure of his conversation, I’ve found him to be wonderful footballing company and feel compelled to add my name to the small minority of posters on this ridiculously simplistic thread that are prepared to explore both sides of this story. Michael Coglin possesses an incredible passion for the Melbourne Football Club and like everyone here, is no doubt excited by the future of our talent-laden list. He certainly doesn’t deserve the small-minded slander that is on display by the vast majority of posters in this thread.

Was he right to go to the media with his concerns? Maybe not, but I’m astounded by the unwillingness of people here to at least explore his motivations with an open mind. Why would someone who loves his club as much as Michael Coglin, be prepared to firstly risk the ridicule of former colleagues and fellow supporters like ourselves and secondly jeopardize potential damage to the brand of the club he holds dear. Is he bitter? No. Does he miss the limelight? No. Is he driven by ego as many here have suggested? No. Does he possess an unnerving commitment to the issue of gender and football? Yes.

Not unlike many posters on Demonland at the moment, I’m excited about the current direction of the Melbourne Football Club. I respect the importance of the very public role Jimmy Stynes has played in helping this club re-establish itself as a competitive unit on the field and a sustainable one off it. He’s brought many elements of the club together and seems to be working with the all important approval of the heavy hitting thugs of the AFL, but that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t make mistakes and it certainly doesn’t mean that he’s above criticism. His comments were a clear slap in the face to the previous board at a time when he continues to emphasize the need for unity. Let’s not forget that first and foremost, Michael Coglin is a fan of this football club and a man whose principles dictated that he must take serious action to ensure that the record and position of the club he served was represented faithfully in regards to the role of women. I have nothing but respect for someone who takes a course of action not because it is easy or popular but because it is believed to be right at the time.

[grazman 7,451]

Michael Coglin possesses an incredible passion for the Melbourne Football Club and like everyone here, is no doubt excited by the future of our talent-laden list. He certainly doesn’t deserve the small-minded slander that is on display by the vast majority of posters in this thread.

Absolutely.

Anyone that knows Mick would never doubt the sincerity of his actions. He's been a wonderful and tireless servant of the the club and his anger at Jim's comments would certainly not have been for himself or even for the previous board, but for the MFC as a whole and what it stood for.

Jim's comment that

I was at the lunch and when I heard Jim say, "...we were nurturing an environment of exclusivity and ignorance towards women...", and that is a quote.

is wrong and could hardly have been made in ignorance, why it was made is mystifying. Mick had a choice of either shutting up or taking the matter further. I doubt that I'd barrack for a club where principles were sacrificed for 'unity'.

[H_T 3,049]

I'm afraid I've run out of stamina reading all this but can someone tell me: Has Stynes denied he said it? I read that he said he was taken out of context. If so has Stynes released a transcript of his speech? If not why not? Wouldn't it sort this out? Why would Stynes make the comment in the first place as it seems laughably wrong.

My guess is Stynes, or whoever wrote his speech, made a shocking mistake and Stynes hasn't got the guts to admit it. That other directors think Stynes comments were ok is concerning.

I smell a rat here and it is not Coglin.

Stynes needs to clarify this and hiding behind the "not in public" facade is laughable, it was Stynes who chose to make it public in front of 300 people. Chairman's lunches are not "behind closed doors".

Clear the air Stynes or I think clear thinkers will see the stench settling in your court.

Clear thinkers? Court action, what for? On what grounds? Misinterpretation?

[rusty_kingswood 0]

2 points to add

A, Jimmy isnt the most articulate speaker going round. Its quite possible that his words ere misconstrued.

B, It was a report by Damien Barrett. Enough said!

How on earth is there 4 pages and counting on this....?????

[Bonkers 994]

Absolutely.

Anyone that knows Mick would never doubt the sincerity of his actions. He's been a wonderful and tireless servant of the the club and his anger at Jim's comments would certainly not have been for himself or even for the previous board, but for the MFC as a whole and what it stood for.

Jim's comment that

is wrong and could hardly have been made in ignorance, why it was made is mystifying. Mick had a choice of either shutting up or taking the matter further. I doubt that I'd barrack for a club where principles were sacrificed for 'unity'.

Your missing the point, by being a loud mouth and acting like a tool in the media he has compromised his own principles and the clubs. I am seriously beginning to wonder about what Melbourne supporters believe is most important for the club. Grand standing and nit picking or the greater good of the club. Whether Coglin is a top bloke or not is totally irrelevant and what Stynes has said is irrelevant. Going to the press has brought the club into the gutter, something I think the club should be above. Taking a stance that is unified is most important, hopefully all parties can realise this.

[Goodvibes 3,596]

How on earth is there 4 pages and counting on this....?????

Because the two guys at the centre of this both enjoy the respect of a great many posters on this site.

[titan_uranus 25,043]

Whoa...

...

That's a lot of words. My head hurts.