On 15/11/2012 at 23:05, Grapeviney said:

"Yours truly" refers to oneself .. I suspect you mean Fan was in the room, not you ..

Driving along to work and reflecting on my post I realised that, but I also realised that everyone would know what I meant. I chose not to change it and won't be.

But yes, you're right. Well done you.

  On 15/11/2012 at 23:08, Ben-Hur said:

Driving along to work and reflecting on my post I realised that, but I also realised that everyone would know what I meant. I chose not to change it and won't be.

But yes, you're right. Well done you.

Forgive GV for not realising you were posting before your morning coffee. Just let it go. You would point it out to any sod unlucky enough to post the mistake.

  On 15/11/2012 at 22:50, dandeeman said:

This club which as our coach said "seemed to stand for everyone else but footy" has been down this road before.

Mick Malthouse said that, not Mark Neeld - while we're on the topic of accurate reporting ...

  On 15/11/2012 at 23:15, Fifty-5 said:

Mick Malthouse said that, not Mark Neeld - while we're on the topic of accurate reporting ...

And fwiw Mark Neeld alluded to that with a similar remark to that of Mick Malthouse not long after his appointment as coach.

  On 15/11/2012 at 23:15, Fifty-5 said:

Mick Malthouse said that, not Mark Neeld - while we're on the topic of accurate reporting ...

Fair enough, still applies with all intensive purposes

I just can't bring myself to say it

  On 15/11/2012 at 23:08, Ben-Hur said:

But yes, you're right. Well done you.

Thanks Ben-Hur

Yours truly,

Grapeviney

  On 15/11/2012 at 22:57, belzebub59 said:

no probs ..

+1

  On 15/11/2012 at 23:06, rpfc said:

Happy for dissenters.

What we are tired of is the popping up of a certain few on particular subjects.

They rarely post about anything else and are far from open about their motives and personal involvement.

These posters deserve nothing but wariness, apprehension, suspicion, and the dismissiveness that comes with that in rational human beings (vitriol being the irrational response).

Was going to post along these lines. I couldn't have worded it better.

  On 15/11/2012 at 23:06, rpfc said:

Happy for dissenters.

What we are tired of is the popping up of a certain few on particular subjects.

They rarely post about anything else and are far from open about their motives and personal involvement.

These posters deserve nothing but wariness, apprehension, suspicion, and the dismissiveness that comes with that in rational human beings (vitriol being the irrational response).

As usual RP well said.

A person who was involved in the club should not be on a public forum applauding an article based on information that had leaked from the club to cause it grief.

I say this in a general sense of course.

  On 15/11/2012 at 22:59, timD said:

If you think that questioning the behaviour and direct of the club is destabilising, then the club must be extraordinarily weak. Is that what you believe? If it is so weak, how did it get to that position?

Questioning the behavior and direction of the of the club is not destabilizing, why would it be. It occurs on DL all the time and for all sorts of reasons - trade decisions, appointment of the coach, ability of the CEO, relationship with Casey etc etc. Nothing wrong with raising issues about stuff.

What there is an issue with and what is very destabilizing is leaking information to the press, a campaign of whispers, innuendo, personal attacks on indviduals, petty politics game playing etc etc. MFC has been beset by this sort of rubbish forever and a day and it is the key reason Malthouse says that we have been about everything but football.

The current campaign is just one more chapter in a sorry tale of disunity and factional warfare. CW is, i would suggest happy to play a role in it. Why not, it appears to align with her agenda.

The current board has reappointed CS and moved CC to a non FD position. Where is the value in tearing away at the club in the hope that both will be exited from the club - even if you passionately believe they should be. There is a board to govern the club, they should be left to do so. There are also elections and and the processes such as the AGM which can be used to transparently raise issues. Enough of the tawdry cloak and dagger.

  On 15/11/2012 at 02:12, Fan said:

I must confess to not having read this whole thread but I'd imagine there are few if any posts in support of Caro. Personally I think she is a must read and an important cog in the business of the AFL because she keeps everyone pretty honest.

I have no issue with her treatment of MFC. She is sussing out the facts and reporting them and then just offering an opinion. I don't like what I hear but I can't see she's done anything wrong.

I'm with her all the way on Adelaide. Without the likes of her clubs would be much freer to break rules and the larger clubs would hold the whip hand. She keeps them honest.

She also reports on the part of the game I enjoy, the politics and the uneasy relationship that exists between the AFL and the Clubs. Without her we would be more ignorant of issues than we are now and there would be much greater reward and willingness for "bending the rules". What club now would risk being as blatant as MFC or Carlton in pursuit of draft picks?

There is no doubt she has hurt our club with her attacks in the last few weeks but the only reason we are in this position is because we were incompetent in the execution of an AFL approved methodology and one that we probably all thought was "tacky" at best. She has been in part responsible for removing the PP which is a good thing.

Keep up the good work Caro.

Methinks, it's not a case of incompetence in the execution of AFL approved methodology at all but rather, a case of people involved with our club, past and/or present who put other agendas and issues ahead of the club's interests.

I await the day when a former Carlton or Collingwood chairman comments on a live issue such as this one in the way one of ours did and quite frankly I'm disgusted at the campaign against some of our personnel that's been raging for a long time and has not helped our cause one iota. Instead, it's hindered it and damaged the club and its brand enormously.

There's been talk here of democracy. On the issue of determining whether certain people at the club should go, there is an AGM and you can nominate yourself for election rather than go underground and dob on the club to the media. It's that sort of thing we need to wipe out before anything else.

The last two posts have summed it up perfectly.

  On 15/11/2012 at 23:20, dandeeman said:

Fair enough, still applies with all intensive purposes

To all intents and purposes, Mark Neeld is making some pretty intensive changes. Oops, should be on the mixed metaphor thread.

for all intense porpoises...( you know who you are)

  On 16/11/2012 at 00:05, iv said:

To all intents and purposes, Mark Neeld is making some pretty intensive changes. Oops, should be on the mixed metaphor thread.

Supposably he is.

A point often overlooked is the the role of "The Age" newspaper in recent times in particular after Ms Reinhardt's meddling. The paper is in trouble and looking for ways to bump readership. They have gone more tabloid recently and are basing their strategy to focusing on long standing social and other issues that have been swept under the carpet for far too long. Now they are targeting child abuse within the church on the social front and tanking and corruption in sport namely football and to a lesser extent horse racing. The Catholic Church like us gets the worst of it because not surprisingly thats where the worst smell is currently at. Nothing much new added as what has been said in a lower key for years with corresponding little action. The pressure is on.

  On 15/11/2012 at 23:11, rpfc said:

Forgive GV for not realising you were posting before your morning coffee. Just let it go. You would point it out to any sod unlucky enough to post the mistake.

Look, I'll do what I like. I feel I have my own personal stalker on here with you, Chuckles.

My ignore list looks like it's about to get bigger.

  On 16/11/2012 at 00:00, RobbieF said:

The last two posts have summed it up perfectly.

Agree great posts

  On 15/11/2012 at 23:48, binman said:

Questioning the behavior and direction of the of the club is not destabilizing, why would it be. It occurs on DL all the time and for all sorts of reasons - trade decisions, appointment of the coach, ability of the CEO, relationship with Casey etc etc. Nothing wrong with raising issues about stuff.

What there is an issue with and what is very destabilizing is leaking information to the press, a campaign of whispers, innuendo, personal attacks on indviduals, petty politics game playing etc etc. MFC has been beset by this sort of rubbish forever and a day and it is the key reason Malthouse says that we have been about everything but football.

The current campaign is just one more chapter in a sorry tale of disunity and factional warfare. CW is, i would suggest happy to play a role in it. Why not, it appears to align with her agenda.

The current board has reappointed CS and moved CC to a non FD position. Where is the value in tearing away at the club in the hope that both will be exited from the club - even if you passionately believe they should be. There is a board to govern the club, they should be left to do so. There are also elections and and the processes such as the AGM which can be used to transparently raise issues. Enough of the tawdry cloak and dagger.

I disagree with a lot of this binman. I think that if you look at discussion on the forums over a long period that people who criticise the club (rightly or wrongly) are often shut down on pretty flimsy reasoning. I'm guilty of it and I suspect many many here would be.

To call anything on DL a "campaign" is a gross overstatement (not just an overstatement), Really, calling any discussion on a fan forum a "campaign" and imply a sense of organisation and effectiveness (that would effect a club & board) does not bare up to scrutiny. And then there is that idea of 'tearing into" the club. How can any comment on an anonymous fan site "tear into" anything in reality? But you link comments about the board to 'a campaign' and 'tearing' into stuff...into a sorry tale of disunity. Really? What disunity? .

So, in one post you claim there is no problem questioning the club, imply that questioning the board is dirty club politics, state that is fosters "disunity" and then excuse the board. You have decided that questioning is only ok about topics broadly considered ok and that to depart from that is dangerous and disloyal. You can only question what you think is ok and you can ignore and dismiss all other complaints. But there's no problem with questioning?

I'll make this as clear as I can: the board is not the club; the players are not the club; the admin are not the club. As a fan, supporter and member of this club I have the right to question any and all of the decisions made by the administration, goals, objectives startegy and tactics employed by the club. I will not be told by you, Robbie or anyone else what I can think or ask about this club and its operation. My loyalty is to the club and my questioning is motivated first and foremost by this interest. This club is big and strong enough to stand up to great scrutiny; if it is not, then the weaknesses that exist will only be addressed through scrutiny. The club should pride itself on its ability to withstand scrutiny, change when needed and embrace its members, new and old.

Those who seek to shut down discussion are acting (deliberately or otherwise) to shield the club from examination and protect the status quo regardless of the adequacy of such. Dismissing people who question as "dissenters" or as part of some shadow conspiracy is convenient & complacent. It rationalises ignores the substance of a concern through questioning the motivations of the authors. That can only be trully achieved by addressing the facts, which perversely, brings us back to why Caro's attacks suck so bad.

  On 16/11/2012 at 00:48, Ben-Hur said:

Look, I'll do what I like. I feel I have my own personal stalker on here with you, Chuckles.

My ignore list looks like it's about to get bigger.

You're taking the [censored] right?

  On 16/11/2012 at 01:18, timD said:

I disagree with a lot of this binman. I think that if you look at discussion on the forums over a long period that people who criticise the club (rightly or wrongly) are often shut down on pretty flimsy reasoning. I'm guilty of it and I suspect many many here would be.

To call anything on DL a "campaign" is a gross overstatement (not just an overstatement), Really, calling any discussion on a fan forum a "campaign" and imply a sense of organisation and effectiveness (that would effect a club & board) does not bare up to scrutiny. And then there is that idea of 'tearing into" the club. How can any comment on an anonymous fan site "tear into" anything in reality? But you link comments about the board to 'a campaign' and 'tearing' into stuff...into a sorry tale of disunity. Really? What disunity? .

So, in one post you claim there is no problem questioning the club, imply that questioning the board is dirty club politics, state that is fosters "disunity" and then excuse the board. You have decided that questioning is only ok about topics broadly considered ok and that to depart from that is dangerous and disloyal. You can only question what you think is ok and you can ignore and dismiss all other complaints. But there's no problem with questioning?

I'll make this as clear as I can: the board is not the club; the players are not the club; the admin are not the club. As a fan, supporter and member of this club I have the right to question any and all of the decisions made by the administration, goals, objectives startegy and tactics employed by the club. I will not be told by you, Robbie or anyone else what I can think or ask about this club and its operation. My loyalty is to the club and my questioning is motivated first and foremost by this interest. This club is big and strong enough to stand up to great scrutiny; if it is not, then the weaknesses that exist will only be addressed through scrutiny. The club should pride itself on its ability to withstand scrutiny, change when needed and embrace its members, new and old.

Those who seek to shut down discussion are acting (deliberately or otherwise) to shield the club from examination and protect the status quo regardless of the adequacy of such. Dismissing people who question as "dissenters" or as part of some shadow conspiracy is convenient & complacent. It rationalises ignores the substance of a concern through questioning the motivations of the authors. That can only be trully achieved by addressing the facts, which perversely, brings us back to why Caro's attacks suck so bad.

Sorry Timd i think you have misunderstood me. A couple of things.

I have no problems with people questioning the club, go for it i say. When you say shut down, i'm not sure quite what you mean. Shouted down (metaphorically) perhaps but only a moderator can shut down a conversation. The back and forth with Fan went on for pages - he had every opportunity to explain his position and did so - he was not 'shut down'. For what is worth i disagreed with a couple of Fan's points about CW and said as much, but had no problem with his posts or point of view. I have no idea about his agenda, if any - i'll leave that to others to worry about.

To be 100% clear i am not in any way telling you or any one for that matter what they can or can't say about the club. Who would i be to say such a thing. Of course you have every right to question all of the decisions made by the administration, goals, objectives strategy and tactics employed by the club. I have not dismissed any ones views, dissenter or otherwise. What i am allergic to (both on DL and elsewhere) is a lack of transparency. And again i am not accusing you or any one else for that matter of not being transparent. But what is patently clear is that there are people within the club who are not being transparent, hence their leaks to CW.

What i dislike is that there are forces at work that are clearly attempting to have CS sacked, that is obvious. I'm not talking about DL - who cares about DL. I'm talking about the real world. People with an agenda have obviously leaked information to CW about the evidence they gave to the AFL investigators, in order i assume to make CS position untenable. To be honest i am ambivalent about CS, but i simply don't have enough knowledge to make a judgment. I assume the board do and they have reappointed him.

This is the campaigning i refer to, not a bloody fan forum. The campaign is out in the real world. My point is simply that the club has been riddled with damaging politics for at least 20 years and until the club is united across all levels. It is in the interest of the club for people to support the board and if they, can't keep the venom in house. That is the way top clubs work.

  On 16/11/2012 at 01:18, timD said:

I'll make this as clear as I can: the board is not the club; the players are not the club; the admin are not the club. As a fan, supporter and member of this club I have the right to question any and all of the decisions made by the administration, goals, objectives startegy and tactics employed by the club. I will not be told by you, Robbie or anyone else what I can think or ask about this club and its operation. My loyalty is to the club and my questioning is motivated first and foremost by this interest. This club is big and strong enough to stand up to great scrutiny; if it is not, then the weaknesses that exist will only be addressed through scrutiny. The club should pride itself on its ability to withstand scrutiny, change when needed and embrace its members, new and old.

I don't disagree with you at all on this point, I question everything constantly. It's the only way to improve.

The club has screwed up in many ways over the years.

One thing is certain is that the people who have caused this grief for the club were either reckless as to the damage that it could cause, or deliberately set out to cause damage. The words that caused the damage were outside the MFCs walls and jurisdiction.

Should we not apply that scrutiny that you rightly put the club under to all things, including Demonland.

  On 16/11/2012 at 00:33, america de cali said:

A point often overlooked is the the role of "The Age" newspaper in recent times in particular after Ms Reinhardt's meddling. The paper is in trouble and looking for ways to bump readership. They have gone more tabloid recently and are basing their strategy to focusing on long standing social and other issues that have been swept under the carpet for far too long. Now they are targeting child abuse within the church on the social front and tanking and corruption in sport namely football and to a lesser extent horse racing. The Catholic Church like us gets the worst of it because not surprisingly thats where the worst smell is currently at. Nothing much new added as what has been said in a lower key for years with corresponding little action. The pressure is on.

Yeah because the Catholic Church issue is being completely driven by The Age. It has nothing to do with decades of abused children coming out, and its so media driven the government has decided to perform a vague, easy, short-time and low cost Crown Investigation.

Get real

  On 15/11/2012 at 23:24, daisycutter said:

I just can't bring myself to say it

Nutbean saved you the trouble.