On 04/04/2013 at 09:16, Range Rover said:

You have the choice to pass over my comments, Stuie.

Clearly there is something about 101L - 32W that is getting to you, or you wouldn't get so inflamed about it.

Eventually the penny will drop. As Luke said to Darth ... "I see the good in you".

  On 04/04/2013 at 09:28, Range Rover said:

What about 101 Losses - 32 Wins .... including 7 wins in 64 games against Vic clubs am I "misinterpreting" ?

Please do enlighten with your acumen.

  On 04/04/2013 at 09:30, Range Rover said:

I would point the mods to this comment as unacceptable on this site, regardless of context.

Bing is fully aware another poster was warned about this. Which makes his follow up worse.

  On 04/04/2013 at 09:32, Range Rover said:

Yet you keep vigorously defending the administration that has presided over it. Defending the indefensible is about as close to "trolling" as you can get I would've thought.

  On 04/04/2013 at 09:48, Range Rover said:

I'm not the one peddling the snake oil. You are. "Interpret" away.

These are RR's posts from page 13 only.

That same old comment a couple of times, a fair few digs at people, a cry to the mods, and a "I know you are but what am I".

You're providing nothing RR. Take a break mate, walk around the block, go for a fish, just give it a rest until you can think of something that contributes to what's being discussed.

  On 04/04/2013 at 10:03, stuie said:

These are RR's posts from page 13 only.

That same old comment a couple of times, a fair few digs at people, a cry to the mods, and a "I know you are but what am I".

You're providing nothing RR. Take a break mate, walk around the block, go for a fish, just give it a rest until you can think of something that contributes to what's being discussed.

LOL. Seriously I did laugh out loud then. It wasn't just a throwaway quip.

Unintentional it may be, but you can be very funny Stu.

  On 04/04/2013 at 10:11, Range Rover said:

LOL. Seriously I did laugh out loud then. It wasn't just a throwaway quip.

Unintentional it may be, but you can be very funny Stu.

Can you please just get yourself banned again for the benefit of all?

  On 04/04/2013 at 10:25, Django said:

Can you please just get yourself banned again for the benefit of all?

Quick ... ban that agitator! That heretic! That 'troll'!

101L - 32W

You are not a troll RR you are more of an irritant, have to try and skip your posts once we have refuted your unfounded ridiculous outbursts on every topic, you are beginning tp spoil the board for others, but perhaps that is your rather strange intention, if it is let us know then we can avoid any topic you start, that way we also don't insult your obvious higher intelligence, I thought old Ben Hur was u in another guise, perhaps just cut of the same rather bizarre cloth, think you really do need to get out of the house more

I think u have got the message across about your unflinching hatred of Cam Schwab, but if you want to keep posting on this topic feel free it is your right, I won't be reading any more, although that being said you may get a couple of like minded acolytes to rant alongside....I think I will return to Earth

  On 04/04/2013 at 10:54, Satyriconhome said:

You are not a troll RR you are more of an irritant, have to try and skip your posts once we have refuted your unfounded ridiculous outbursts on every topic, you are beginning tp spoil the board for others, but perhaps that is your rather strange intention, if it is let us know then we can avoid any topic you start, that way we also don't insult your obvious higher intelligence, I thought old Ben Hur was u in another guise, perhaps just cut of the same rather bizarre cloth, think you really do need to get out of the house more

I think u have got the message across about your unflinching hatred of Cam Schwab, but if you want to keep posting on this topic feel free it is your right, I won't be reading any more, although that being said you may get a couple of like minded acolytes to rant alongside....I think I will return to Earth

For the last time.

I. DON'T. HATE. CAMERON. SCHWAB.

I. HATE. CAMERON. SCHWAB'S. RECORD.

Good to hear you won't be reading or posting here anymore. You are a humourless no-nothing. Stick to the art-house flicks.

Off topic: spoke to a current Melbourne players dad during the week, he mentioned that after the game when it was open forum amongst the playing group that a few of the players told Sylvia that some of his efforts were not acceptable, he took it badly and went nuts!

  On 04/04/2013 at 11:00, Range Rover said:

For the last time.

I. DON'T. HATE. CAMERON. SCHWAB.

I. HATE. CAMERON. SCHWAB'S. RECORD.

Good to hear you won't be reading or posting here anymore. You are a humourless no-nothing. Stick to the art-house flicks.

101L - 32W. MFC's record, not Schwab's. It's obvious you hate the guy, at least be honest about it.

  On 04/04/2013 at 11:07, Grimes is Great said:

Off topic: spoke to a current Melbourne players dad during the week, he mentioned that after the game when it was open forum amongst the playing group that a few of the players told Sylvia that some of his efforts were not acceptable, he took it badly and went nuts!

GiG

Forget him he is off at the end of 2013

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work it out.

Just looks uninterested to me

It's a shame really, as Dermie said tonight on Leauge teams so much talent but such a waste.

Trav Johnstone like.

  On 04/04/2013 at 07:13, Grimes is Great said:

Just so you all know: Cameron Schwab reads these boards daily.

GiG this not meant to having a go at you

But are we supposed be scared or something?

If he reads daily.

I hope he gets some of the points people are raising.

EG. the troops are very restless Cameron, it takes a lot to get MFC members up but last Sunday achieved it.

To much more of that and we will be looking for someone's blood before mid year.

  On 04/04/2013 at 06:00, Jens Lehmann said:

Right.

So what has caused that win-loss ratio?

Why do you expect it to be any different?

Stop hiding behind it and analyse what you see as symbolic of our failure.

And nice photo, great imagery... I get it.

"The wold is at the door."

But beyond a colourful cliche, what do you even mean by that?

It's emotive guff with no substance.

The club isn't in "crisis." That's pure hyperbole.

We have problems, and we need to analyse them then find realistic solutions.

You're as bad as the media jocks, RR.

Difference is, they want to create a frenzy so they have something to talk about and justify their existence.

Oh.

Maybe you're not so different...

1. We'll never know the exact content of the Andrews Report, not should we.

But it was obvious that it recommended a restructuring of the football department, and that for them to be able to do their jobs properly, it needed less interference from the administration.

Schwab had tried to right the ship himself by being a control freak and having too much control in areas where he should have given people the resources and opportunity to fulfil their roles and responsibilities as outline in their job description, or replace them with those that could.

2. The club could see there was a rift between the football department and the administration, particularly Schwab.

This was because he interfered where he felt people weren't performing their roles effectively and he needed to have input to ensure it worked.

The board initally saw him as an antagonist, and he was in their sights.

When the board saw that his concerns were well founded, and his efforts, although misguided, were in the clubs best interests, they turned their attention to those who were failing in their posts.

Not having someone fill Leoncelli's shoes immediately led to this situation, because then this situation would have been monitored.

I can see Schwab was working with an outdated model for a football department and wasn't informed in how to build and structure a modern one.

He also knew that, hence the Andrews Report was commissioned.

From that, his role has been re-defined to prevent a similar situation occurring.

As long as that continues, he's a valuable contributor to the club.

Why shouldn't we know the content of the Andrews Report - it's not as if it's the 'secret' May 2013 budget!

  On 04/04/2013 at 11:08, stuie said:

101L - 32W. MFC's record, not Schwab's. It's obvious you hate the guy, at least be honest about it.

I've never met him. Dumb statement. Again.

  On 04/04/2013 at 11:46, Range Rover said:

I've never met him. Dumb statement. Again.

Yet you OBVIOUSLY hate the guy. Just makes it even dumber.

  On 04/04/2013 at 11:47, stuie said:

Yet you OBVIOUSLY hate the guy. Just makes it even dumber.

I don't hate any human being. Never have. Never will. It's not in my vocabulary when it comes to a person's humanity or spirit.

But I'll hate 101L - 32W 'til the day I die.

Guys do you realise how bloody boring your little fight is after numerous pages on numerous threads.

Get over each other PLEASE

  On 04/04/2013 at 11:51, old dee said:

Guys do you realise how bloody boring your little fight is after numerous pages on numerous threads.

Get over each other PLEASE

Sorry OldDee. I won't be tarred with this 'hate' brush nor have words put in my mouth.

I have no desire to even debate Stuie. He's a moron. Frankly I wish he'd stay out of the threads I create.

  On 04/04/2013 at 11:55, Range Rover said:

Sorry OldDee. I won't be tarred with this 'hate' brush nor have words put in my mouth.

I have no desire to even debate Stuie. He's a moron. Frankly I wish he'd stay out of the threads I create.

Weight of numbers says that's impossible.

  On 04/04/2013 at 07:36, Satyriconhome said:

Melbourne offer the same thing, I know because I was ringing members...so your point is...perhaps some members may be deliberately difficult to make a point...again been ringing

another baseless attack shot down...becoming too easy really

Re: mjt's situation, it sounds like there is some degree of institutional incompetence but hardly a hanging offence.

If our club has managed to set up an automatic e-ticket email for all new members signing up or renewing during or shortly before the start of the season (this is was you're saying - isn't it?) then well done to them. Given that Schwab now heads over 40 non-football operations staff I think we are entitled to expect this sort of service. I will admit that I was pleasantly surprised to hear that it is currently being delivered though (again, this is what you are saying, right?)

I noticed in the first edition of your post, which did not really resemble your edit 30 min later, you made out like I was blaming Schwab for Richmond supporters not getting emails - seems you are tilting at windmills.

If you think my post to mjt was an attack, then you clearly haven't read many of my posts. Clunky membership renewal is pretty small beer compared to the many points I could use to illustrate how our club has become a hopelessly divided train wreck over the last few years.

  On 04/04/2013 at 09:26, bing181 said:

Ah, I see that you as well haven't stopped beating your wife ...

This may seem like a really clever thing to say, and you can bring out all the definitions you want mate and talk about it being an accepted turn of phrase but its not acceptable to me and in fact shouldn't be to any self respecting person, so you don't start this BS with me.

  On 04/04/2013 at 11:08, stuie said:

101L - 32W. MFC's record, not Schwab's. It's obvious you hate the guy, at least be honest about it.

Actually, not standing up for Range Rover here but I am pretty sure that MFC's record is 1034 W - 21 D - 1210 L.

MFC existed long before Schwab came along and will hopefully survive long after he is gone.

I am not in the least bit surprised that you have difficulty with that concept.

Again, Schwab is not the same thing as the MFC. Criticising or even 'hating' Schwab does not mean that you hate the club, nor does it make you a bad supporter.

  On 01/04/2013 at 21:42, Jens Lehmann said:

Christ, I've had enough of you clogging up the forum with rubbish threads of no substance.

What are talking about? Schwab needs to go, NOW

  On 04/04/2013 at 12:50, rjay said:

This may seem like a really clever thing to say, and you can bring out all the definitions you want mate and talk about it being an accepted turn of phrase but its not acceptable to me and in fact shouldn't be to any self respecting person, so you don't start this BS with me.

And for a second time:

"A loaded question is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?""

Included here, note perhaps the heading: http://www.conservapedia.com/Logical_fallacy

One of the joys of Demonland. You learn something every day. (I've learnt a lot about alpacas for example.)

  On 04/04/2013 at 16:09, bing181 said:

And for a second time:

"A loaded question is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?""

Included here, note perhaps the heading: http://www.conservapedia.com/Logical_fallacy

One of the joys of Demonland. You learn something every day. (I've learnt a lot about alpacas for example.)

Have some self respect you nasty individual.

Women read this site. Any of whom may suffer physical abuse from their spouses.

Pull your head in.

  On 04/04/2013 at 16:09, bing181 said:

And for a second time:

"A loaded question is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?""

Included here, note perhaps the heading: http://www.conservapedia.com/Logical_fallacy

One of the joys of Demonland. You learn something every day. (I've learnt a lot about alpacas for example.)

Not particularly funny mate, no matter how you try and dress it. There are many words and phrases that were in common usage that are no longer because of the offence they cause others, I would suggest this is one.