Brock McLean delisted

[gsmith12 491]

For those who believe the ends justified the means in McLean's case, you should think again. His so called confession about our supposed "culture of tanking" ended up costing the club $500k in fines, an amount probably equal to that in legal fees, substantial disruption at board level and to the way the club was conducted both on and off the field and possibly helped ruin one man's health and life and what was it all really about?

There seems to be a bit of a misconception about the so-called "culture" of the club at the time of McLean's departure at the end of 2009 and through the years that followed, which places the blame squarely on Cameron Schwab and Chris Connolly. When repeated often enough, like Joseph Goebbell's propaganda, people start to believe that it's true but is that really so?

There are three major and critical aspects of our team"culture" from this era that come to mind:

1. The losing culture. As a team, we were on the nose from 2007 onwards. In that year we lost the first 9 games and were 2-9 at the halfway mark, in 2008 and 2009 we were 1-10 at that point of each season. That record was achieved under two coaches, Neale Daniher and Dean Bailey. Connolly appeared on the scene in 2008, an appointment of the Gardner administration and Schwab was appointed by the new Jim Stynes board late in 2008 by which time we were already well and truly "losers".

2. "Tanking"

There's been much debate about tanking, what it constituted, whether what Melbourne did was "tanking", was the practice followed by Melbourne and others at the time condoned by the AFL and its CEO (an article by Caro after the infamous Jordie McMahon game indicates that it was) and whether other clubs did what Melbourne was accused of doing (and it's clear that some including Hawthorn and Collingwood did it successfully enough to later reap premierships from the practice).

My view is that the practices that came to be described as "tanking" were not long-lasting at Melbourne and there was no sign of internal resentment toward the practice among the playing group in 2010 when the team made a dramatic improvement and recorded some outstanding individual and team achievements. If there was any truth in the "tanking" culture argument, its effects should have been felt most strongly in 2010 but that didn't happen.

The real malaise surfaced beyond that in 2011 when our game style was exposed against teams that employed heavy presses and strong defensive running. I therefore don't place much store on McLean's tanking culture claims which I believe were mischievous and misleading, especially given the fact that he himself agreed to be traded to Carlton who were the masters of tanking in that era. That On The Couch interview made good theatre but I believe it was contrived and possibly calculated to serve the very purpose it ultimately achieved. Tanking and the placing of blame for what later happened was in my view a convenient issue to explain the divisions within the club that simmered throughout 2011 and came to a head in July of that year.

3. The "drinking" and "party boy" culture.

McLean was one of those who personified this culture in the years of the burnouts, the arrests and time spent with fellow party boy Nathan Carroll in overseas jails and other incidents reported at the time. In his case we often wrote it off as immaturity but in truth, it was stupidity.

There was lots more that didn't get out about various people at the club and sure, we weren't the only ones where drinking and partying might have been an issue. It was even happening at the successful clubs at the time like Collingwood and St. Kilda and drinking wasn't the only problem football clubs were experiencing.

I know football clubs try to suppress stories about footballers behaving badly and many of us dismissed stories of what happened on the China trip as the boys having a bit fun in the off-season but I was told much the same was still causing concern at the club in season by a then senior coterie member when I attended a club luncheon before the North Melbourne game in 2011. That was just a few weeks after the Brent Moloney incident in the bar at St. Kilda that led to his removal from the leadership group and how many of us really want to believe such stories?

What does that have to do with Schwab and Connolly? Were they encouraging a drinking and partying culture among the players? I think not but rather, that it was to the contrary and that they wanted a better club.

Like most Demon fans, I was happy when we received picks 3 and 5 in the draft that gave us Colin Sylvia and Brock McLean after we lost the last eight games of the 2003 season (tanking - surely not?). It turned out to be one of the many curses that have afflicted our club in our recent past.

I hope that picks 2 & 3 of 2014 bring us a much better outcome.

I applaud you for going in to bat for Connolly Jack.

If those who unfairly vilify Chris on this forum knew the guy or had an idea of his passion for MFC perhaps they would keep their traps shut.

[dazzledavey36 48,771]

I applaud you for going in to bat for Connolly Jack.

If those who unfairly vilify Chris on this forum knew the guy or had an idea of his passion for MFC perhaps they would keep their traps shut.

His passion to get rid of the likes of James Mcdonald when Dean Bailey promised him a one year contract only to have Connelly and Schwab reverse the ddecision to focus on the 'kids'.

Spare me seriously.

[Sir Why You Little 34,493]

It is interesting reading the many POV's on this thread.

I have no issue with Brock talking about the Clubs direction in 2008-09, I do not like it, but i fully understand him doing it.

If i was a player risking my body and health for a club that prefered to lose then i would speak out to. That said i am not denying his other issues off field and was not sad to see him go...Pity Col didn't leave at the same time.

But to be filthy on Mclean for answering a question when he was asked....I mean we all knew the answer...And yes i know Carlscum were just as guilty of the same indescretion....maybe moreso

Those running the club at the time are the ones to direct anger towards.

[John Crow Batty 8,255]

For those who believe the ends justified the means in McLean's case, you should think again. His so called confession about our supposed "culture of tanking" ended up costing the club $500k in fines, an amount probably equal to that in legal fees, substantial disruption at board level and to the way the club was conducted both on and off the field and possibly helped ruin one man's health and life and what was it all really about?

There seems to be a bit of a misconception about the so-called "culture" of the club at the time of McLean's departure at the end of 2009 and through the years that followed, which places the blame squarely on Cameron Schwab and Chris Connolly. When repeated often enough, like Joseph Goebbell's propaganda, people start to believe that it's true but is that really so?

There are three major and critical aspects of our team"culture" from this era that come to mind:

1. The losing culture. As a team, we were on the nose from 2007 onwards. In that year we lost the first 9 games and were 2-9 at the halfway mark, in 2008 and 2009 we were 1-10 at that point of each season. That record was achieved under two coaches, Neale Daniher and Dean Bailey. Connolly appeared on the scene in 2008, an appointment of the Gardner administration and Schwab was appointed by the new Jim Stynes board late in 2008 by which time we were already well and truly "losers".

2. "Tanking"

There's been much debate about tanking, what it constituted, whether what Melbourne did was "tanking", was the practice followed by Melbourne and others at the time condoned by the AFL and its CEO (an article by Caro after the infamous Jordie McMahon game indicates that it was) and whether other clubs did what Melbourne was accused of doing (and it's clear that some including Hawthorn and Collingwood did it successfully enough to later reap premierships from the practice).

My view is that the practices that came to be described as "tanking" were not long-lasting at Melbourne and there was no sign of internal resentment toward the practice among the playing group in 2010 when the team made a dramatic improvement and recorded some outstanding individual and team achievements. If there was any truth in the "tanking" culture argument, its effects should have been felt most strongly in 2010 but that didn't happen.

The real malaise surfaced beyond that in 2011 when our game style was exposed against teams that employed heavy presses and strong defensive running. I therefore don't place much store on McLean's tanking culture claims which I believe were mischievous and misleading, especially given the fact that he himself agreed to be traded to Carlton who were the masters of tanking in that era. That On The Couch interview made good theatre but I believe it was contrived and possibly calculated to serve the very purpose it ultimately achieved. Tanking and the placing of blame for what later happened was in my view a convenient issue to explain the divisions within the club that simmered throughout 2011 and came to a head in July of that year.

3. The "drinking" and "party boy" culture.

McLean was one of those who personified this culture in the years of the burnouts, the arrests and time spent with fellow party boy Nathan Carroll in overseas jails and other incidents reported at the time. In his case we often wrote it off as immaturity but in truth, it was stupidity.

There was lots more that didn't get out about various people at the club and sure, we weren't the only ones where drinking and partying might have been an issue. It was even happening at the successful clubs at the time like Collingwood and St. Kilda and drinking wasn't the only problem football clubs were experiencing.

I know football clubs try to suppress stories about footballers behaving badly and many of us dismissed stories of what happened on the China trip as the boys having a bit fun in the off-season but I was told much the same was still causing concern at the club in season by a then senior coterie member when I attended a club luncheon before the North Melbourne game in 2011. That was just a few weeks after the Brent Moloney incident in the bar at St. Kilda that led to his removal from the leadership group and how many of us really want to believe such stories?

What does that have to do with Schwab and Connolly? Were they encouraging a drinking and partying culture among the players? I think not but rather, that it was to the contrary and that they wanted a better club.

Like most Demon fans, I was happy when we received picks 3 and 5 in the draft that gave us Colin Sylvia and Brock McLean after we lost the last eight games of the 2003 season (tanking - surely not?). It turned out to be one of the many curses that have afflicted our club in our recent past.

I hope that picks 2 & 3 of 2014 bring us a much better outcome.

If you were on the other side WJ you could be a highly valued member of the Hird defence team and same for Oscar Pistorius. Edited October 22, 2014 by america de cali

[Roost It 1,434]

I applaud you for going in to bat for Connolly Jack.

If those who unfairly vilify Chris on this forum knew the guy or had an idea of his passion for MFC perhaps they would keep their traps shut.

Passion doesn't make a good operator. Connolly is living proof of that. You can blah blah on about his love for the club, it's just the facts get in the way of any resemblance of someone actually "helping" the club to improve.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,410]

I doubt there was anyone at Demonland who didn't think trading Brock McLean for pick 11 wasn't great value for us at the time.

(Sorry - three negatives in one sentence. Let's try it this way: I suspect almost everyone at Demonland thought trading Brock McLean for pick 11 was a great trade for us at the time.)

Everything else is peripheral.

[nutbean 8,837]

Passion doesn't make a good operator. Connolly is living proof of that. You can blah blah on about his love for the club, it's just the facts get in the way of any resemblance of someone actually "helping" the club to improve.

I was about to say the same. I applaud him for his love the club and wanting to do the right thing by it. You can put me in the same group - love and passion ! But you wouldn't be making me general manager of football for the same reason they shouldn't have given Chris that position.

[nutbean 8,837]

I doubt there was anyone at Demonland who didn't think trading Brock McLean for pick 11 wasn't great value for us at the time.

(Sorry - three negatives in one sentence. Let's try it this way: I suspect almost everyone at Demonland thought trading Brock McLean for pick 11 was a great trade for us at the time.)

Everything else is peripheral.

Agreed. I for one don't connect the trading of a pick and what we use the pick on.

We did very well getting pick 11 for him. What we did with the pick is completely unrelated ( but truly horrible).

[Sir Why You Little 34,493]

I was about to say the same. I applaud him for his love the club and wanting to do the right thing by it. You can put me in the same group - love and passion ! But you wouldn't be making me general manager of football for the same reason they shouldn't have given Chris that position.

Do not employ friends to do a job.

Employ the best.

[jackaub 1,402]

Do not employ friends to do a job.

Employ the best.

Yep the "Good Old Boys" Really let us down didn't they?

[Guest]

I won't come out and say that everything that you wrote is all incorrect Whispering Jack. There is a part of it I agree with but I think it is built on premises that have been found to be faulty or unfounded.
I think it's very easy to pick at another person's arguments without giving one of your own. I will give my take on events and then respond to what you have written. Here is a potted version of my take on what happened at the club. I must admit before I proceed, that I am not an insider at the club.
'Tanking', being defined in the public consciousness at it's best as making tactical moves that decrease the chances of victory but which may increase chosen players' versatility and at it's worst being defined as deliberately throwing a match, should be redefined in the case of the MFC. Our, as I call it, 'tanking era' fell to pieces due to the decisions made by some during and after the season of 2009. The tanking era was defined by numerous strategic moves that weren't related to so called experimentation exclusively and were related to myopic list management, cronyism and, in certain cases, professional disloyalty.

While three matches in 2009 have been highlighted ad nauseum and have been branded as the be all and end all of our troubles, I think more damaging was the fact that the discarding of many long term servants of the club had begun in earnest. Robbo (who won the goal kicking that year), Wheatley and Whelan were another batch of experienced players who had been moved on after White and Yze were dumped. Let's be honest, those blokes probably had a few years to go. They weren't 10 year players. However, they were players who could have taken taggers and number one defenders while the Morton's and Watts' of this world developed at their own pace. It also caused a great load of resentment as I am sure these players felt they were being given the 'Ole Yeller' treatment when they felt that had something more to offer. This would have been in the back of the minds of someone like Cameron Bruce who would see his fears borne out when Junior was given his marching orders.
Even worse for the players (and no this isn't an apologia for them as you will see when I analyze what you wrote) was the fact that the football manager, the CEO and the president seemed to be BFF's and would always band together like the Spartans in 300 if the proverbial hit the fan. Go through the correct channels and it's likely that you would get no where. Point in case: the Andrews report. The players finally got their say about how the place was run and it intimated that CS and CC were a corrosive influence on the club. What's a CEO to do when documentation comes out that says that he and his best mate mightn't be the best candidates to rebuild the club? Bury it of course.
Worse would come for the coach. It seems to me that Bails went along with the plan as he was a good soldier and I am sure that there were certain aspects of it that he agreed with (as did I). The list did need new blood. At what pace that new blood came in and who was moved out in the meantime was the key question. Another key factor was how much say he was given in the running of the playing side of things. We all remember the 'ashen faced' Cameron Schwab and Cuddles' joke about Jimmy falling out of his hospital bed. To hear something like that would annoy me as a manager.
After those years of 2008-2009 when Bails wasn't allowed to put out as strong a team as he would have liked, he was finally given a chance to coach on his own merits. The initial results were promising enough: more wins than the previous 2 years combined, some swashbuckling wins and pressing top four teams such as the Dogs and Pies to the limit. Here is where Bails was let down. It seemed to some that the team wasn't improving at the rate it was supposed to. The Andrews Report stated that some in the playing group felt that Bailey wasn't being supported and, in some cases, undermined. Jimmy stated in his biography that he asked Schwab to compile a report on the football department and get back to him. Schwab, in Jimmy's words, ignored that request as he felt the football department was fine and that it was the coach who was the problem. It seems to me that at that point he had made his mind up right then and there. As far as I could tell, the Hollywood Boulevarde set thought they knew how to run the club better than the coach who by the way had been a part of two premiership winning teams as an assistant.
When Bails was sacked, the message that was sent to the playing group was a damaging one as far as I can tell. The initial message circa 2008-2009 was that you are no good, a lot of you will never be any good and unless a lot of you hurry up and lose so we can get you the hell out of here and replace you with a bunch of unproven kids, the club can never move forward. The message seemed to be revised in 2011 in that it became the administration (read Schwab) of this club is fine and we will be backing it; it's your fault as you haven't worked hard enough to make it come to fruition. For a bunch of blokes, to hear this new message (and to see that the old mates club had closed ranks and not one of them was moved on) must have been gut wrenching for the playing group. That is the true legacy of the tanking era: telling blokes they are crap and have to acknowledge the fact they have to lose (and lose fairly unethically) to better the team and then see their mates get discarded with barely a thank you. Then the orchestrator of said plan would take no responsibility for what had happened and yet again dumped the blame on the playing side. He and his best mate would remain employed by the club while the coach (who they loved) would get to sit in front of a white brick wall in his own suit while the CEO and president hid in the toilet until he left. Who wouldn't be demoralized?
Now let's look at the points you made:

For those who believe the ends justified the means in McLean's case, you should think again. His so called confession about our supposed "culture of tanking" ended up costing the club $500k in fines, an amount probably equal to that in legal fees, substantial disruption at board level and to the way the club was conducted both on and off the field and possibly helped ruin one man's health and life and what was it all really about?

Your first point would intimate that the board itself was hindered by what Brock said without really taking into account the fact that the board itself was leaking like a sieve and was indecisive in the extreme (see sacking Schwab and extending Bailey's contract only to reverse the decision 2 days later). Let's not also forget the role CS played in the EnergyWatch fiasco, meddling in areas where he was not supposed to be, buying himself a huge desk and borrowing money for a home loan etc. Who said that board and administration was worth saving? If they had acted in good faith to start with, then potentially Brock would have had no ammunition in the first place.
I think the second bit about Bails (I think that is who you are referring to) is a bit of a long bow to draw and shouldn't have been mentioned. Like when he passed away, we shouldn't get into that. I will admit I did and it was distasteful of me to do so.

1. The losing culture. As a team, we were on the nose from 2007 onwards. In that year we lost the first 9 games and were 2-9 at the halfway mark, in 2008 and 2009 we were 1-10 at that point of each season. That record was achieved under two coaches, Neale Daniher and Dean Bailey. Connolly appeared on the scene in 2008, an appointment of the Gardner administration and Schwab was appointed by the new Jim Stynes board late in 2008 by which time we were already well and truly "losers".

You and I have had this discussion before in the 2006 Elimination final thread. You had your backers and I had mine. I don't believe that everything was as doom and gloom as what has been made out. I truly believe that we were getting to the end of our 'up' period (if you want to call it that) and it was time to rebuild. That being said, I don't believe we had to go as hard and as ruthlessly as we did. Other teams such as the Bulldogs and the Magpies have been confronted in years past with aging lists but they didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Blokes like Daniel Giansiracusa, Nathan Buckley, Scott Burns and Matthew Boyd were allowed to hang around to teach the newbies how to prepare and how to compete. I don't buy that as a rationalization to tank or to cull the list like they did.

2. "Tanking"

There's been much debate about tanking, what it constituted, whether what Melbourne did was "tanking", was the practice followed by Melbourne and others at the time condoned by the AFL and its CEO (an article by Caro after the infamous Jordie McMahon game indicates that it was) and whether other clubs did what Melbourne was accused of doing (and it's clear that some including Hawthorn and Collingwood did it successfully enough to later reap premierships from the practice).

My view is that the practices that came to be described as "tanking" were not long-lasting at Melbourne and there was no sign of internal resentment toward the practice among the playing group in 2010 when the team made a dramatic improvement and recorded some outstanding individual and team achievements. If there was any truth in the "tanking" culture argument, its effects should have been felt most strongly in 2010 but that didn't happen.

The real malaise surfaced beyond that in 2011 when our game style was exposed against teams that employed heavy presses and strong defensive running. I therefore don't place much store on McLean's tanking culture claims which I believe were mischievous and misleading, especially given the fact that he himself agreed to be traded to Carlton who were the masters of tanking in that era. That On The Couch interview made good theatre but I believe it was contrived and possibly calculated to serve the very purpose it ultimately achieved. Tanking and the placing of blame for what later happened was in my view a convenient issue to explain the divisions within the club that simmered throughout 2011 and came to a head in July of that year.

I have gone into this in depth in my initial reply but there are a few points I will raise regarding this:

1) I do not, and have always said this, believe Hawthorn tanked in 2004. Peter Schwab came out at the start of the year and said that they would win the flag. If they were setting out at the start of the year to tank, he didn't get the memo because he got the sack.

2) That being said, people point out that Hawthorn and Collingwood (who as it turns out are turning out to be a bit of a historical anomaly with that one flag in 2010) supposedly tanked and won flags as reasons why we had to do it. They also tend to ignore the fact that Geelong and the Swans have never tanked and have as good a record as Hawthorn's over the last ten years.
3) I have already given my take as to what the problems were in 2011 so you can take that or leave it.

4) The bit about Brock going to Carlton is what I call 'Nick Naylor logic'; Nick Naylor being the character from Chris Buckley's film and novel 'Thank You For Smoking'. There is a scene in that where Nick teaches his son about the art of spin. Naylor's basic premise is 'I'm wrong but so are you so that makes me right'.
Brock going to Carlton seems a bit odd yes but it doesn't cancel out the fact that if we hadn't done what we did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. His wrong doesn't cancel out our wrongs.

3. The "drinking" and "party boy" culture.

McLean was one of those who personified this culture in the years of the burnouts, the arrests and time spent with fellow party boy Nathan Carroll in overseas jails and other incidents reported at the time. In his case we often wrote it off as immaturity but in truth, it was stupidity.

There was lots more that didn't get out about various people at the club and sure, we weren't the only ones where drinking and partying might have been an issue. It was even happening at the successful clubs at the time like Collingwood and St. Kilda and drinking wasn't the only problem football clubs were experiencing.

I know football clubs try to suppress stories about footballers behaving badly and many of us dismissed stories of what happened on the China trip as the boys having a bit fun in the off-season but I was told much the same was still causing concern at the club in season by a then senior coterie member when I attended a club luncheon before the North Melbourne game in 2011. That was just a few weeks after the Brent Moloney incident in the bar at St. Kilda that led to his removal from the leadership group and how many of us really want to believe such stories?

What does that have to do with Schwab and Connolly? Were they encouraging a drinking and partying culture among the players? I think not but rather, that it was to the contrary and that they wanted a better club..

This is the part I agree with you on. Anyone who gets around Melbourne would know of our boys propensity to lubricate themselves after a match. I have heard the words 'soft party boys' from an ex premiership player and Brent Moloney referred to as 'the last bloke you want leading your footy club' with Jack Watts described in similar terms by a St. Kilda bar manager. I don't think Schwab and Connolly were cleanskins in the entire fiasco and I don't think their motives for putting the hard word on the playing group were pure either but this isn't something they can't claim responsibility for.
Now as for Brock and whether he was justified in his stance. I will finish up on this note. While Brock did leave the club for his own reasons (and they may not be the one's I listed here) and perhaps his choice of new club was curious, let's also keep in mind that:

1) Junior was sacked and only came back last year. When offered an assistant's job at Melbourne, he preferred to stay at GWS.

2) Brad Miller refused a farewell game in the firsts and preferred to spend the rest of the year at Casey. He then went to Richmond where he played the role asked of him. He only came back this year.

3) Cameron Bruce walked out and has yet to return.

It wasn't just Brock who felt let down by the club.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Colin B. Flaubert

[beelzebub 22,225]

going to need to take lunch before attempting all of that ^^^^^^^^^

[deeko 937]

I love the talk on this topic where some polarising opinions are expressed.

At times I loved Brock. He played a cracker in a final, he donated cash, he came across like he loved the club and believe he did.

Then at times the feelings were opposite when he couldn't shut his trap on the couch or seeing him completely out of his mind at Revolver a couple times on a Sunday arvo where he could barely speak. This during the season.

I feel the bad's always outweighed to goods with him but was surprised at his delisting.

Was a smokey for there B&F last year and played quite a few great games this year also.

At 29 surely has to still be a d!ckhead to get delisted after his last 2 years.

[Guest]

going to need to take lunch before attempting all of that ^^^^^^^^^

There is a lot to get through Beelzy!

[Demonsone 1,600]

I don't know which club some of you guys were following pre 2014... It was an absolute train wreck of poor decisions made by the wrong people, crap culture & development... Players wanting to jump ship... Coaches made scapegoats.... All roads point to Schwab & Connolly!

[rjay 23,922]

You and I have had this discussion before in the 2006 Elimination final thread. You had your backers and I had mine. I don't believe that everything was as doom and gloom as what has been made out. I truly believe that we were getting to the end of our 'up' period (if you want to call it that) and it was time to rebuild. That being said, I don't believe we had to go as hard and as ruthlessly as we did. Other teams such as the Bulldogs and the Magpies have been confronted in years past with aging lists but they didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Blokes like Daniel Giansiracusa, Nathan Buckley, Scott Burns and Matthew Boyd were allowed to hang around to teach the newbies how to prepare and how to compete. I don't buy that as a rationalization to tank or to cull the list like they did.

Agree pretty much with all of your post 'Colin', don't have time to go into it in depth but I think this point really needs to be understood. We were in a rebuild phase and it was handled appallingly by the board/management/football department of the club and that's why we sit where we are now.

[rjay 23,922]

I don't know which club some of you guys were following pre 2014... It was an absolute train wreck of poor decisions made by the wrong people, crap culture & development... Players wanting to jump ship... Coaches made scapegoats.... All roads point to Schwab & Connolly!

The board have to cop a lot of it 'Hogan', it was a very weak board who didn't face up to their responsibilities.

[Guest]

Agree pretty much with all of your post 'Colin', don't have time to go into it in depth but I think this point really needs to be understood. We were in a rebuild phase and it was handled appallingly by the board/management/football department of the club and that's why we sit where we are now.

Sorry if it's a bit wordy. But I think the other side needs to get it's point of view out there.

Baghdad Bob was probably closer to the club at the time and can probably given a more authoritative and concise version of events!

[Whispering_Jack 27,980]

If you were on the other side WJ you could be a highly valued member of the Hird defence team and same for Oscar Pistorius.

One thing's for sure, I didn't post those views to close up debate and I welcolme discussion and different viewpoints. The thing that I don't welcome is the constant carping and ad hominem attacks on people without the slightest amount of substantiation. There are many people during the era in question who should be admired for their contribution to the club and for their earnest efforts to lift it off the floor. McLean did many good things as a player and by his monetary contribution but he was trapped into making some very stupid comments on air that caused us substantial damage and he could more publicly have retracted them when he realised the potential damage of those comments.

As for Hird and Pestorius, while I have no sympathy for either they both deserve(d) proper representation.

For the record, I don't think Hird would have hired me because I don't think he would be pleased with my initial advice.

As for Pestorius, his defence did a brilliant job and got him a terrific outcome thanks partly to an inept prosecution case and to a very intelligent and well thought out judgement.

[timD 994]

His passion to get rid of the likes of James Mcdonald when Dean Bailey promised him a one year contract only to have Connelly and Schwab reverse the ddecision to focus on the 'kids'.

Spare me seriously.

I have it on good authority that he told Ben Holland, as he was about to run out, that it was his last game. In front of the group. No-one had any idea.

Nice work.

The notion that loyalty and good intentions are somehow related to superior decision making is disturbing.

[John Crow Batty 8,255]

One thing's for sure, I didn't post those views to close up debate and I welcolme discussion and different viewpoints. The thing that I don't welcome is the constant carping and ad hominem attacks on people without the slightest amount of substantiation. There are many people during the era in question who should be admired for their contribution to the club and for their earnest efforts to lift it off the floor. McLean did many good things as a player and by his monetary contribution but he was trapped into making some very stupid comments on air that caused us substantial damage and he could more publicly have retracted them when he realised the potential damage of those comments.

As for Hird and Pestorius, while I have no sympathy for either they both deserve(d) proper representation.

For the record, I don't think Hird would have hired me because I don't think he would be pleased with my initial advice.

As for Pestorius, his defence did a brilliant job and got him a terrific outcome thanks partly to an inept prosecution case and to a very intelligent and well thought out judgement.

I do agree that those comments were best left unsaid but it happened. Jobe Watson fell for a similar trap. Must be very comfy couches. But serious damage to the club was already done before he opened his mouth and the line of questioning was directed to dig further into that. If the tanking issue was never brought to head and resolved, would we have been bailed out by the AFL? There is no way I can imagine that if the tanking issue was buried we could have been in a better position now. End of story was that Schwab and Co were not up to the job and had to be moved on.

[rjay 23,922]

McLean did many good things as a player and by his monetary contribution but he was trapped into making some very stupid comments on air that caused us substantial damage and he could more publicly have retracted them when he realised the potential damage of those comments.

Well, in light of other comments that were made prior to and after Brock's comments from other people about other clubs I thought what he said in no way should have been the catalyst for the witch hunt that followed.

I don't think it was his comments but the reaction to them and the absolute conflict of interest the chairman of the AFL has in his job that caused us substantial damage.

[Sir Why You Little 34,493]

Well, in light of other comments that were made prior to and after Brock's comments from other people about other clubs I thought what he said in no way should have been the catalyst for the witch hunt that followed.

I don't think it was his comments but the reaction to them and the absolute conflict of interest the chairman of the AFL has in his job that caused us substantial damage.

Yep. I don't think Brock said anything bad at all. He was being honest.

I always thought we were going to get done. The Club was to public about it all.

I just didn't like the way Wilson reported it.

[Blistering 492]

I'm hearing a lot of he saids and she saids about people without a shred of substantiation or quotes from the time.

I am aware that it was Bailey who had a screaming match with Chris Johnson after training one year when Johnson told him he was leaving. I always thought it was Bailey's decision about Junior and I've never heard of the CEO addressing a team before a game.

I suppose all these things have become gospel five years down the track.

[nutbean 8,837]

going to need to take lunch before attempting all of that ^^^^^^^^^

I know I should but I just can't...