BTW, when one contemplates the scenario, that a down on its knees club, on draft night parading its star recruit on stage live on TV across the country and then the head of the competition, the AFL, is complicit, while that players is in the first 11 months of a 2 year contract with his club, in luring him to another club, with the use of competition money.

I find that disgusting, dishonest, treacherous and behaviour that should have led to the resignation of the AFL executive officers from the game.

Yes we ended up well out of the deal, but that is not the point. 

PS. The same AFL, that later singled us out for a tanking inquiry, despite several other clubs doing the same thing and acknowledging it through their people,  ( Eddie and Libba for example ) and then penalizing us on a made up charge, despite beating the tanking.  Shambolic management.

On 18 April 2016 at 5:51 PM, chook fowler said:

Every team needs a cheeky pest. Looks like Kennedy is ours. Mind you I think Petracca might qualify as well.

He will - even worse than Kennedy apparently - more in the Rod Grinter class!

4 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

He will - even worse than Kennedy apparently - more in the Rod Grinter class!

Hopefully he can keep away from the tribunal,which is something Balls struggled with.

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

I find that disgusting, dishonest, treacherous and behaviour that should have led to the resignation of the AFL executive officers from the game.

This is the same AFL that bailed us out of the tax assessment in the bottom draw of the desk fiasco and when finding us guilty of bringing the game into disrepute (or whatever euphemism they used for tanking) then gave us enough money to pay out contracts granted to Connolly and Schwab (and Neeld?) to restructure ourselves and get us back on our feet after the Board led by McLardy and Stynes had taken us to one of the lowest point in our history and put our survival at risk. We are now in the best position we've been in for years, and guess what, we are under AFL management with both a CEO and Board of their choosing.

I'd be hesitant to blame the AFL for shambolic management in our position.  Pot calling kettle black and all that. I don't find playing the victim edifying.

PS: Red, you bought this up, I didn't.  I have my views on why Scully left and you know where I'm coming from. I'm not persuaded by Blisterings views but he has his reasons for his position and that's fine. Scully didn't leave for one reason.  There were factors in play from many quarters.  He may have left regardless but our management of his situation was awful. I cut some slack to a 19 year old in a horrendously difficult position and you and many others don't.  To me that seems to be one of  the main differences.  And regardless of any AFL involvement and responsibility for his leaving we were granted the same compensation for him as Geelong received for Gary Ablett by the AFL. Many would see that as shambolic.

We're not "under AFL management".

2 hours ago, bush demon said:

I like the sentiment, but where does Ronald Dale fit into this scenario? No lap of honour, no valedictory. Just woke up one morning in a Carlton jumper with threee thousand pounds in his pocket.

RDB did have the blessing of the coach and wasn't deceitful at all.

The other guy, as previously stated by folk more eloquent than I, operated differently.

 

1 hour ago, Baghdad Bob said:

This is the same AFL that bailed us out of the tax assessment in the bottom draw of the desk fiasco and when finding us guilty of bringing the game into disrepute (or whatever euphemism they used for tanking) then gave us enough money to pay out contracts granted to Connolly and Schwab (and Neeld?) to restructure ourselves and get us back on our feet after the Board led by McLardy and Stynes had taken us to one of the lowest point in our history and put our survival at risk. We are now in the best position we've been in for years, and guess what, we are under AFL management with both a CEO and Board of their choosing.

I'd be hesitant to blame the AFL for shambolic management in our position.  Pot calling kettle black and all that. I don't find playing the victim edifying.

PS: Red, you bought this up, I didn't.  I have my views on why Scully left and you know where I'm coming from. I'm not persuaded by Blisterings views but he has his reasons for his position and that's fine. Scully didn't leave for one reason.  There were factors in play from many quarters.  He may have left regardless but our management of his situation was awful. I cut some slack to a 19 year old in a horrendously difficult position and you and many others don't.  To me that seems to be one of  the main differences.  And regardless of any AFL involvement and responsibility for his leaving we were granted the same compensation for him as Geelong received for Gary Ablett by the AFL. Many would see that as shambolic.

I get it that you hate the Mclardy Stynes Board, you have made it clear over many posts.

As for the AFL giving us money, for whatever reason, I contend that it is the clubs' money, as it is the game, put on by the clubs, not the AFL, that earns it. They are the managers of the money, earned and owned by the clubs. They also, I note, pay themselves very well, for that task. More to the point, we are not alone in receipt of funds, many clubs receive money, some among the biggest in the competition.Why single us out, when we are given money, on the back of a trumped up finding, on a trumped up investigation, years after the event, years after the AFL CEO had stated on the record many times, that we had done nothing wrong, then essentially sacking people, with assistance to pay out their contracts.

Before you post that we tanked, I know we did, as I have said multiple times before. We did something that was within the rules at the time, which several other clubs admitted to, by their staff, yet we were singled out, by who the AFL, shambolic. Anyway enough about that topic.

You surely agree that we are generally given a poor fixture, that hurts us financially. How can the managers of the competition, therefore not give some compensation to those disadvantaged by a rigged fixture, that advantages some and hurts others? Certainly not equal treatment of clubs, effecting their ability to perform and even stay in business.

I thought you were one of the proponents,that blamed the AFL in the Bombers saga, among other issues. Is the AFL not a shambolic manager then, when we see all of the fiascos they create?

If you cannot accept that TS left for money and cling to some view that other altrusitic issues played a part, I don't think there is anything to gain by continuing that discussion. IMO he left for money, dollars, riches and yes security. Yes I have often said I don't blame him for taking the money, but we will have to disagree on that, as you see him as a nicer bloke than I do. He has not demonstrated one thing to me in his AFL career, that suggests he is a nice bloke, unlike so many other AFL players that I have met and heard about.

Lastly, we are not under AFL management. Are you suggesting all of our operating decisions are only reached with AFL approval?

PS. You haven't responded to my post that your suggestion that "I would blame TS for Jimmy's death" was in poor taste. Do you agree it was in poor taste?

PPS. I much prefer the non political discussion, but there are times when it raises its head, as it has here.

Gentlemen, gentlemen ... this issue is never going to be resolved to the satisfaction of all because each of us looks at it from their own perspective.

I like Redleg's idea of catching up one day soon to discuss the progress of our team going forward. If you like, I can add to Blistering's story and explain why it is so compelling as proof that a deal was struck very early in the piece which left the club in a blind alley over Scully with no possible way of convincing him to stay and nothing that the club did with the kid was mismanagement.

There were certainly mistakes made by the club in that era as there have been since time immemorial with many football club administrations and we can finger point in every direction but the club was well and truly ratted on by the Scully camp, GWS and the AFL over this one. 

Incidentally, I'm loving what's going on at the moment at Collingwood, Essendon  and to a lesser extent at Richmond. May they all keep losing and may at least two of them do so this weekend because the unsuccessful clubs are where the backstabbing always usually occurs. 

Don't care about the past anymore. No more grudges on my part.  Just salivating at the prospect of many regular wins, a decent 2017 draw, finals and premierships to come. And also the prospect of Collingwood, Richmond, Essendon and Carlton becoming known as the Tetralogy Of Failure.

43 minutes ago, america de cali said:

Don't care about the past anymore. No more grudges on my part.  Just salivating at the prospect of many regular wins, a decent 2017 draw, finals and premierships to come. And also the prospect of Collingwood, Richmond, Essendon and Carlton becoming known as the Tetralogy Of Failure.

Why not add Hawthorn and Geelong of 2017 to that and call it the Sextralogy of Failure?

54 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I get it that you hate the Mclardy Stynes Board, you have made it clear over many posts.

As for the AFL giving us money, for whatever reason, I contend that it is the clubs' money, as it is the game, put on by the clubs, not the AFL, that earns it. They are the managers of the money, earned and owned by the clubs. They also, I note, pay themselves very well, for that task. More to the point, we are not alone in receipt of funds, many clubs receive money, some among the biggest in the competition.Why single us out, when we are given money, on the back of a trumped up finding, on a trumped up investigation, years after the event, years after the AFL CEO had stated on the record many times, that we had done nothing wrong, then essentially sacking people, with assistance to pay out their contracts.

Before you post that we tanked, I know we did, as I have said multiple times before. We did something that was within the rules at the time, which several other clubs admitted to, by their staff, yet we were singled out, by who the AFL, shambolic. Anyway enough about that topic.

You surely agree that we are generally given a poor fixture, that hurts us financially. How can the managers of the competition, therefore not give some compensation to those disadvantaged by a rigged fixture, that advantages some and hurts others? Certainly not equal treatment of clubs, effecting their ability to perform and even stay in business.

I thought you were one of the proponents,that blamed the AFL in the Bombers saga, among other issues. Is the AFL not a shambolic manager then, when we see all of the fiascos they create?

If you cannot accept that TS left for money and cling to some view that other altrusitic issues played a part, I don't think there is anything to gain by continuing that discussion. IMO he left for money, dollars, riches and yes security. Yes I have often said I don't blame him for taking the money, but we will have to disagree on that, as you see him as a nicer bloke than I do. He has not demonstrated one thing to me in his AFL career, that suggests he is a nice bloke, unlike so many other AFL players that I have met and heard about.

Lastly, we are not under AFL management. Are you suggesting all of our operating decisions are only reached with AFL approval?

PS. You haven't responded to my post that your suggestion that "I would blame TS for Jimmy's death" was in poor taste. Do you agree it was in poor taste?

PPS. I much prefer the non political discussion, but there are times when it raises its head, as it has here.

1.  I hate the fact that the Stynes McLardy Board made decisions that hurt the club so badly.  I don't hate any of the individuals.

2.  There are lots of inequities in the AFL but as a rule the well managed AFL clubs do well and the poorly managed ones do badly.  We've been poorly managed.

3.  IMO we are under AFL management in the sense that our Board did not appoint Peter Jackson and we have not appointed our Board. The AFL appointed Jackson and then the Board was changed with no input from members.  We are under the management of people appointed by the AFL.  BTW, I'm happy with this as I don't believe the members know what's best for the club in terms of voting Board Members onto the Board.

4.  I read very little of this site and didn't see that you thought my comment on Jimmy's death was in poor taste.  I apologize if it caused offence.

Red I respond to you because you're a respected and influential poster.  I disagree strongly on some of the stances you take and I particularly dislike the view of history that we copped an unfair deal from the AFL.  Of course I realize that it's much easier and more comforting to blame someone else for our decade of failure but my view of history is that it was mainly of our own making. We have dined at the banquet of our consequences.  

I respect your position but we differ at times.  I post for balance and no longer raise these issues myself.  I do think it's important that both views get expressed so people can make up their own minds.

TIme to lock this thread so we can forget this hack ever played for us. 

41 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

 

  We've been poorly managed.

  BTW, I'm happy with this as I don't believe the members know what's best for the club in terms of voting Board Members onto the Board.

I respect your position but we differ at times.  I post for balance and no longer raise these issues myself.  I do think it's important that both views get expressed so people can make up their own minds.

Agree we have been poorly managed in the past.

Agree, as with most elections, voters don't know who will do the best job and are seduced by presentation rather than substance.

Agree, that people should hear both sides of an issue, or multiple views, before deciding their stance.

Go Dees.

43 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

TIme to lock this thread so we can forget this hack ever played for us. 

An ordinary footballer and a mercinary but I'll never forget his marking.

On 4/18/2016 at 9:44 AM, jnrmac said:

Jeremy has done us a favour. We should thank him.

In fact we should thank $cully, Clark and $ylvia as well. They have all done us favours.

We should thank our FD. Sylvia, Frawley and Howe were all seen to be superfluous to requirements and frankly too flawed to keep. We could also cover their loss and have shown that. I don't thank any of those players though. I thank the club for having the wherewithal to make the decision and ensure we were well compensated for average players. Paul Roos to a tee.

Edited April 23, 20169 yr by AdamFarr

17 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

An ordinary footballer and a mercinary but I'll never forget his marking.

Yep, credit where it's due. He was a great talking point and attraction for fans when there wasn't much else to see. Haven't seen anyone else mark like Howe for a long, long time. Just can't do anything else.

2 hours ago, america de cali said:

Don't care about the past anymore. No more grudges on my part.  Just salivating at the prospect of many regular wins, a decent 2017 draw, finals and premierships to come. And also the prospect of Collingwood, Richmond, Essendon and Carlton becoming known as the Tetralogy Of Failure.

We've seen how things have swung towards Hawthorn in terms of membership (particularly young supporters) over the past decade. Wouldn't it be fantastic if we could build an era of success where we could start to nab fans with parents of Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond, Carlton origins? If these four clubs continue to spiral into insignificance and we begin to rise, there will be lots of potential supporters we can tap into.

And how's this for a bit of digression on a thread about Jeremy Howe. The bloke bores me.

Edited April 23, 20169 yr by AdamFarr

On 23 April 2016 at 1:24 PM, Melbman2 said:

RDB did have the blessing of the coach and wasn't deceitful at all.

The other guy, as previously stated by folk more eloquent than I, operated differently.

 

The blessing? Since when is any coach entitled to secretly encourage an all-time club champion to leave the club. Smith must surely have known what this would/could do to the club. If Smith had such knowledge then the MFC and club supporters also had a right to know. Given  the coach's bitterness towards the board over the Russell Blew matter he did not act in the club's best interests.  

How's collingwood going Howey?? 

7 hours ago, JimmyNP said:

How's collingwood going Howey?? 

I actually feel for the bloke, in the tiniest way though. He "traded his shares" just before the boom and reinvested in a dog!

Howe just wouldn't fit in with this current team. He is not a competitor. It was obvious we weren't too worried about him leaving, and I think you can see why when you look at the make up of the current side.

I still think it was Howe's management that gave him a bum steer, spending most of last year manoevring for a better contract price than what he was worth. I think in the end he's on about what we offered and now finds himself at a club in turmoil. 

And we have Ben Kennedy.

He liked what he saw at filth land apparent -  Collingwood are a team on the riserise.  Lol what a plum! 

9 hours ago, bush demon said:

The blessing? Since when is any coach entitled to secretly encourage an all-time club champion to leave the club. Smith must surely have known what this would/could do to the club. If Smith had such knowledge then the MFC and club supporters also had a right to know. Given  the coach's bitterness towards the board over the Russell Blew matter he did not act in the club's best interests.  

Smith was more than Barassis coach he was his de facto father and therefore had every right to advise him as what he saw as the best course for him. Also look up the world of sport clip when he was sacked I'm Melbourne through and through 

The board are only part of the club and if they are dysfunctional ,as we well know, bad things happen

Edited April 25, 20169 yr by deesrule

If howe was still with us then he would be playing for Casey until he could pull himself together which given the current competition for spots could be a long time away, which would have devalued him ever more.  He is lucky he is playing for a lesser skilled team at the moment so he can get a game of AFL football. I dont blame him for leaving, I am more proud that our club told him what they thought he was worth and did not bend to him and said if you can do better elsewhere go... While we may not have gotten the player we wanted in return, somehow I think we got the player we needed instead.  So I thank you Jeremy for giving us the opportunity to replace you with what i would say at this point in time is a better player than you. I will miss your great marks, but then I doubt I will miss the occasional turnovers that sometime happened once you landed.