THE SAGA CONTINUES - WADA APPEALS

[daisycutter 29,892]

i hope stuie will resist from talking about the future from now on

i.e. things that haven't happened yet, things that aren't fact

like how many wins this year, when will we win a flag, who will be best 22, who will be leading goalkicker etc etc

it will be great. no arguments, just talk of things that are, things like facts, no futures because that's not fact yet 

bring it on...............saty might even come back

[Chris 2,892]

27 minutes ago, stuie said:

Seeing you seem to have trouble seeing past your delusional state of panic, then I'll explain my stance.

Nothing has happened yet. The people running our club have been doing a sensational job, so it's ridiculous to start slagging them off because of something you THINK MIGHT happen but in reality has not even come close yet. Goodwin has not even been mentioned outside of Demonland, let alone charged with anything, yet somehow hiring him is now a huge mistake according to the panic merchants here.

Reality is dealing with what IS happening, not what MIGHT happen.

The point you fail to appreciate Stuie is highlighted here perfectly. People are going a bit overboard with the whole Goodwin thing, he hasn't been charged yet but there is every possibility he will, just as there is every possibility he wont be, it really is irrelevant to the issues raised as well.

The complaint is essentially that the people who made the decision on Goodwin have taken a risk (Melksham is irrelevant completely as he is only one player), that may be a big risk or a small risk, but the risk is there.

The reality is not that you deal with what is happening (i.e face it when he is charged as some kind of big surprise EFC style), reality is that to make effective decisions you need to deal with what might happen (plan contingencies if the risk is small, not employ the bloke if the risk is large. I know this is a foreign concept to many in AFL land but it is the right way to do things).

My take on the matter is that employing Goodwin is a risk and the consequences of that could be enormous for the club. I hope that they have contingencies in place for the just in case scenario (McCartney takes over for instance) and trust they do given their good record to date. 

As with anything the decision on Goodwin is a risk and reward scenario, maybe they all thought the possible reward of him coaching outweighed the possible risk of him not. 

In summary Stuie, you are right in a way, what you call panic is a little over the top, but the questions are justified. Your constant call for facts is also laughable and reminds me of the EFC fanboys on other forums. These forums are full of opinion, which by its very definition is not a fact. Opinions are based on a factors such as life experience and relevant facts known, which are few. To ignore the few facts that are known would be pretty stupid in any situation.

*********Warning before I get a reply, this post is not intended to provide any facts, it is opinion only***********************************************

[stuie 7,374]

22 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Im not panicked at all Stuie...   you're being inventive. Your'e taking the straw path of adding  to an argument as though to give it weight.

Im not panicked because I dont give a flying f whether Milkshake ever dons our jumper in battle..Hes irrelevant to our future in the grand schemes of things. Why would one panic about nothing.

Im not panicked by whether Goodwin coaches or not..i really don't care. He does/he does'nt..whatever.

My point all along...one you plainly are incapable of understanding was its not clever to pick your fruit from the rotten barrel.. You might get a a good one..or you might get a Goodwin !! We ONLY took Milkshake because of Goodwin.

Melbourne will exist quite happily without either or both Milkshake or Goody..  It will have been a great waste of time efforts and resources should things work out for the worse.

But please continue your  'Nothing has happened yet " rhetoric...it's amusing

You do understand the connotations of "YET "

 

By the way what IS happening is CAS are deciding the future of the 34.;... thats HAPPENING mate...that a reality..that's a FACT !!

The next fact to follow will be the decision, and associated penalty.

 

So please again, as you wont answer this will you..what will YOU do then ??

Why would I do anything? I'm not the one having a panic attack and throwing hissy fits at anyone who doesn't buy into your hysteria.

If you care so little about Goodwin and Melksham getting banned, why keep going on about it?

[ManDee 7,319]

43 minutes ago, stuie said:

Seeing you seem to have trouble seeing past your delusional state of panic, then I'll explain my stance.

Nothing has happened yet. The people running our club have been doing a sensational job, so it's ridiculous to start slagging them off because of something you THINK MIGHT happen but in reality has not even come close yet. Goodwin has not even been mentioned outside of Demonland, let alone charged with anything, yet somehow hiring him is now a huge mistake according to the panic merchants here.

Reality is dealing with what IS happening, not what MIGHT happen.

So, how often to you get hit whilst crossing the road? Or do you consider what might happen?

[stuie 7,374]

1 minute ago, Chris said:

The point you fail to appreciate Stuie is highlighted here perfectly. People are going a bit overboard with the whole Goodwin thing, he hasn't been charged yet but there is every possibility he will, just as there is every possibility he wont be, it really is irrelevant to the issues raised as well.

The complaint is essentially that the people who made the decision on Goodwin have taken a risk (Melksham is irrelevant completely as he is only one player), that may be a big risk or a small risk, but the risk is there.

The reality is not that you deal with what is happening (i.e face it when he is charged as some kind of big surprise EFC style), reality is that to make effective decisions you need to deal with what might happen (plan contingencies if the risk is small, not employ the bloke if the risk is large. I know this is a foreign concept to many in AFL land but it is the right way to do things).

My take on the matter is that employing Goodwin is a risk and the consequences of that could be enormous for the club. I hope that they have contingencies in place for the just in case scenario (McCartney takes over for instance) and trust they do given their good record to date. 

As with anything the decision on Goodwin is a risk and reward scenario, maybe they all thought the possible reward of him coaching outweighed the possible risk of him not. 

In summary Stuie, you are right in a way, what you call panic is a little over the top, but the questions are justified. Your constant call for facts is also laughable and reminds me of the EFC fanboys on other forums. These forums are full of opinion, which by its very definition is not a fact. Opinions are based on a factors such as life experience and relevant facts known, which are few. To ignore the few facts that are known would be pretty stupid in any situation.

*********Warning before I get a reply, this post is not intended to provide any facts, it is opinion only***********************************************

Good post mate, even if I don't necessarily agree. Well reasoned and thought out.

I guess where I'm coming from is we don't truly know if it even is a risk. Jackson, Mahoney and Roos are pretty savvy operators, and I have complete trust in their abilities to make decisions that will better the club and not put it in danger. Their combined track record is impeccable as far as what they've done for our club so far, so I'm not going to start slagging them off like some others have based on my own fears and panic.

I'm calling for facts re:Goodwin. Clearly there's some factual information out there about the 34, Hird etc, but I am yet to hear Goodwin even mentioned, which is why I want to know why the sudden hysteria?

[beelzebub 23,390]

21 minutes ago, H_T said:

Really. Pulling you up here BB.

Last time I checked Roos and McCartney were mentioned along with Goodwin in the decision on Melksham. Particularly McCartney. These statements of yours aren't in line with the MFC consensus. 

Do you really think we would have taken Milkshake had not Goodwin been on board ? 

Yes it was a club decision... and thats the club-line.

I dont for one minute  believe  Milkshake would have been on our radar if Goody hadn't  been on board and about to take the helm.

I dont believe  everything  at face value H_T.

Its called footy speak...and Roos has his own dialect.

[stuie 7,374]

2 minutes ago, ManDee said:

So, how often to you get hit whilst crossing the road? Or do you consider what might happen?

I don't start slagging off drivers with perfect records who have done nothing wrong because they might hit me though...

[H_T 3,049]

Just now, beelzebub said:

Do you really think we would have taken Milkshake had not Goodwin been on board ? 

Yes it was a club decision... and thats the club-line.

I dont for one minute  believe  Milkshake would have been on our radar if Goody hadn't  been on board and about to take the helm.

I dont believe  everything  at face value H_T.

Its called footy speak...and Roos has his own dialect.

Just pulling you up on the use of "ONLY" - twice. Clearly with this post^ you acknowledge that.

I believe it was a collective FD decision with as much input from McCartney as from Goodwin. McCartney also has a good relationship with Melksham.

[beelzebub 23,390]

1 minute ago, H_T said:

Just pulling you up on the use of "ONLY" - twice. Clearly with this post^ you acknowledge that.

I believe it was a collective FD decision with as much input from McCartney as from Goodwin. McCartney also has a good relationship with Melksham.

I would suggest Milkshake was put up for consideration by Goodwin...and the others also deliberated upon it. Ie No Goodwin...he (m) wouldn't  be with us.

[Chris 2,892]

2 minutes ago, stuie said:

Good post mate, even if I don't necessarily agree. Well reasoned and thought out.

I guess where I'm coming from is we don't truly know if it even is a risk. Jackson, Mahoney and Roos are pretty savvy operators, and I have complete trust in their abilities to make decisions that will better the club and not put it in danger. Their combined track record is impeccable as far as what they've done for our club so far, so I'm not going to start slagging them off like some others have based on my own fears and panic.

I'm calling for facts re:Goodwin. Clearly there's some factual information out there about the 34, Hird etc, but I am yet to hear Goodwin even mentioned, which is why I want to know why the sudden hysteria?

My concern comes from having absolutely no faith in anyone in AFL land having any real knowledge, respect, or appreciation for the WADA code and what they can and will do if they feel it is warranted. This lack of faith extends to every person in every club, they are slowly learning but there is a massive cultural issue within the league around WADA and drugs in sport. 

That concerns goes all the way to the Goodwin appointment, did this lack of appreciation of the circumstance cloud the judgement of risk, have they even realised it yet. Lets hope it doesn't get to that.

On the mentions of Goodwin, he has been mentioned in the past for his dealing with Dank and for taking things that were banned for players but not coaches. WADA will keep everything close to their chest, hence no leaks since the AFL and EFC were removed from the play. There may be nothing in it, there maybe heaps in it, we don't know. I would be surprised if WADA/ASADA didn't go after more than just Dank.

[stuie 7,374]

3 minutes ago, Chris said:

My concern comes from having absolutely no faith in anyone in AFL land having any real knowledge, respect, or appreciation for the WADA code and what they can and will do if they feel it is warranted. This lack of faith extends to every person in every club, they are slowly learning but there is a massive cultural issue within the league around WADA and drugs in sport. 

That concerns goes all the way to the Goodwin appointment, did this lack of appreciation of the circumstance cloud the judgement of risk, have they even realised it yet. Lets hope it doesn't get to that.

On the mentions of Goodwin, he has been mentioned in the past for his dealing with Dank and for taking things that were banned for players but not coaches. WADA will keep everything close to their chest, hence no leaks since the AFL and EFC were removed from the play. There may be nothing in it, there maybe heaps in it, we don't know. I would be surprised if WADA/ASADA didn't go after more than just Dank.

All fair enough, appreciate your reasoned input. I see it differently, but it's a pleasant change to read some posts on the issue which contain clear thought. Cheers!

[stuie 7,374]

1 minute ago, ManDee said:

So, how often to you get hit whilst crossing the road? Or do you consider what might happen?

 

 

quote not working cannot reply????

Are you asking me ManDee? I replied to your post Here

[ManDee 7,319]

39 minutes ago, stuie said:

I don't start slagging off drivers with perfect records who have done nothing wrong because they might hit me though...

 

So to answer my question, do consider what might happen or not?

[ManDee 7,319]

5 minutes ago, stuie said:

Are you asking me ManDee? I replied to your post Here

Sorry, the site froze on me and I could not get out until I re posted. I then deleted. Sorry for the confusion.

Edited December 7, 2015 by ManDee

[stuie 7,374]

4 minutes ago, ManDee said:

 

So to answer my question, do consider what might happen or not?

Of course, but I don't panic about it before it actually happens. I've got no problems with people discussing things that could happen, my problem is with the people who have been slagging off those running the club when nothing has actually happened yet.

[ManDee 7,319]

3 minutes ago, stuie said:

Of course, but I don't panic about it before it actually happens. I've got no problems with people discussing things that could happen, my problem is with the people who have been slagging off those running the club when nothing has actually happened yet.

I think management must to a SWOT analysis with most decisions. (Strengths, weaknesses, opportunity and threats.) You will note that opportunity and threats are based on contemplating what might happen. A range of possible outcomes would be considered based on all sorts of variables. As supporters we hope that has been done especially with regard to Goodwin and Melksham.

What we are taking about here,  without all the information are possible outcomes, this is a forum for that sort of discussion. We can hypothesize as much as we like and I personally enjoy the various viewpoints. (even yours) I disagree with many of your conclusions and arguments but that is why we are here. 

[stuie 7,374]

1 minute ago, ManDee said:

I think management must to a SWOT analysis with most decisions. (Strengths, weaknesses, opportunity and threats.) You will note that opportunity and threats are based on contemplating what might happen. A range of possible outcomes would be considered based on all sorts of variables. As supporters we hope that has been done especially with regard to Goodwin and Melksham.

What we are taking about here,  without all the information are possible outcomes, this is a forum for that sort of discussion. We can hypothesize as much as we like and I personally enjoy the various viewpoints. (even yours) I disagree with many of your conclusions and arguments but that is why we are here. 

Again, I have no problems with the posts that discuss possible outcomes. What I DO have a problem with is the few posters who are slagging off the people running our club based on what they think MIGHT happen, not what has actually happened so far.

[ManDee 7,319]

1 minute ago, stuie said:

Again, I have no problems with the posts that discuss possible outcomes. What I DO have a problem with is the few posters who are slagging off the people running our club based on what they think MIGHT happen, not what has actually happened so far.

So is it OK to pillory EFC players and coaches when they have not been found guilty yet?

 

I think that this is the perfect place to have an opinion about things such as the appalling behavior of the EFC. Sure we jump to conclusions but I hazard a guess that we are right more often than not.

[binman 44,530]

My take (ie my opinion, not based on any fact):

• Goodwin is very unlikely to face any sanction so the risk in appointing him very low.  
• Why? Even if they do go after EFC staff surely it will only be those in an authorizing roles (board, Hird, CEO, FD manager etc) as proving guilt of any one else would be nearly impossible (eg 'i was told this is what we were doing and as an assistant coach i was contractually obliged to do as directed and in any case i was repeatedly assured by my superiors that all was above board' - an argument players can't run but an assistant coach could)
• Also i reckon that both WADA and ASADA will figure this case has absorbed more than enough time and resources and will happily let it end with the players sanction
• Taking Melksham was also low risk. Why? Well firstly there is a chance he won't be found guilty. If he is found guilty there is a chance he will miss only a handful of games. If the sanction is longer it is unlikely to be more than 12 months in which case worst case scenario he is right to go XMAS time 2016 and ready to go round 1 2017. Big deal. We have in Michie a player who can come straight of the rookie list into the team and a 24 year old with 100 games under his belt and no major injury problems ready to go the following year
• Also the AFL might allow us to rookie another player and as someone else said this might result in another rookie gem
• To say hiring Melksham and Goodwin is a high risk strategy that reflects poor decision making at the top is complete bollocks - in my humble opinion. 

[Chris 2,892]

4 minutes ago, stuie said:

Again, I have no problems with the posts that discuss possible outcomes. What I DO have a problem with is the few posters who are slagging off the people running our club based on what they think MIGHT happen, not what has actually happened so far.

Much of the slagging as you call it is about what has happened, it is about Goodwin being employed, that has happened. It is about the thought that employing Goodwin is too large of a risk, you don't need a risk to eventuate for it to be a risk. 

[beelzebub 23,390]

8 minutes ago, binman said:

My take (ie my opinion, not based on any fact):

• Goodwin is very unlikely to face any sanction so the risk in appointing him very low.  
• Why? Even if they do go after EFC staff surely it will only be those in an authorizing roles (board, Hird, CEO, FD manager etc) as proving guilt of any one else would be nearly impossible (eg 'i was told this is what we were doing and as an assistant coach i was contractually obliged to do as directed and in any case i was repeatedly assured by my superiors that all was above board' - an argument players can't run but an assistant coach could)
• Also i reckon that both WADA and ASADA will figure this case has absorbed more than enough time and resources and will happily let it end with the players sanction
• Taking Melksham was also low risk. Why? Well firstly there is a chance he won't be found guilty. If he is found guilty there is a chance he will miss only a handful of games. If the sanction is longer it is unlikely to be more than 12 months in which case worst case scenario he is right to go XMAS time 2016 and ready to go round 1 2017. Big deal. We have in Michie a player who can come straight of the rookie list into the team and a 24 year old with 100 games under his belt and no major injury problems ready to go the following year
• Also the AFL might allow us to rookie another player and as someone else said this might result in another rookie gem
• To say hiring Melksham and Goodwin is a high risk strategy that reflects poor decision making at the top is complete bollocks - in my humble opinion. 

I cant agree with this. Taking Melksham is actually a high risk.. Why.  He was drafted not when he only faced the AFL tribunal. He was drafted when on a list before CAS  as part of the appeal by WADA.  Whilst there is a possibility he may not be found guilty, as that iIS a legitimate outcome , in all probability he will. They all will. Otherwise WADA wont have gone the distance.. If/when found guilty the idea  of but a handful of games as penalty is fanboy speak. There's NO precedent for a light smack given the offence and shenanigans leading up to it..

There , to me are two separate aspects which in the main have been lobbed together incorrectly.  There is the risk  of his selection coming to little. That comes about should he be rubbed out. Gain from Melksham, zero   Then there's the caliber of contribution  he may or may not present by playing.  He might be ok, he might be a relative dud. This only becomes apparent should he be cleared.  The risk is about him playing. The probability is not good for him.

[stuie 7,374]

10 minutes ago, ManDee said:

So is it OK to pillory EFC players and coaches when they have not been found guilty yet?

 

I think that this is the perfect place to have an opinion about things such as the appalling behavior of the EFC. Sure we jump to conclusions but I hazard a guess that we are right more often than not.

TBH couldn't care less about what anyone wants to say about EFC, that's not my club. I'm just sick of the usual whingers jumping at their first chance to have a crack at the admin of our club when the only facts about them so far is that they've turned MFC from a basket case into a financially successful club and more stable onfield performing team.

[stuie 7,374]

16 minutes ago, Chris said:

Much of the slagging as you call it is about what has happened, it is about Goodwin being employed, that has happened. It is about the thought that employing Goodwin is too large of a risk, you don't need a risk to eventuate for it to be a risk. 

So we're now calling the people who have turned around our club incompetent based on a wild guess that Goodwin (who has not been charged with anything or even included in rumours of being so) may possibly one day be banned if everything happens to go really badly.... Right. See, that's why I'm calling it hysteria and panic.

[stuie 7,374]

21 minutes ago, binman said:

To say hiring Melksham and Goodwin is a high risk strategy that reflects poor decision making at the top is complete bollocks - in my humble opinion. 
 

But binman, what would Jackson, Roos & Mahoney know, compared to the likes of "beelzebub" and "Sir WYL".......?

[ManDee 7,319]

6 minutes ago, stuie said:

TBH couldn't care less about what anyone wants to say about EFC, that's not my club. I'm just sick of the usual whingers jumping at their first chance to have a crack at the admin of our club when the only facts about them so far is that they've turned MFC from a basket case into a financially successful club and more stable onfield performing team.

 

And here you are making post after post on a thread dedicated to talking about the  EFC and WADA