12 minutes ago, ANG13 said:

I hope this guy does a remarkable job for us but I just don’t like him.

Any particular reason? (I ask as I don’t know anything about him)

I think we just have to give the guy a chance, he has come in to the club at a very crucial time...

The club having to make some hard decisions on fan favourites... the new coach, The fact everyone is fed up and just want our home-based sorted so we are on a even playing field to other clubs.

His selling positivity so we don't have another dip in membership... the club need our support to set up the next 10 years, to be even better than the last 10.

Sign up and show up Dees!

36 minutes ago, Rednblueriseing said:

I think we just have to give the guy a chance, he has come in to the club at a very crucial time...

The club having to make some hard decisions on fan favourites... the new coach, The fact everyone is fed up and just want our home-based sorted so we are on a even playing field to other clubs.

His selling positivity so we don't have another dip in membership... the club need our support to set up the next 10 years, to be even better than the last 10.

Sign up and show up Dees!

100% He needed to come and try to sell reluctant members something. We just lost a premiership coach, a norm smith medallist and a 4x b&f winner ( all to other clubs) . He did appear a bit too upbeat / hard sell to be authentic for mine ….but I can see why.

As for memberships. Unless finances prevent it I’m buying whether I live overseas, interstate or on mars. Not buying memberships doesn’t “ teach someone a lesson” it only makes us weaker.

4 hours ago, bing181 said:

Essendon, Swans and St Kilda CEO's have been discussing list management/the trade period in the last 24 hours.

Essendon, Swans and St Kilda are not glowing endorsements.

2 hours ago, BDA said:

So the CEO of a footy club shouldn't talk about footy

He doesn't have any experience securing home bases so i guess he shouldn't talk about Caulfield either

He wouldn't be involved in actual list decisions other than as part of board ratification. He's a good communicator though. And we have not had good communicators for a while. I think his role here is delivering the message to the membership. which is perfectly fine for the CEO to do imo.

We're basically saying we don't have anyone capable of communicating to members list management decisions from the FD.

And Caulfield is very clearly in his commercial remit, so I wouldn't expect someone from the FD to discuss Caulfield. I would expect Guerra to run that.

In fact, having Guerra discuss list management is like having Tim Lamb announce Caulfield. Totally different remits and areas of expertise.

Edited 15 hours ago15 hr by Adam The God

12 hours ago, 0livers Army said:

No one here actually believes that right? As if Oliver would storm out and get all fired up and say he likes Collingwood more than us if his coach simply asked him to work on multiple roles. This is the guy who reportedly put his own hand up to play a few tagging roles in 2025 and spent a decent amount of time starting on the flanks in the first half of the year.

He was 100% pushed for reasons most of us won’t fully understand despite what the formal comms says. The club can’t exactly come out and say anything about off field stuff.

Yeah I do believe he was asked to play multiple roles and didn't like it. And as if he would storm out? yeah he would, he's one of the least mature players on the list... he chucked the sads because of the meeting. I am not saying that he wasn't told that if he doesn't think he can do it then find another team and they would facilitate a trade. Maybe it was a test to see how committed he was, and he probably failed it by how he reacted and the club decided to part ways.

Was he hurt? probably...

Did he expect the meeting to turn out that way, probably not...

But name me another player in the AFL that would respond like Oliver did after that meeting?

If you're going to try and discredit my post, which was clearly just an opinion, perhaps don't use words like 'reportedly'. Not sounding any more credible!!