Hazyshadeofgrinter

No worries. I just think that it is stupid when people give me a hard time for making long, considered posts. Usually this is exacerbated by the fact that the people complaining are nit-wits who add very little of substance to the conversation. That clearly does not apply to you. P.S. I might actually "Atlas shrug" for a while - that is, if I can contain myself. Over to you Heracles.

...for which Jim should be blamed. P.S. Don't forget the facts along with your opinions.

Wouldn't change the facts though, would it?

I take back my apology.

Well my prediction was really about why you little but still, your reply does make me seem pretty prescient. It is also absolute rubbish and will be recognised as such by anyone who possess the faintest amount of knowledge about the issue and the club.

Whatever mate. We have been discussing that side issue for 6 pages now. Feel free to start a new thread if this topic does not interest you.

I have said that I regret that one slip I made, which I did mostly because I thought it sounded funny. I also conceded that, by my standards, this would make it a "draw" - i.e. you were trying to change the subject, I took a cheap shot at your "record with women". To say that I have failed to respond to your "points" is ridiculous but whatever helps you sleep at night Roost It. Clearly I am not here to win a popularity contest, so I'll leave it to the more impressive minds lurking around demonland to decide for themselves who has won our argument. Maybe I am Michael Coglin after all?

Even if I was Coglin himself it wouldn't change the fact that Jim said that when he took over the club, it was nuturing an environment that was ingorant of and excluded women. Bu you just can't face up to this. If and when you do, you will not be able to face up th the fact that it is a lie.

The issue:

That is now a win confirmed on two fronts. Subject Change and Personal Abuse.

We couldn't have done it without your valuable contribution on page 3, mate.

No, I knew what you were trying to do - you were tying to change the subject. I just didn't want to let you get away with it.

You have no reason to think that Mick was yelling at Jim. Several posters who know Michael personally have come on to say how preposterous Jim's claim of "abuse" is. The very fact that you think that the onus is on Michael to seek a second meeting shows just how imbalance you are. Michael's one meeting is one more than Jim sought and Jim, despite clearly being the one in the wrong, gave him absolutley nothing. And I noticed that part about the HUN trying to paint Michael in an unflattering light also. However, it seems that, even with Jimmy's help, the facts just keep getting in the way. Oh well.

To late Winston. Succinct reply was already made. If you find my posts tiresome then feel free to skip them. I know that there is no chance for you anyway. If you can convince yourself that Mick was part of an ongoing problem of exclusion and ignorance of women in the club, then 2 + 2 = 5 shouldn't be too much of a stretch for you.

Silence, minion.

edited for accuracy

Don't worry Hannabal's posts are completely irrelevant because he has admitted to having a personal involvement with a former board member - Coglin. He is a "lackey" a "crony" a "minion." He might even be a former board member himself! If I were you I wouldn't bother addressing the substance of his posts, just continue to point this out over and over again. Clearly he has an agenda and everything he says, no matter how factual, is thus invalid. Such facts might include the level of female representation on the previous board, the pink lady initiative and women in football functions.

doubleplusungood post

Hey, If you're happy to shoulder the burden of specifically replying to posters like HT and repeatedly asking the relevant questions as they are called for, then that suits me fine. Having a little dig at me will proabably make your job easier too, so knock yourself out. Personally, I don't think a long post is anything to be ashamed of and I was getting a little tired of holding so many conversations at once. I'm sure you'll feel the same if this thread goes on for another 5 pages.

Well, I think I can stop responding to everyone individually now - I just don’t think that there is anywhere left for the Coglin-haters to wriggle. I agree with Nasher that is has at least been a very entertaining ride. At times, I was a little reminded of the . Thankfully, we have heard from someone else who was at the speech and who has corroborated my report (no surprises there). We have also heard from several posters who have met or who know Michael Coglin personally, and they have all been at pains to point out what a reasonable man his is and how passionate he is about the club. It seems most posters are now amenable to the facts that, Jim was wrong to say what he did about the club’s culture, what he said was untrue, Coglin was right to try and sort it out and the record needed to be set straight publicly. The sticking point seems to be whether or not Coglin should have gone to the media. I have been repeatedly asked why Coglin would take it to the media. My consistent reply has been that Coglin, after getting no response from Jim, took it to the media because it was the best/only way for him to rectify the public mistruths that Jim spread about the club’s supposed “exclusivity” and “ignorance” of women. That is, Coglin was defending the reputation of his football club. For some reason, some people don’t seem to think that this answers the question but I cannot think how this reply could be any more direct, relevant and cogent. My theory is that people are so enchanted with the Stynes story and loved him so much as a player (as did I) that they simply can’t process this information as it reflects poorly on Stynes’ behaviour in this instance. Perhaps it is some kind of psychogenic amnesia resulting from the trauma of having to admit that one's most cherished idol is but a mortal man (I don't know if anyone watched 4 corners last night, but that would be a pretty extreme example). In any case, given that my direct answers do not seem to be helping, I thought perhaps that some of you might benefit from asking yourselves some questions. 1. Jim himself has said that “He is a smart man, Michael (Coglin).” Coglin must have known that by going to the papers, he would provoke the scorn of thousands of our dimmer supporters, some of whom would go on to call him a “turd” who “needs his head kicked in”. So, if Coglin was only worried about his own reputation and not the club’s, why would he have done it? And why do so many people feel the need to assassinate Coglin’s character anyway? 2. Why did Jim publicly compare our players to the Cronulla boys? Even if it is fair, how can it possibly benefit the club to have Jim make this comparison in the Olympic Room? Is it worth insulting our players like this merely so that Jim can be “seen to be proactive” about the issue? Is Jimmy being “seen to be proactive” actually of any benefit to the club anyway? Does this benefit outweigh the costs associated with publicly disparaging our players like this? 3. Why would Jim publicly lie (either deliberately or out or ignorance) about our club’s enviable record on women and women’s issues? Why are so many posters here simply unable to entertain that this was the case? If Jim was most concerned about the club being “seen to be proactive” why wouldn’t he highlight the ways in which it has been proactive over the last few years? 4. At the start of his speech, which largely focused upon gender issues, why was “Miss Universe” the only guest (out of several whom Jim introduced) who was asked to stand up from her seat? 5. Why would Jim refuse to speak to Coglin at 3/4 time? If he was worried about escalation/discussing it in the stands, why didn’t he just say so? E.g. “Look Michael, here’s my card, why don’t you give me a call after the game and we can discuss it then?” 6. Why does everyone blame Coglin for making this issue public when it was Jim who publicly stuffed up in front of 300 people? What would you have done in Coglin’s shoes if you wanted to publicly set the record straight about the club’s history, but Jim refused to talk to you? 7. If Jim was worried about a story on “in-fighting” being run in the newspaper, he still could have done something about it even after refusing to speak to Coglin. Why didn’t Stynes just defuse the situation by telling the reporter that, actually, he did stuff up and Coglin was right about the club’s admirable track record on women? This could have been another story about how Jim’s “inclusiveness” is good for the club. “I’m so glad that Michael came to put me straight about the club’s record on women. It would be a great shame if people forgot all the good work that he and the club have done over the last few years.” Coglin, the club and even Jim himself all could have come out smelling of roses – so if Jim’s first priority was the good of the club, why didn’t he just admit that he was wrong? Or is it that he couldn’t? Cheers P.S. Apologies to the less literate demonlanders who prefer to neither read or write too much, nor understand an issue too deeply.

This assumption has not been made. Although I have proposed that possibility. One can only wonder what Coglin was assuming at the time. Either way, Jim should have known better by the end of 3/4 time. Jim stated that, when he arrived at the club, there was a culture of ignorance and exclusion towards women. You don't think that this reflects on our past as a club? What does it reflect on? WHy did he say it? And also - what would you have done in Coglin's shoes?

I think that it has already been held. It doesn't sound like it went very well.