Hazyshadeofgrinter

Well that line technically was something said by the person, but I agree with you that people shouldn't make too much of it. What about questions 2 and 3? One word answers are fine.

Mate, if anyone here is abstruse it is you - courtesy of your inappropriate allegories and thesaurus infatuation. Obtuse would seem to fit the bill nicely also. I'm glad that you agree with me and kingswood that it is ridiculous to blame Garnder's administration for the input, or lack thereof, of our ex-players over the last 12 or so years.

Seems to be a bit of a dsicrepency here mate. Let's go back to basics - how should one glean information about someone's commitment/love for the club (passions, beleifs, compulsions etc.) without knowing these people personally? Do you think that you have gleaned enough of this kind of information to comment? Do you think other people on this site can glean enough of this information, without knowing these people personally, such that they are entitled to comment also?

Are you saying that you can only judge people "on their passions, on their beliefs, on their compulsions, on who they constantly stand up for, on who they constantly defend, on who they lay blame, on who they think is blameless" if you know them personally?

I understand the way allegory works, I just wasn't sure what how it applied. It seems to me like you are suggesting that rusty kingswood was "trolling" me by criticising the Gardner administration. However, as kingswood has subsequently admitted, blaming only the Gardner administration in this case does not make any sense. (Actually, blaming all the administrations doesn't make any sense either but that is beside the point). If correcting him on this point means that I have "taken the bait" then so be it. I prefer to think of such "biting" as informed discussion or constructive debate. As far as these things are concerned, thanks for your valuable input.

And how do you judge these things? Number of games played?

I don't understand what you are trying to say. I'm happy to "say what I will" though and I agree that all of those groups that you mention are fair game.

I am happy with the amount that the deals are for. I am not happy with the way in which they were achieved. I am especially concerned about the timing of the expiration of the deals (although I do not know exactly when this is). On the whole, I think that the sponsorship fiasco reflected very poorly on Jim and his team and I am astounded that the whole debacle seems to have increased the level of confidence that many people have in the current administration.

Impartiality is an interesting point, although I'm not sure that it really applies that much to this comment (he could have just as easliy left it unsaid). I do think it was a fair comment to make though. The conspicuous bias of Eddie McGuire didn't seem to damage his career. Would people prefer Garry to be more like Eddie I wonder? edit: P.S. What would you judge them on?

Some good, some bad - I'm nowhere near as impressed as most people on here seem to be. I certainly wouldn't say "fine". Probaby best to start another thread (or resurrect an old one) if you want to discuss this properly though. edit: (Although I admit I was being a bit of a smart alec with the sponsorship reference just now). I still stand by everything that I have written so far, if that is what you are getting at.

If not much has changed since then, then that means that there is still no reason to believe that this is true. I guess it would be nice if it were though.

He should be commended for that at least. Mind you, I got a bit of a laugh when I came across this old post of yours: So that's why the sponsorship deals took so long!

I quite liked this bit myself: Let the clubs have their say, then let the umpires have their say back. Don't hang a fine over Mick Malthouse's head. Let him talk, and if he complained half a dozen times about umpires, everyone would say, 'Give it up, Mick. You are a whinger'. Common sense? In my AFL?

Here's a link to a previous Garry discussion. Feel free to read, bump, merge or ignore. My views haven't changed on the matter, although another poster, Distance Demon, did just point out that: He should be commended for that at least.

I guess Skipper3 edited it. Not that it should make one whit of difference (besides his or her personal embarrassment). edit: It seems I missed an "r" though - edited now!

Maybe in the Indian caste system sense - not so much in the anti-organised crime sense. Having said that, I found this to be quite an interesting read. Not so much the stuff about Kennett, but half way down you can read the opinion of AFL Umpires' Association President, David Howlett on the current culture of anti-criticism. It made me think twice about being too hard on the maggots over the gagging issue.

I thought he looked at his smug best when commenting on the "chicken wing tackle" controversy in the news this evening. He said somehting like "we can't exactly tell people how to tackle, it's a bit difficult." Regardless of your views on "chicken wing tackles" this is a pretty stupid comment to make. He was definitely giving Peter Costello a run for his money in the smirk stakes also.

Has the AFL released footage of this incident for the clarification of the masses as they did with the Scott McLaren/Shane O'Bree case? Will they?

No worries. It is just a little confusing when what you say is apparently different to what you mean. Can you believe the nerve of all those previous administrations though - knocking back the offers of help that our ex players must have been making? Administrators must all be bonkers. Makes you wonder why so many of them donate their time to become board members if they aren't interested in receiving help from our past greats for the good of the club.

In that case, allow me to edit your previous post.

Me? I am just a Melbourne supporter and member. Am I to infer form your response that you think that past players should be permanently immune to the questions of members? P.S. Garry was well compensated for his time as a player. edit: P.P.S. Just as he is well compensated the time he spends passively "raising the profile of the club" in the course of his media work.

Are you saying that Gary and Co. were bigger contributors at the club during other (Pre-Gardner) administrations? Or that it is the fault of every administration until now that Gary and Co. haven't contributed more?

Wrong answer. Read the quote again. I'm not saying that there are or are not good reasons to question Garry's commitment (maybe I will later), I am asking why we should never question the commitment of someone who has an impressive on-field history at the club.

Why not?

Actually, Gary Lyon said something similar about Melbourne on the program (bad fooball = small crowd = poor fixture). Nevertheless, 13 Sundays and 1 Friday is a bit rough on the back of last year's similar fixture and that is what Caro was suggesting.