PJ_12345

My mistake - youre right. Thanks for keeping me on my toes!

*5 years I think they have done alot right, sure a bit wrong, but I'm happy we are debt free, I'm happy with the coach/staff choices, I'm happy eith our training facilities I'm happy that all the players have to do is play, but I'm not happy with how they are playing

When a girl rejects me and doesnt want to give me her number, youre right, I could interpret this as she thinks that I am too rediciously good looking for her... Or the fact that she is just not interested in me. Personally I support the former, but in your argument between 'most' and 'all' you are categorically wrong. Everyone has a different perspective, due to a number of factors I could bore you with, which in turn effect their interpretation of events. Thats fine, but there are shared 'truths', such as 'most' implies the majority (ie 7/10 board members) and 'all' implies the entirety (ie 10/10 board members).

Well said Yoda. It was just an interesting observation - no president or CEO has lasted more than 5 years since our last premership. Interpret away you want! Here is one for out of feild: Alot of people talk about organisational culture but fail to include the supporters, ie the stakeholders. You wonder what this high rate of executive turnover does to both organisational and supporter culture... particluarly the attitudes, norms and values of supporters.

I'm an advocate for DM and the current board but I did a bit of research on what you said and found some interesting stuff regarding the length of CEO's and Presidents: Longest President: Blair (1929 - 1946) 18 years, during which 3 premerships were won Longest CEO: Cardwell (1951 - 1975) 25 years, during which 6 premerships were won Longest Coach: Smith (1952 - 1967) 16 years, during which 6 premerships were won No president or CEO has served longer than 5 years since the last premership in 1964 Only coach to last more than 5 years since the last premership in 1964 was Daniher (1998 - 2007) 10 years

Youre clutching at straws with your definition of 'most' and 'all'. Most: in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number [7/10 board members is most] All: the whole number of (used in referring to individuals or particulars, taken collectively) [he didnt say all, as in 10/10 board members] Just because you interpret something one way doesnt mean youre right.

More of a minefeild with the Essendon players: because they signed a bunch of crap and didnt know what they were given it raises up the option for them to sue Dank and the club for tresspass against their person

Spot on. My favourite thing is that Howe is only just begining his career aswell. The thing that pisses me off is when the commentators on Triple M call him Howe-aulenko

Its pretty simple... no one cares about them. When I open the paper I read articles on the Dees, Hawthorn, Collingwood ect but the moment I see something about the Western Bulldogs I tune out. With reporters these days, if it doesnt get you readers or clicks, then it doesnt get you money, and if it doesnt get you money then who cares!... and lets face it: who doesn't like to read a good Melbourne bashing article if youre from another club

I have faith in DM. Alot of people are being narrow minded on their performance. There have been a alot of positives and sure alot of negatives, but half of those negatives are just media rubbish: 1) We were found not guilty of tanking - but we still get trashed like we did (see CW's first article after the AFL presser "Dees guilty of tanking", cheeky article which went to say "Dees" as in DB and CC but didnt mention the club was found not guilty) 2) Affiliation with Dank - ABC stressed we had taken nothing illegal, just that we werent transparent with the AFL and juding from most DLer's posts that is a worry about reporting standards but nothing to cry about, again because day to day activities are not their concern. I think they have done alot of good, and sure as I had a debate with Dr. Gonzo the other day - he is right - stuff like EnergyWatch could have been avoided and was their fault. Please dont take it upon yourself to speak on behalf of all the supporters.

Yep, totally agree on the random tests. Armstrong managed to avoid sitting most of the 'random' tests (I think over his career he was supposed to sit around 500 but the actual figure was in the low 100's) - but I think the issue with that was that it was a tight night community and also tests had to be conducted over the world. At least with the AFL there are alot more players and that because teams come down early to play in Vic if they are a non-Vic team there is time to test them before and after.

Any noteble injuries at the Lions' end? Ps, might I add this will be an important game for Voss too...

The good: Wiped out $5,000,000 of debt over 2 years (during GFC) Made us profitable Increase membership from 28,000 (2007) to 35,000 (2012) Recruited Neil Craig, Dave Misson, Mark Neeld Strengthened Casey ties/co-buit new facilities there for off season Got us in on the Aami park facilities (newest in the AFL) Sponsors including Opel ect. Averted draft penalities and club not being charged for 'tanking' The bad: EnergyWatch (payments/bad media) Cameron Schwab (sorry CS, considering your axe I had to put you here) Connelly and Bailey being charged with disrepute 186 point loss/Dean Bailey Administered over 'tanking' comments The maybe: Transperancy issue with AFL over Dank connection (board did not know of Bates' actions) Medical treatment plan (sources such as the ABC confirm nothing was illegal but waiting ASADA results) I understand the 'tanking' issue (settle or not settle), recruitment including getting rid of morton and getting Dawes/Clarke, and other coaching matters (Neeld) is too speculative for me to allocate if its good or bad so ill leave that up to your own lists. For me this is where the line is. Other incidents such as the leadership overhaul which caused a rift between senior players and some staff is a matter for the CEO and coach. Some might say that the board appointed them so they are responsible but I think thats a bit of a long bow/if youre going to look at it broadly then remember to think about the positives as well then and try and stay objective.

6) Jetta 5) Gawn 4) Howe 3) Byrnes 2) Evans 1) Jones

A+ grade sensationalist churnalism. The ABC has done a fair bit of back tracking this morning on their breakfast news program stressing that we havent taken anything illegal and also with a bit of pro-MFC statements such as that there is a difference between employing him and consulting him.

I guess the failure of EW also extends to Victory and Storm. I would agree with you if it was just one team, but the fact that all three failed their due dilligence is a crock. I think alot of people here are getting mixed between what we know now and what we knew back then. And I believe the correct due dillegence was taken, shown by other teams from other codes also taking them as a sponsor.

Everyone here seems to be an expert on organisational culture. No, the board is not responsible for all the culture of organisations. It is created through a number of things, including foundation values, organisational actors (employees, senior players), events (such as B&F...)...... you cannot pin an organisation's culture on a board or any single group. I have posted a detailed summary of organisational culture, factors and analysis in another thread.

Lol, like yesterdays?

Haha guess thats one way to find a silver lining lol You're right in the sense that no player has taken anything illegal (not approved) but from what I can understand is that crap like A... whatever is "yet to be approved"... the club doctor shouldnt have touched it with a 10 ft pole AD seems hung up on that we didnt disclose our enitre conduct with Dank... I think he has been used to clubs coming to the AFL whenever they think they have done something wrong (Adelaide/Essendon)

186 and EnergyWatch... you have to be kidding me. Please tell me how a group, employed for running the business aspect of the club - such as the financials (not the day-to-day activities, have: 1) Influenced the 186 loss against Geelong (I guess the next board we elect we better hope they can get us out of debt and be prepared to chuck on the footy boots and play, because getting rid of the coach [which is what most supporters wanted isnt good enough]) 2) Influence EnergyWatch (I guess the next board we elect we better hope they have a crystal ball because apparently axing the sponsor and condeming his reponsibilities straight away [more than Victory did] isnt good enough) I respect arguments that the buck has to stop somewhere but for blaming them on issues such as these is a crock.

Seriously hypocritical.

And thats a great point. Credit where credit is due and blame where blame is due

Not all players are Dustin Fletcher's. For example Green was drafted in 1999, we were an older playing side in 2005 and I'm surprised 8 years on anyone is still left

Too soon?

The AFL is becoming more and more like the ATO - they say jump, you say how high.