Alotta

Read your thundering moralising in the Code of Conduct thread I've just bumped. You remember, the zero tolerance stuff and so on. It may be that you consider a unique set of standards apply to you. For many of us to see you try and weasel your way out of the consequences of your abuse of another poster is just hypocrisy.

if you think yourself justified because you have provided proof of his hypocrisy, where's your proof that he is a "vile...piece of work"?

1 hour ago, Whispering_Jack said:

 

I've highlighted your comment to demonstrate that you are a vile and hypocritical piece of work.

 

From Demonland Code of Conduct:

With regard to posts on the Demonland Forums, the Demonland Administrators and Moderators reserve the right to edit and/or remove posts that are considered to be:

• Acts of personal abuse

Ban yourself.

No interested candidate contacted the Club and did not pursue their interest based on any consideration of remuneration.

This isn't about Club resources. It's about WJ's assertion that  "We were a poor club and chose our new coach, partly on the basis of cost".

It suggests that Dean was a bargain basement purchase - K-Mart not DJs - the Scotch we'd rather pay for not the Scotch we'd rather drink. It demeans Bails. He was the best money could buy and we were very lucky to get him.

On 10 December 2015 at 7:39 AM, Whispering_Jack said:

We were a poor club at the time and didn't have $1½m to splash around along with the AFL's full support in looking for the best and most experienced coach available as PJ had when the club appointed Paul Roos. Nor we we considered a destination club for coaches at the time. I have no conclusive proof for the claim but I expect available resources play a role when seeking out applicants for any job at any club and many would consider it fiscally irresponsible to do otherwise.

 

When you say that available resources played a role in the selection of Dean Bailey you are wrong. Plain and simple. Fact not opinion.

When you say you have "no conclusive proof" for your claim I put it to you that you have no proof whatsoever.

Days of AFL funded overpaid $1.5 million coaches were years in the future. As is usual with these appointments discussions about salary were undertaken only after the preferred candidate was identified. The amount Dean could command as a rookie coach was modest by industry standards in 2007 and entirely affordable for MFC. After all, we had made a profit in each of the previous 3 years and were to make a profit in 2007, the year of Dean's appointment.

There was no potential coach we did not approach because of considerations of affordability. There was no available coach who did not pursue an interest in the opportunity out of consideration of the available salary.

As for not being a destination club, Hardwick clearly disagreed.

23 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

 

 

Within 2 years, Daniher was gone and the club eventually replaced him for the following season by Dean Bailey. We were a poor club and chose our new coach, partly on the basis of cost. 

 

What is the evidence upon which you base this claim?

Dean Bailey was appointed because he was considered (by a clear margin) to be the best candidate for the job.

History was to show that an unsuccessful candidate together with mates Stynes, McLardy, Schwab and Lyon were to heap on Dean the most shameful indignity I have ever witnessed in a blighted lifetime of following our once great Club.

"By last year the club's debt – famously eliminated by the Jim Stynes-Don McLardy-driven foundation heroes campaign – had swelled back to more than $5 million" (C Wilson).

Isn't it time once and for all that we lay to rest the myth that the Stynes/McLardy Board eliminated debt and in so doing "saved the Club"? This myth originated with the Club itself, was readily embraced by supporters and continues to be perpetuated uncritically by the likes of Wilson. For the record:

The debt at the point of Stynes’ ascendancy to the Chair was $4.78 million comprising net asset deficiency of $3.179 million as at 31.10.07 plus forecast operating loss for fy08 of $1.6 million.

In the 5 years 2008-2012 according to the audited financial accounts, the Club booked $6.335 million in revenue attributable to the Debt Demolition campaign and its offshoot the “Foundation Heroes” campaign. Almosthalf this amount was p****d up against the wall when the Club recorded a trading loss of $3.1 million in 2013.

In 2011, without fanfare, the Club brought onto the balance sheet the Bentleigh Club asset at a conservative valuation of $6.691 million. The Bentleigh project had its origins in the late 1990s under then CEO Hassa Mann and incoming Chairman Joseph Gutnick. The Bentleigh project was carefully nursed along by successive administrations and Boards (including Stynes') supported by MFC-friendly Bentleigh Club boards on which sat some MFC Club legends. This courtship of 15 years' duration culminated with a formal merger and the incorporation of the Bentleigh assets onto the MFC books. This - not Debt Demolition much of which was shamefully squandered - "eliminated debt".

The Bentleigh asset is today worth in the vicinity 0f $12-15 million as a property development play. It is the family silver. It represents a once in a lifetime opportunity to "football proof" MFC finances if prudently invested in income bearing investments. The Members must remain vigilant wathching for any sign of future Boards or administrations selling off the family silver in pursuit of the discredited strategy of buying a premiership.

Less than one in one thousand boys born in Australia each year will ever play a single game of AFL football.

Jordie is one.

Of those who ever play a game, 80% will have shorter careers than Jordie.

Better career stats than Crowley.

Jordie (pick 1 2009 rookie draft) 79 MFC games v Scully (pick 1 2009 national draft) MFC 31 games.

Massive respect.

The generosity of spirit shown by the contributors to this thread stands in stark contrast to the meanspiritness of the knockers and the naysayers who have ridden on this honest kid's back over the last 7 seasons.

Don't be an idiot. I'm sure the crowd were fearing for their lives...

Bit subtle for you it seems.

In 2012 Mark Murphy was fined $900 by the tribunal for giving the Collingwood cheer squad the bird.

Goodes' premeditated display of aggressive and menacing theatrics towards a section of the crowd was far more reprehensible and I expect to see him up before the tribunal this week....

....unless different standards are applied to footballers according to their colour.

And that would be racism, wouldn't it?

Interesting and wide ranging contributions.

Personally I find Draft retrospectives pointless and unsatisfying. You know - the duds we took and the 17 year old future champions we along with most others failed to recognise.

My intention in starting this was less ambitious. To be more precise I was wondering - of those who had played at least one senior game in the modern era in the red and blue - who do we regret seeing off most?

This is not a woe is us topic. I suspect we have done better from our imports than the recipients have done from our exports. Did we really regret seeing off Sylvia and McLean?

* The MFC of 2011 (around the time of Bailey's sacking) was the 'most fractured' environment he'd ever been in. Said every decision was second-guessed, there was no trust, no self-belief and no real plan.

"The story of how Stynes saved the Melbourne Football Club is much more than a sporting saga. Demolishing more than $4 million worth of debt was something the AFL initially believed beyond even him, but it was uniting the disenfranchised Demons that remains his most remarkable legacy" Caroline Wilson Age 7 May 2011.

The history of the Club under the leadership of the much-loved Jim Stynes and his successor Don McLardy is a difficult matter for all of us.

We all have a sense of sustained calamity. On the other hand, Jim and his colleagues stepped forward at a time of need, were motivated by the best of intentions and stuck to the task in the face of great and, in Jim's case, persobnal difficulty.

None of this should prevent the writing of the history of the Club accurately and faithfully over this period.

I think Todd's interview last night is a valuable contribution to this history. Most media commentators have to this day followed the Wilson myth that Jim "united the Club". This is a myth on 2 counts. Once the scars of the 2001 Board election had healed, there was no disunity at the Club. All this changed with Jim's election and the commencement of the period Todd referred to and lived through culminating in the events of 186. This period equated to the most sustained and destructive period of disunity at any Club in the modern era.

We've let Brownlow medallists (Bill Morris, Brian Gleeson) and Coleman medallists if they had it then (Doug Wade) slip through our fingers but at least these blokes never played a senior game in the red and blue.

In the modern era ie post 2000 who has been the one we let go that you most regret?

I nominate S. Thompson.

Bob, I don't quite get what you're saying but I'll accept what you say in that you weren't suggesting that David is behind the possible leaking of this information.

I think it's become clear from the Essendon doping saga that various parties in the football world including committees and boards leak information to the media. The Bombers have been masters at it over the past two years, mainly because they have no shortage of useful media idiots willing to push their cause. Much the same has happened at Melbourne over the years - you don't have to be "Blind Freddie" to know that various groups at the club including Boards going back in time to well before Gutnick were able to get certain messages across thanks to friends in the media. In the case of all clubs the practice can sometimes be justified as being "in the interests of the club" (and often this depends on which side you're on).

I can see that it's finally dawning on you that the club has a propensity to shoot itself in the foot just when things are looking to be on the up and up. Unfortunately, it's a phenomenon that's been around for half a century - some call it the Norm Smith curse. I just don't see that your paranoia would be assuaged by David Thurin leaving - I personally believe he’s been a competent board member who worked hard and made a major contribution over the past seven years (not just monetarily - he put in a significant amount of work towards making the debt demolition a success, without which we probably wouldn’t be discussing anything about the club).

In the period 2008-2013 Dr Thurin was a member of a Board which presided over and was accountable for the greatest clusterflick in the 156 year history of our Club. That alone makes his position untenable if we are toput this behind us. Good bloke, competent etc etc - irrelevant.

And if they played with the WB's it could have been " give the dog a bone".

And we could take Lucas Jagger in the 2017 draft. His old man's a Rolling Stone.

No need to call Sunshine. Listen up and learn. Best of all, it's free!

Who says he's a one-trick stopping pony?

He averages more possessions/game than Crowley (16.1 v 14.8 (2013), 17.7 v 14.5 (career)).

Last time we played GC the possession differential Ablett v Jordie was +3 to Ablett (19 v 16). McKenna squealed like a pig for a week.

On Friday night the Cotchin v Macaffer differential was +4 to Cotchin (13 v 9) and everyone included Hardwick and Cotchin sang Macaffer's praises to high heaven.

Who would take +3 to Ablett on Sunday?

How Demonlanders see Jordie is a very good indicator of the depth of their understanding of the modern game.

I got the Band and singer, do I get to share the room with Alotta?

Don't fancy pulling pillow duck feathers from between my teeth for weeks thereafter.

Don't any of you simpletons remember who was "most efficacious" ?

Lily the Pink's medicinal compound.

I think he holds the AFL/VFL record for the most consecutive games starting on debut with at least one goal to his name.

What's this Hazy? You and Bob taking up tag team wresting or something?

I rarely post here but this takes the cake. Feeling ganged up on are you Jack?

I've followed the posts of these blokes and one or two others like America de Cali for 5 years now as they have calmly, rationally and civilly pointed out that the emperor had no clothes. They have been proven right.

Along the way literally hundreds of cheerleaders including you have derided them, accused them of being negative wreckers with agendas etc etc.

Their views are now the prevailing orthodoxy and it's you that's feeling hard done by! Puuurrrlease!

Unfortunately you can't justify your claim that "we couldn't handle a little Jewish man running (our) club".

You are an ignorant racist bigot.

There was no policy of anti-Semitism on the part of the Team Vision (Szondy) ticket. A small number of the anti-Joe push did use his race and religion to disparage him but that was certainly not the position of the vast majority and in fact, I know of a number of Jewish supporters who opposed Gutnick.

I met Alotta during the time of the Gutnick-Szondy conflict and there's no way that anyone could say he was anti-Semitic.

Thanks Jack. I appreciate that.

We are still left with two problems:

- the other 6999 remain slurred

- this ungracious fool either doesn't realise the ugliness of his allegations or doesn't have it in him/her to graciously apologise.

I didn't call anyone an anti-Semite so you come down from that high horse now. If you took offense sorry but that wasn't the intention.

So why did you vote against him? As I said before I wasn't aware of all the club politics at the time so am interested to here why he was so overwhelmingly voted out especially considering the horrible ineptness of the boards that followed.

I don't have to justify why I voted for the Szondy group.

You have to justify your claim that nearly 7000 of us "couldn't handle a little Jewish man running their Club".

Off you go...we're listening.

You disgust me.

I thought Gutnick was great for the club & never understood why we got rid of him - oh wait, establishment club of rich white boys from the eastern suburbs couldn't handle a little Jewish man running their club, that's right.

65% of the members who voted at the 2001 election preferred the alternative over Joe and his ticket. I was one of them.

I'm indifferent to the description "rich white boy from the eastern suburbs". It's true and I'm flattered.

But I'm disgusted by your labelling me and the many thousands of us who voted as I did as anti-Semites. You should be ashamed of yourself. You should apologise or the moderators should intervene.

Playing the bigotry card is the most sinister form of bigotry of them all.

Many here would be aware that Whispering Jack is the founder and owner of Demonland. His son Demonland bears the majority of the burden of administering the site. Our ability to enjoy and participate in Demonland is entirely due to the time, money and effort Jack and his family have invested in the site.

I have noticed a disturbing trend recently, namely dissing Jack. Now he is more than capable of defending himself and he has many supporters like Pink Freud, Great Pretender and Sid Vicious willing to jump to his defence. Jack would no doubt be embarrassed by this post saying rightly that he can look after himself.

I for one would certainly not be critical of Demonland shutting down all threads where the attacks on Jack and his integrity go over the top. This is the owner's prerogative.

I think it a shame that that should prove necessary. I'm all for robust debate and diverse opinion but I just ask posters to show heightened respect and consideration for the man who has made Demonland possible.