sue

Some of the young’uns don’t like being cold-called on a phone call. Text rules supreme. So easy way out may not be the case.

which is wise, because we know bugger-all. eg, 'an article in this thread somewhere' saying x., where x may be a report of a rumour somewhere else. Clearly there are serious issues, but I find it hard to hang anyone on the basis of the little I actually know (as distinct from speculate).

Pretty close to a full/much of the transcript here: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/demons-president-admits-she-hasn-t-spoken-to-petracca-about-his-grievances-20240829-p5k6b4.html As usual we don't know the full story (and shouldn't expect to). For example, if she hasn't spoken to him, it could be that others who have done so told her she shouldn't or no need for whatever reason.

If only some on here would do the same.

Who knows. Maybe he'd have given up footy. Since most of us have no idea of what his family cirumstances are, these questions make little sense except add fuel to the fire. It's pretty clear Jaded knows what's what and it quite rightly keeping stum about matter that we don't need to know (though maybe some want to know). I'll accept what she says.

True. off topic, but what riles me is that Demonland has to live in fear of some anonymous poster libelling someone, yet Twitter etc don't have to worry.

That is incredible pressure. Someone must have something to hide if you can't even say "X is a jolly good fellow" even in a thread about jolly good fellows.

I fully understand your position. But in this case I don't know who it is that you have asked not to be named since such posts disappear. I can imagine that others may have named them without knowing, thus causing you more work. It seems the mere mention of this person (as distinct from slagging off about some journo) is the problem? Could you not publish a longish list of names which not to be mentioned in this thread without that causing you any grief? Would seem odd, but you can hadly be sued for that.

They obviously don't care. If they wanted to even bother with an appearance of justice, they'd ensure no one involved in any way with one of the clubs involved in the case was on the Tribunal. One day a cashed up player may take them to court, denial of natural justice or somesuch. I hope so.

Must have been hard for the club to concentrate on this case given #5

I didn't. I was gently mocking another poster who said that should have been done in the rooms and our docs were at fault. I was pointing out that the very same could have been said of the staff at the hospital.

But if only someone had used the 'poke him in the ribs' diagostic tool suggested by Dee-Detonator he wouldn't have been allowed back on.

That may be true but until that is applied uniformly across the AFL it is poor form to single out one clubs docs since it currently happens often.

But apparently “rigorous physical testing” plus scans at the hospital didn’t “surely have revealed something serious “ so why should docs at the ground know better.

If true, I would rather all the players be there than some. Nothing worse than if the players fall into 2 factions.

true, but when do we get the deep-fake videos?

I could. Does he also not trust the docs at the hospital that missed the seriousnesss of the injury for several hours despite havig diagnostic equipment not available at a footy ground? If so, he needs to have a quiet think. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't think that. But what really annoys me is others who have blamed our docs publically and posters here who accept that line. Sure they got it wrong but hindsight is a wonderful thiing.

I really hate this influencer thing. A bloke is on $1M/year for several years so he's in a good position to launch his life post football. There are plenty of jobs which with his profile he could walk into in AFL land and doubtless many other things which are of some productive value to society. But to effectively just become a stooge for promoting products and producing nothing of value is very sad.

That might be correct, but you gave a long list of possible problems, not many of them related to Goodwin, so I am surprised you then boldly conclude: "The only conclusion....is.. coach".

You've taken a vote/poll? Even if true, it would just speak to the immaturity of football supporters when it comes to things about their club. Too much emotion clouds judgement, and since there is almost nothing to say why anyone supports one team over another, emotion has to be the main factor. ( I support Melbourne because my footy-ignorant mother thought Geelong and C'wood looked like prison stripes and red and blue looked nice. Doesn't stop me from being one-eyed, moaning about umpires, bad treatment by the AFL/MRO, you name it.)

From her posts she has more than moved on. I thought she was just making the point about what can be said publically to maintain your negotiating position.

I'm staggered that you would base your view of the total incompetence of the club on a single rumour. Even if true, it is hardly the sin of all time. Get a grip.

Even if those 'rumours' are true, and the management didn't spot that, it is hardly egregious incompetence or unprofessionalism.

So, even if they knew for certain he was leaving, you would have them say something other than they said. I wouldn't put you in charge of negotiating the puchase of a lettuce.

I asked a similar question and can only assume it was the treatment of Clarry that is intended. It may have been done well or been mistaken as seen by Tracc, but neither is necesarily "unprofessional". The word is easy to throw around when people want to spit the dummy. I'm afraid that while we have some supporters here who wear rose-tinted glasses, we have some who jump at anything negative and always assume the worst. Something in the middle is best, but if I have to make a choice, I prefer the former.