Slartibartfast

The word "agenda" is thrown around here regularly when wanting to discredit someone's position. I've been accused of wanting the club to fail, bring it to it's knees and sacrifice it for the purpose of ridding it of individuals. That's rot. I have argued that various people in the administration and on the Board in the club should be replaced. But what is completely misunderstood, leading to assertions of "standing for the Board" is the manner in which I think it should be done. Many of those who are passionate supporters of the administration also denigrate the performance of the past Board and like all these situations there is good and bad to be found in all administrations. One of the exceptional things the Gardner Board did was hand over control of the Club to the Stynes administration in the most dignified and positive of manners. There was no fight, there was no name calling and there was no ugly media coverage. There was sensible discussion between two parties over what was best for the club, points of difference were dealt with and they got on with the job. It was the right thing to do and it was done very very well. It actually showed the professionalism of the Gardner Board who could, if they wished, forced us to a general election. When I, and I imagine the majority, of people here suggest that people from the club should be replaced I'm not talking about a coup, I'm not talking about public humiliation for those i think should step down. I want to see them treated with respect and dignity, I want a well managed process where one person is replaced by another. In a way it's no different to debating whether Jamar or Spencer should be our first ruckman, it's a simple difference of opinion as to who would be better.

Thanks. One of them really impressed me, dark hair and quick. Sadly I'm not sure which one he was.....

Would you care to expand on your views in relation to poisonous politics and tanking? Thanks

Because that would have been seen as a whitewash by the footy public and the AFL would have taken a hammering. This process is to condition the footy public into accepting the verdict "no case to answer" If you read that post again you'll see that I go to lengths to say that I don't like what Caro is saying about our club. I went on to say that I liked her because of the provision of information. Unlike many here I just ignore her editorial component where I think it's wrong but in my view we knew much more about what was going on and gained much greater insight when she was reporting it.

Why is this important? From memory it was around the beginning of December and it was at my request. Tell me why it's important. Perhaps a PM would be more appropriate if it's so important to you.

1. I won't discuss why I think McLardy and Schwab are less that best practice because I agree with BH that the last thing supporters and contributors to this forum need or want is a discussion of the mistakes of the past. This club is under pressure and I'll leave my reasons for another day if anyone is interested. And my reasons have been stated in other threads at other times. 2. I didn't "run away" yesterday as you put it. Believe it or not I had a previous commitment that I needed to attend and didn't have time, or the inclination, to continue the debate. 3. There is nothing sinister in stepping down as a mod. I did it because I wanted to enter this and other debates to offer alternative views that some might be interested in and knew that if I was a moderator the hurly burly of those debates would likely prompt me to respond in a way I didn't want to as a moderator. I stepped down to obtain the freedom to debate and I think you'll agree I been much more vocal since. Edit: I don't want the Board replaced, I don't even want McLardy off it, I want a better Chairman and I think there may well be existing Board members who could fill the bill.

I must confess that when I first read it I assumed he was referring to those no longer at the club but then reread it and thought not because it says "he is the victim of a conspiracy within the Melbourne Football Club". That does seem to imply they are still there as no likely interviewee has left since the investigation started. And I also thought that with it's "simple reading" if he was being misquoted there would have been a clarification by the MFC reasonably quickly - certainly by now. The general impression to the footy world is that Connolly thinks he's been shafted by those still within the Club. I don't for a minute dismiss your comment that he could be referring to those no longer at the club and in fact I tend to that view myself as it fits better with everything else that's happening. But I do think TimD's comment is a fair one.

Interesting response Tim, fancy calling me cheeky!! I can cop cheeky, I can cop provocative (I try to be) and I can cop inconsistent (we all are because our views can change over time and this medium limits our ability to fully outline our views and reasons) and to an extent I can cop "agenda" albeit that I think everyone here has the same agenda - to see the MFC do well. But what I can't cop is "proof". This is an opinion Board. I get attacked because I want some changes in the club I think will benefit it. How do I prove that? Hazy thinks the previous Board is unfairly treated and supports them, but that is not a "proof" issue. BH thinks Jack Viney will have an immediate impact at AFL level. Proof? Proof is just a silly defence for those who what to dismiss the argument. Whispering Jack said Where is his proof? Not one shred. And guess what. Those that agree don't call for proof. The excitable RobbieF "likes" it. BB59 "likes" it. What a surprise. WJ assertion makes it easier to blame the troubles we face on evil past doers and not the current incumbents who people like Robbie support without question. This is an opinion forum where the majority of issues can't be proved.

Essendon beat us by 60.

OK, I'm off. Thanks for the chat everyone.

I think you may have offered a little more than silly!

You're entitled to your view and you can continue to belittle and insult me but to date you've not put forward one piece of evidence to support you're view that I want a spot on the Board or that I have "targetted" Chris Connolly. You're starting to look a little silly.

What's my agenda?

Got me!!

Oh for heavens sake. What on earth makes you think I want a position on the Board? Where have I said that? I've got nothing "against" Don, I just think we could do better. All Board memeber give of their time freely and generously and I respect that and thank all of them, past and present for their efforts.

And that coming from someone who has 17000 posts! My 2000 really don't count.

I'm not making accusations I'm offering opinions. I do have reasons for forming that opinion and I believe I have the right to express my reason as and when I want to. It is fair to say that many read far too much into what I say and suspect me of things that are just not right. One poster even accused me of being Caro's source. ] How silly is that!

I certainly don't want the current Board out. I want a better Chairman than McLardy. It's just a view.

Have you noticed that anyone who hold a view that is contrary to the general is usually abused? You made a rather funny mistake given the circumstances. Sorry if you didn't like the way I pointed it out.

I can't help how you see me. I don't want to get into a discussion of why I think McLardy and Schwab are less than best practice. Surely I have that right.

Where have I commented that I want Connolly gone? No answer?

No Sue, you took a cheap shot at someone for misreading the article and in the same breath did the same thing yourself. That's why I posted. The fact it was 60 statements is irrelevant to the point I was making. A simple "I got it wrong" would surfice but you're hatred of me for the position I hold led you to a baseless personal attack.

It's well documented elsewhere if you care to look. It serves no purpose here to start that discussion.

I haven't seen Jones. But the introduction of Jones, Rodan and the development of Evans will make it very hard for players like Taggert to get a place. Also I'm a fan of Strauss and hope he gets a full preseason. His kicking will be an asset and he along with Terlich will make it hard for Nicholson and Tynan I'd think. Our first and second year players will find it hard to get a game I'd think,

You've asserted that I, in concert with others, are driving an approach pointed directly at CS and CC. Can you give a couple of examples where I've taken aim at CC? Again I'll state that I think CS and McLardy fall short of best practice and I want better for the club. You may disagree but can you tell me what is wrong with holding that opinion? But I'm particularly interested in where I've taken aim at CC. Put up or leave it alone.