binman

Not sure if serious.

Not sure if serious.

For gods sake its called the Lingerie Football League. Of course the women involved have a choice. It is still demeaning to women. Great role models for young women.

Yes, true enough

Surely you jets. Australi is much less sexist than it was in 60's and 70s. Does this not indicate change is possible. Should we give up trying to reduce family violence and racism too?

I'm hoping lack of interest means it all disappears without a trace. Pathetic and makes me wonder how much further we have to go in terms of making the world a less sexist place. Suggests to me we are going backwards. And yes good point of course the Hun didn't even mention his choice of attending such a miserable 'event'. I wonder how his President feels

Chess is not a sport, its a game! (joking joyce)

What do you mean the definition of sport depends on whose it is? Words have specific accepted meanings. These meanings are found in dictionaries. I accept sometimes there may be some room for confusion or wriggle room for some words. Sport is not one of these words. There is a universally accepted definition of sport (as it relates to this discussion not in terms of being a sport etc): an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. I defy any one to find a dictionary that does not define sport in a similar way. By any accepted definition racing is a sport. Mods i beg you please lock this thread. My pedant brain cannot take it any more.

Well obviously we are going around in circles. As i have said that is not how a sport is defined, never has been, never will be. I understand you don't like it and fair enough but it is simply impossible to maintain that horse racing is not a sport.

Sorry have i missed something. You were prosecuting an argument that horse racing is not a sport, not that gambling & money is the PRIMARY REASON that horse racing exists. In any case to answer your question, gambling & money is the primary reason the horse racing industry is so large (indeed it is one of Australia's biggest industries). Is gambling and money the primary reason horse racing exists? No. Humans have been racing horses against each other for thousands of years and long before organised gambling was an element. Te primary reason it exists is humans's innate desire to compete with each other (the driver of all sports). Horse racing provides this forum for horse owners and always has. Gambling is the by product of this desire to compete against another person. Would the horse racing industry exist without gambling? No not not in its current form. Would horse racing. Yes.

You are not making any sense WYL. What has this got to do with whether racing is a sport? This logic only works if you define sport as something that does not require gambling to survive. Which of course isn't a definition of sport. It might be yours but the reason why we have dictionaries is so there is some common understanding of what things mean eg sport. This is kind of useful. Imagine if we all had our own definition of stop or give way.

I was about to post this on the sack AD thread but it has been locked. Some posters seem confused as to what is governance and what is management. There seems also to be suggestions that somehow AD has been guilty of poor governance. As the CEO AD manages the AFL, the commission is responsible for governance. The commission, like any board sets the strategic direction of the organisation and it is their responsibility to ensure there are the appropriate systems in place, for example to make sure the strategic plan can be implemented and ensure that risk is managed appropriately. The bombers supplement fiasco is the perfect example of this. There was - as Ziggy made clear - a complete breakdown of their reporting and risk management systems. In short a failure of governance for which their board was responsible. Of course there were also numerous examples of poor management (CEO, coach etc etc). Sure the CEO is connected to this governance system because he is the boards representative but he reports to the board. As an example the decision to create GWS was the commissions, and AD was charged with the responsibility of making it happen. So whilst you could perhaps argue that it is really AD's baby, so to speak, if there is any criticism about the decision to take the risk it should be towards the board. If there are criticisms of how, say, the implementation has been managed then yes they can be directed at AD. A terrific example of the distinction between governance and management was the decision to have a joint AFL/ASADA investigation. In the excellent Jon Pierek article in yesterday's age he makes a good point that this decision has now proved to be a flawed one. No doubt some will criticize AD for the decision but he didn't make it, the commission did. Sure he might have pushed for it and recommend the commission agree to go down that track (as part of his management role) - and often boards might go with the recommendation of their CEO - but it was their call. I'm sure as part his performance review the commission might well reflect on the quality of advice they received from AD. But whilst i tend to agree with Pierek the choice to go with the joint investigation this is not an example of poor governance, perhaps a poor choice but not poor governance. And for that matter whilst you could easily criticize the management of the tanking saga i can't see any governance issues. I can understand how AD's management style might be criticized, particularly his penchant to put himself out on a limb. I can also agree that some of his choices could be questioned - for instance his support for a joint investigation - but these do not represent a failure of governance. Against that by the sort of metrics that apply to a CEO of an organisation as big as the AFL even his critics would have to agree that he has been successful. His salary and the bonuses he has received are evidence of this.

Horse racing not a sport? You have to be kidding right. For gods sake it is the Sport of Kings. It is one of the great sports, involving incredible athleticism and courage. Try telling a jockey he is not a sportsmen. And since when is the definition of sport been that it has to stand alone without betting?

Hird spoiling for a fight. Desperate to ensure Ad cops it. From the same article: The issue has escalated as a result of Tania Hird's attack on the AFL yesterday, revealed exclusively in the Herald Sun. Hilarious really how desperately the Hun want in on the action. Rupert must have been furious with all the Walkley attention the age got over the supplement scandal. As i have said Hird and News ltd is a marriage of convenience.

Indeed and that salary could be paid by any number of business EFC has connections with an the AFL would not care one jolt.

Excellent move by the AFL. I haven't missed the like function until this topic. Some excellent posts and points made. Kudos to Sue, BB, WJ, 55 and Redleg. Some excellent points made. One that a couple of people have made is that issue of AD being held to ransom over suggestions he gave the bombers the heads up about ASADA. As has been noted by others this is so strange given if true (which is denied) it would have been done to help the Bombers and the players (and of course the AFL itself). This betrays totally the agenda of Hird and his band of sympathizers. The issue of governance is interesting in terms of the AFL but unless proof is uncovered that they have made secret deals i for one can't see any failure of governance. And at the risk of being accused of being a AD fan boy i can't see what he has done wrong apart from his massive ego and some intemperate and arrogant comments in the press. He is the CEO of a major organisation. His job is to run it. He reports to his board (the commission) not New ltd. I suspect that therre is a marriage of convenience etween Hird and News Ltd. Both hate AD and want him gone. The recent (crap) article by Rebecca Wilson, a couple by Chip Le Grand and also Yobbo betray that the believe AD has been rude to them (yelling gets a few mentions, arrogant, dismissiveness). So what? This is perhaps poor interpersonal skills but it is up his board to manage that. So much of the attack against him seems to be about squaring things up. Which is not the job of a journalist. Stick to reporting the news not making ridiculous editorial calls (eg Ad MUST be sacked - please!)

I just posted something similar in the AFL in trouble thread. Your post got to the heart of the matter much more effectively (and in a lot less words!) Geese indeed.

I still maintain that the whole Hun palaver is a complete and utter beat up. Pathetic really the headers etc in today's paper - Bombshell, AFL in crisis yada yada. And the editorial in today's paper call for an inquiry (perhaps a senate inquiry it helpfully suggests) - what a joke. That said i have to say that if the article linked below is correct and they didn't ensure the Terms of Deed explicitly stated that EFC couldn't pay Hird it is pretty sloppy by the AFL and its legal team. Not hanging stuff - and certainly not cause for an inquiry or even the AFL to be too severely criticized, i mean in the end what does it matter if they pay him or not, it's just more money being drained from their coffers - but sloppy none the less. http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-no-pay-for-hird-was-a-verbal-guarantee-20131205-2ysyl.html

I would say that arbitration occurs after negotiation has broken down. Arbitration is not a mediation process. Essendon had the opportunity to go before the commission i would have assumed, though neither party would have been keen on that outcome given the money and time involved - hence the confidential negotiation. Your example of environmental groups negotiating in public (ie using the media) might be valid though even in that scenario such action is perhaps more akin to advocacy and activism than negotiation. And such an approach is likely to be pretty one sided given developer and governments are never keen on engaging in public negotiation (and a one sided negotiation is an oxymoron). Anyway silly to argue to about semantics and each to their own

I'm still struggling. Any arbitration commission is a tribunal where two parties put a case forward for an independent body to make a decision. The free dictionary notes that arbitration is 'The process by which the parties to a dispute submit their differences to the judgment of an impartial person or group appointed by mutual consent or statutory provision.' How then is post #1951 an example of non confidential negotiation? Leaving that aside do you have an example, in a business and/or legal context where negotiation is open to the public or non confidential?

Well i guess negotiation can be non confidential but i'm struggling to think of an example of where it would be. Certainly not in legal or business context. Can you think of a high profile example where a sensitive legal and/or business matter is negotiated in an open, non confidential way?

. The bombshells keep coming

The last sentence of the article quoted above is the key to why we drafted him. Total solid citizen who is a leader and is looking to learn. Exactly what the club needs more of.

We now have a coach who believes in teaching (ironic since the last one was a teacher)

. you're kidding right? Biggest non story ever. You surprise me redleg. Nothing, Nada,zip will come from this.