Jump to content

binman

Life Member
  • Posts

    14,571
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    94

Everything posted by binman

  1. Amazing! Analysis in a newspaper when reporting about footy! What next - balance? An excellent article and i just wish there was more of it (analysis that is). CW comes in for her fair share of criticism (most of which being justified!) but i have to say "robbo' is just as bad in terms of being a gossip monger. Wouldn't know analysis if it bit him on the nose. Case in point his woeful article in today's Hun
  2. An excellent analogy doc. However one point that is worth considering that in your analogy in order for more senior management to address the the managers comments they would have to be made aware of them. Which means that one of the staff present (or the manager themself ) would need to have reported the comments. Whilst the bank is ultimately responsible for its employees and how they are selected, trained, supervised, performance managed etc etc it would be difficult to criticize them for not responding to comments made in a one off meeting if no one came forward to raise it as an issue. By all accounts there were at least 17 people at the now infamous meeting and it would appear that not one thought the comments concerning enough to bring to the attention of senior management - or did have concerns but yet still elected not to advise anyone. Bit hard then for the CEO or board to counsel CC about his performance in the meeting
  3. Jeez Louise. Unlocked article here: http://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/afl/victorian-commission-for-gambling-and-liquor-regulation-announces-own-probe-into-melbourne/story-e6frg1xu-1226581447543
  4. It's great that its done before the season starts. 800 pages of evidence and by all account an incredibly exhaustive investigation (over half of the 2009 MFC staff!) and the only thing they had was CC's comment in one meeting? I simply don't understand how CW and several DL posters can then seriously maintain that yes other clubs did it but we did so much worse and that's why we got slugged. If, like CW you believe we tanked in 2009 and and did so amateurishly then surely they would have turned up more evidence than one meeting. But as CW notes it hinged on the one meeting and comments made by CC. Does anyone seriously think that if say Carlton was as forensically (and allegedly under threat of heavy sanctions for those interviewed if inconsistencies were discovered) investigated a similar meeting or comment would not be dredged to the surface? I'm with BBob on this one (at least partly). It wasn't the comments that CC made it was that there were people in that room that 4 years after the fact were prepared, for whatever motivation, to put a club who had employed them at serious peril and potentially ruin the career of at least CC but potentially others (not to mention potentially tarnishing the legacy of Jim). BBob may well have a point that perhaps poor management practices perhaps created an environment where there would be some seriously disgruntled ex employees. However i tend to believe that this sort of behaviour is more symptomatic of a club culture that has long been characterised by divisive, dirty internal politics and factionalism - a culture that is at the heart our sustained lack of success. A positive out of all of this is it seems great strides have been made to build a more united club and this drama may act as a further unifying force. Lets hope all with axes to grind or knives to plunge put their weapons down and get behind the club. The Don, the board and CS have handled this drama extremely well and their positions are now cemented. Of course lessons can be learnt from what occurred 4 years ago and i hope they are. To be fair steps have already been taken to address some of the issues that have raised issues (CC being moved out of the footy dept, CS role being more clearly in admin, a strong well resourced coaching team that is left to get on with its business with a reasonable degree of autonomy etc etc). However we must now stand united and this might the watershed moment. But a final comment. Whilst it is possible the four (?) Judases who were prepared to put our club at risk had legitimate reasons to be angry with the club it is still simply not on to drop us in it. 500k and two good men out of footy for a spell because four men couldn't find in them to say something like "look it is possible he was joking". You might argue that perhaps they felt strongly about the issue and were compelled to out CC but as Redleg (i think) pointed out they seemed not to have raised any concerns at the time so can't have been too morally outraged. What's the bet that one of these men was also one of CW's sources (or indeed continues to be). I assume the club knows who they are and i guess so do others in the footy world. I wonder if it at some point their preparedness to rat out a colleague (which is ok in my book, but only if they have done something really wrong and you are acting as whistle-blower) will one day hurt their chances of employment at a footy club that perhaps knows about their treachery.
  5. Spot on. Smart operator Gill (and AD who of course was acting behind the scenes). Clear precedent set for possible future penalties to be applied to Essendon. Even if no banned substances were used their processes around the supplement program were super sketchy and they will be slugged. A new version of the equalization process. Whilst they're at it they should slug Carlton, Collin wood and West Coast and we'd have our 500k straight back!
  6. From the Hun: 'In the end, AFL investigators found no evidence to that the club tanked. It's accepted that clubs can experiment with player positioning on the field.' Thankyou. We did not tank.
  7. A bit dramatic i would have thought. The executioner? To be clear i believe we are not guilty of tanking (it is important to note that we have not been charged with tanking btw). Despite this i also support what the club is doing and working out a negotiated settlement. The two positions are not mutually exclusive. As i have said there are no winners going to court and despite the fact we would have a great case we simply do not need the associated cost, distraction and drama. Nor do we need to make an enemy of the AFL (for starters imagine our draw next year if we get in a stoush with them - lots of interstate travel i would think). I think the AFL will make it clear the club has been found not guilty of the charges (and that there is no evidence of tanking ie players trying to lose) but that key personnel (perhaps working on their own initiative and certainly without support from the club) encouraged some practices that sit outside normal list management practices. The fine will relate to the club not reigning that in. I suspect the fine will be $500 k with half suspended. If we end up without next years draft being compromised that will be a huge, huge win. We will have a top 5 pick to go with Hogan who will be cherry ripe. That works for me.'And obviously for the club as clearly they have been working on a negotiated settlement. But lets see. If the wording isn't spot on and the penalties end up being more severe that has been suggested then sure, going to court should be considered, but only as a last option.
  8. Yes true, i was just being facetious. However rates the the young guns doesn't necessarily mean he thinks they're any good and to be honest he seemed to be damning the Gys with faint praise - he was unbelievably skinny when he arrived, which really is largely (if not entirely) his fault. Comments like he has come on dramatically smack a bit of a backhanded compliment and compared to his more effusive praise of other new recruits (he's hard at it, etc etc) a bit on the not so enthusiastic part of the how i rate my new team mate spectrum. But to be honest i hope he does make it as an AFL player and that North can help him achieve that. Unlike some i would not see that as a knock on our development program. Footy is littered with people who have seized second chances and turned their attitude around.
  9. Kerr got smashed drunk, beat up a taxi driver and trashed his cab. He had form in this regard and like many AFL players had a problematical relationship with alcohol. The AFL did nothing - they let the matter go to court and play itself out there. What was the AFL's punishment for Heath Scotland by the by? He broke the law (and someone's face). The list goes on and on. Despite no positive tests, no criminal charges, lots of whispers and a couple of sketchy incidents (no violence) the AFL charged Cousins with bringing the game into disrepute (he certainly brought himself into disrepute but the game?) and kicked him out of the game. Doesn't seemed to acted as much of a deterrent does it.
  10. We do have an official definition of tanking. The AFL CEO was explicit in his definition and left no room for confusion. Until it is codified his definition stands as the official AFL definition of tanking. I don't understand all the semantic posturing over this issue. We have a definition. Perhaps if people want to have a semantics or ethics discussion they could open a thread called 'Lets have fun and define tanking'. The only question that for me is worth debating and or discussing in this thread (which is - or was - about the outcomes of the AFL investigation and possible sanctions) is did we tank according to the official definition? The answer is no. The investigation appears to have found absolutely no evidence we did. Nothing, nada, zip. McClardy made that clear in his intelligent and to the point response to CW's silliness. We did not tank.
  11. Rates him as what. I lloked for some praise in that quote and couldn't find any.
  12. I had to laugh when i saw that photo. Hardly the shot that's going to convince BH Wattsy hardened up.
  13. That is just untrue. It will be made explicitly clear we are not guilty of tanking and there is no evidence supporting the allegation we conspired to lose matches. The charge of brining the game in disrepute will hinge on CC's comments in the meeting and their potential to embarrass the club and the AFL by being in an environment where they would likely be repeated. As i said stupid logic but the best they can do.
  14. Spot on 55. The charge will be bringing the game into dispute which allows us to make the point we did not tank and there is no proof we did (which was what DM said in his statement). Stupid charge obviously but the only one they can level if they want a negotiated settlement. They'll just be working out the numbers as we speak. Perhaps the $500 k will be partially suspended? I noted last night that this was likely a strategic leak from the AFL so interesting to see Francis Leach's tweet above which seems to confirm that. Funny then that the Age article detailing the likely outcomes was labelled an exclusive when every paper in the country seemed to be running with it (now that what i call a leak!)
  15. I have to admit i had a laugh about that. Full page red and blue tank with a Melbourne insignia. People getting cranky at CW should remember that there is editor who vets and directs.
  16. some nice video footage on dee tv of the game btw (on 4.5 mins but better than nothing - not bad music either)
  17. Fair call. I suspect that the negotiations around these issues are what are holding things up. We need to be able to maintain we never tanked and they need to to find a way to penalise us without suggesting we tanked. Tricky.
  18. Exactly. Had months to prepare and if he had stayed calm could have completely shown up how illogical her arguments are/were. Particularly the issue of this unofficial business. CW clearly had implied in her article that this was what the club had put forward as a defence not what some random insiders and supporters were saying. Hence DM's completely reasonable response. She was being completely disingenuous on the FC (and again in her latest article). But the clincher was that he missed the chance to completely show her up when she replied to his comment that players deliberately fumbling were raised in the report that it was never covered in the media. He must have known it had (and i would have assumed she would have been told after raising it the previous week). ​He also let her derail the conversation by asking the others if we deliberately lost games in 2009 (and they all agreed) and raising the conflict issue (when he lost it). I get the passion and all that but jeez he had the chance to drive a truck through her logic and flat out missed it.
  19. Some random thoughts: Gary Lyon completely blew it. Way too emotional and also too aggressive. Crossed the line by some margin and i think he knew it. CW was understandably in fight or flight and as she was stuck there was always going have defensive body language (eg crossing the arms). Also ensured there could be no intelligent discussion. Made for very uncomfortable viewing. How no one mentioned that the suggestion players deliberately fumbled was in fact in the newspapers beggars belief (some posters said GL did say it but he actually said it was in the report). Who is briefing these people? Speaking of crossing the line. Quite a few demonland posters have crossed the line with their personal insults of CW. Sure critically analyse her articles, even slam them but all this with witch, shrew (and the rest) business is pathetic. Whoever the poster was that said they would be happy if she died should be ashamed of themselves (even with the rider) and i hoped has been banned or suspended. I suspect her latest article (which by the by is a good straight forward article) is the product of a strategic leak from the AFL to both papers given it largely is the same info as in John Ralph's Hun article. I guess the idea is to prepare the public for an outcome that doesn't involve throwing the book at us. All this palaver about us fighting the good fight, standing our ground, going to war, not accepting any compromise blah, blah blah is tiresome in the extreme. I tell you all the DL critics of the board would have every reason to slam them if they don't find a reasonable negotiated outcome that means we avoid court. And to end my rant. The idea that a negotiated settlement means we will forever be tainted as cheats is so stupid it gives me a headache just reading it. The only intelligent comment about the the issue the other night on FC was from Hutchy and was along the lines of get the deal done and get on with the season. Even without the drug scandal no one would have thought us any different to 5-6 other clubs who did the same thing (ie list managed to improve draft position). For gods sake there is Carlton game that will forever be called the Kruezer cup! But with the drug scandal - which will drag on for much longer than the tanking investigation - this whole thing will be buried and forgotten. Do the deal and lets get on with it. $500k ? Cheap at twice the price. Connoly suspended from being in a footy position? As several media people have pointed out he isn't in one atm so who cares? (by the by what no one in the media has pointed out is that was a very clever move by the board). Of course he won't be pleased but its big business and they play rough. He knows that - he's been a senior coach fcs. Get the deal done. Edit: the article i refer to above is not the opinion piece that has just gone up. That's made my headache worse!
×
×
  • Create New...