binman

I was just thinking the same thing yesterday. I reckon you spot on with Grimes and Jones but also Garland. I think Garlo is exactly the sot of character Roos loves - thoughtful, showed a real passion and zeal last year in a very difficult year (his best season and it was perhaps the thing i most respected was the worse we played the better he played) and has a sense of and repect for the history. In other words a leader.

I agree with Bob in hindsight it was a poor decision by the club to go with Neeld. I'm not sure what value there is in flogging a dead horse in terms of evaluating his performance given whilst of course there might be some small positives the proof was in the pudding. One thing though that i would throw into the mix in terms of how the clubs sees his tenure is that in the messages from the President and CEO in Heart beat Neeld is not thanked, indeed he is not even mentioned. The closest either come to even acknowledging him is PJ thanking the coaches fro a difficult year. A number of people are specifically thanked, including Craig who both Bartlett and PJ single out for special thanks. Perhaps it not the done thing to acknowledge or thank a staff member who has been sacked, i don't know. Perhaps it doesn't indicate or mean anything but it seemed strange to me that that they didn't thank or at the least acknowledge him, given that whatever you think of his performance he gave it his best shot. It felt a bit like they were airbrushing him out of history which if the case is not cool.

Yes interesting article. One important point though - it's written by Michael Davis not Micheal Warner (his name caught my attention and i thought he must have left News Ltd)

Good post. I agree that often a CEO can very influential, though a board has to accept the decisions it makes regardless. Also as another poster noted (sorry can't recall who) AD sits on the commission in some capacity. I had forgotten that and to be honest i'm not really sure what the parameters of his position is but it certainly blurs governance and management. I also agree that his performance review will not be as favorable as it has been previously and that the commission's faith in Ad will have taken a big hit. I'm not sure i agree though that if infraction notices are served (with all the resulting financial pain) that this would force AD or any commissioners to resign. You said that AD could have implemented closer scrutiny on Essendon if he had have chosen to. Do you mean before it came to light eg by putting in controls about sports scientists and supplement programs (something he has acknowledged the AFL should have done)? Perhaps but i don't see this a failure of governance, perhaps poor management but not a sacking offfence. I can't see any failures of governance post it all coining out either. Maybe some poor calls by AD but again not sacking offences.

I would add that he got the list a lot fitter and improved the professionalism of training. Roos will reap the reward of that work. Also by being such a hard ass and seemingly overseeing an atmosphere where there was not a great deal of fun the players will get a short term shot of relief and revitalization, that again Roos will reap the benefit of. Also, whilst i know its not in the spirit of the thread, it has to be said if were not for how dismal his time was the AFL would not have stepped in and got us Jackson and therefore no Roos (not to mention 2-3 players)

The AFL have not been corrupt in this matter. You could argue they made an error in electing to do a joint investigation and clearly they had the self imposed time limit of not wanting the es to play finals. But corrupt? Silly talk straight out of the Hird spin factory

I had thought that but i don't now. The AFL should have done an investigation based purely on the breakdown of governance and for the supplement program itself (ie the processes involved - lack of records, off site injections, players health put at risk, experimental program etc etc) and left ASADA to focus on the use of performance menacing drugs. I reckon there was enough in the bombers own report ('pharmacological experimental environment, sidelining medical staff etc) to hit them with sanctions anyway. If they needed more they could have got it. For one thing the AFL could have said prove to us that your players were not administered anything harmful to their health - produce your records.

Good post. I have to say i didn't think the joint investigation was a bad idea but in hindsight it clearly was. What i would say is that rather that whilst Little has been abrasive Hird has been the real wild card. The AFL would have expected it all to disappear but they underestimated Hird's manic refusal to let it go. I best they wished they slugged him harder. But given they control the draw (amongst other things) the AFL have still got some cards to play in terms of whacking the bombers

I'm serious I'll bet you the toump will become an a grader. Do you want to put your money where your mouth is? Perhaps, given the brownlow is the mid fielder's medal a way of defining an a grade mid would be 2 years with 10 or more votes. You said never but perhaps let's limit it to the next 6 years ie he gets more than 10 votes in 2 of the next 6 years. If you agree with that metric we just need to agree on a stake

. I'll take that bet. What shall we wager and how will we determine a winner?

A great quote from that thread: Well I believe I actually invented the term, correct me if I'm wrong. It is always being misdiagnosed. It's when we obviously have something good, the MFCSS sufferer will automatically build a defense mechanism for when this good thing is inevitably taken away. Everything at MFC is too good to be true. Eg. Damn Liam Jurrah was exciting in his 3rd game, too bad he'll probably go back to the Northern Territory. Unfortunate example! Even a fan with a severe dose of MFCSS would never have guessed that Liam returning to NT would not come close to capturing the full extent of the associated drama.

Where's Roger's report?

Sexism is defined as: 1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women. 2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender. The LLF is an an event that involves women dressed in lingerie (note not sporting attire but clothes that are designed to specifically sexually titillate) performing for the gratification of men (in an event owned and promoted by a man) that promotes the stereotype of women as sexual objects (objectifying women in the process and making a mockery of serious women's sports) Perhaps you are thinking of definition 1 but surely any right thinking person would concede that such a scenario meets the definition of sexism. Perhaps you don't think it meets this definition, that's up to you. I won't bother to try and convince you further. But as Choke notes above this drivel exists because of the demand for it. It seems to be we are going backwards and some of the posts in this thread merely reinforce that view.

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.