nutbean

I mentioned yesterday that in my fury of Paul Gardner weighing unnecessarily that I emailed Grey Group. Lo and behold - Paul got back to me. Unfortunately the first mail sent to him was web based so I dont have a copy of it but it was along the lines that a "true Melbourne person wouldnt have said what you said". It was short and sweet. He responded and I have taken the opportunity to really spell out why I was unhappy with what he did.Start from the bottom up. Hi Paul, Thanks for your response but I think you have missed my point. It is not what was said that made me contact you – there are many, in fact most that share that exact sentiment. My email was directed at a person who I strongly believe didn’t need to come out and air his views in the manner in which you did. I have number of rhetorical questions to throw at you (or you may want to respond) · Why exactly did you think you were called on to comment - because you an expert commentator ? because you are a media celebrity ? The reason you were called on, is because next to Dean Bailey you were the next closest Melbourne authority figure no longer working for club ( albeit you departed six months before the end of the season) that was likely to give the journo’s a headline. You were contacted because you are /were a Melbourne supporter, a Melbourne Football club President , a Melbourne person. Contrast what Paul Johnson said - he took care in his answers and let people draw their own conclusions. He actively decided not to whack the club. Compare the media reactions of Paul Johnson’s interview to yours – one approach was inflammatory - the other wasn’t. · I understand your distaste for what transpired – however did you believe at the time that there wasn’t enough coverage of the story ? Did you believe that there wasn’t enough outrage and it was being buried ? (Brian Taylor suggested that the MFC be removed from the competition !). With someone with a purported love for club would not a more helpful approach for our club been to assess the situation and see that this story was already massive and didn’t need any more help. After Brock’s statements this was going to be addressed by AFL one way or the other. Do you believe you weighing in was going to open the “unopened eyes of the AFL. The tanking train had well and truly left the station – there was little need for a Melbourne President to chase the train jump on board and help fuel the fires. · Let’s consider how other good Melbourne people have behaved when confronted with unpalatable situations o Dean Bailey sacked as coach - did he take parting shots at the club which he had every right to do when he was marched out the door ? He handled his exit with class. o Mark Neeld – “I will make you fitter harder and stronger”- Did he add because “because my predecessor left the list in a deplorable state” ? o Could you imagine Jim Stynes standing up and saying “What a magnificent job the supporters have done in eradicating our debt” and then adding “ considering the precarious financial state previous administrations left us in”? Your legacy is frequently debated on the supporters website and opinion is divided but there are many who rightly acknowledge many of the good things you did for our club. Go on the supporters board now and with few exceptions the question is being asked “Why did a Melbourne President find it necessary to whack his own club”. The club is going through a tough time onfield and has had much unwanted media attention this year and this is just one more. I’m sorry Paul – if you consider yourself a true Melbourne person you would understand that the input you delivered wasn’t necessary – authority figures from a club don’t publicly whack their own. (I am an active member of the Demonland community and as a courtesy I am printing your response to me on our supporter boards as many supporters are disillusioned with your actions and want answers) Regards Jeff From: Sent: Wednesday, 1 August 2012 5:21 PM To: Subject: your note... Thanks for your comments…I responded to what I think is a poor practice that should be stamped out by the AFL. Regardless of my feelings for the club I support and worked pro-bono for nearly seven years, it is wrong to enter any game without the intention of winning. If you think this is the kind of club or effort you want to support, that’s your opinion…and it’s sad. Hopefully other supporters don’t share disillusions that losing makes a club strong. paul

I sent a polite but pointed email to the CEO of Grey Group asking him to pass on my email to his chairman - thank you for boosting your own ego and self importance by making comments that can only hurt the club when any other ex President would have shown support for their club and not try to add to the damage. I have no idea if it will get to him but it made me feel better. Postscript- the CEO emailed me back and told me Gardiner is no longer Chairman. doh!

We all know what happened and can draw conclusions - there are those at one of the scale who think we went all out to lose and all from the top to the bottom were part of it - to those at the other end of the spectrum who would agree that winning wasnt the top priority and certain personnel movements were made that pointed to that. But an ex President who comes out with statements that cannot be beneficial to the club, in fact harmful is a person who has is thinking of himself and his removal rather than the club.There are enough outsiders whacking us without the need for one who professes love for the club to do the same.

I neither confirm nor deny.

I would simply love to dismiss this conspiracy theory as nonsense - but I stood resolute on Tommy Voldermort and the view that nothing sinister was happening or happened and got badly burnt. I therefore stand wishy washy, non-commital, on the fence and wait to see what comes to light.

I think we are still tanking.

another business gone to the dogs

I was thinking the same thing myself. The Carlton big wigs would just love one of theirs talking about other teams tanking.

umm come out strongly and say what ? I'm not offended that Brock said we tanked. I'm offended in his hypocracy on his reason for leaving and where he went. Sheer hypocracy if his reasons for departure werent such fantasy

You may want to know the answer to your question above but Kevin Sheedy is not the one to provide any form of accurate and unbiased answer.

Scully seems to be the hardest word- Elton John from the Blue Moves album "what have I got to do to make you love me" "what have I got to do to show I care" "what have I got to do when Sheedy strikes me " "Scully seems to be the hardest word" Chorus "Its sad, so sad" "Its a sad sad situation" "And its getting more and more absurd" "Its sad, so sad" "Cos Scully seems to be the hardest word"

Here's my small take. I have been sucked in by false dawns before and probably will be again. Bailey was meant to be a teacher - but to me as in all things in life- there has to be behaviours performed and consequences for the behaviors and Bailey failed to give any consequences that could be construed as negative - instead constantly falling back on "we are young" . A good teacher will reward behaviors ( good behaviors usually rewards themself in football- AKA Nathan Jones recognition as a "player"and a better contract next time around) but by the same token there must consequences for failing to adopt good behaviors. Bailey and Daniher both failed in my opinion as teachers because there was a constant failure on the consequences front. Whilst Neeld also concedes we are "developing" and may have to grit his teeth and accept C-grade skills he is obviously not accepting non adherence to his overall message - the dropping of Green, Davey, Watts, Beamer are all proof of this. Whether Neeld will be successful or not remains to be seen.His approach so far in pumping up players who perform (even for a portion of a game) and giving consequences to players who in his opinion are not doing as he asks shows me that he is a teacher with a clear set of rules.

Alright, I have high enough self esteem to say that I read the first post and your reply and with my the sheer volume of laughter I think I may have pee'd a little in my pants. Footnote - if I got to the stage of "without hope" as some on this board have, if my belief got to the stage of no belief at all that we will improve as some on this board think - I'd pretty much stop going to the football to see my team play. Its a mindset - Im not suggesting it's a glass half empty or glass half full scenario. Our cattle (and I do mean cattle) are playing poorly and a fair few are just not up to it. But alas - I do not see the glass as 99% empty - I savor this glass that is 1% full.

if its glows in the dark it's a nightclub

These stats dont mean a great deal as it does not take into any consideration where and how the kicks for goal were taken. Apart from the last couple of seasons where his reliability on gettable shots for goal have diminished he would be the best set shot at goal I have seen at Melbourne in a decade.

I used to say that if i wanted someone kicking for my life it would be Brad Green

I was invited to watch Collingwood vs Hawthorn Saturday and seeing the game live pointed out one crucial element that is missing from our team (which we all knew anyway -but seeing what we are missing live is gut wrenching) - players who can hit a target by hand and foot.

I couldn't see him being shifted with a crowbar and ten tonnes of TNT.I just dont think it is in his DNA.

I think he is in the recruitment team along with Jack the blind miner.

lost flavour in the translation.

Read Andrew Frasers books if you even need to be more convinced

coulda shoulda woulda

like kidney stones

Leaving the very peculiar Judd incident aside the worst incident of the weekend got downgraded. The Ziebell and even the Wellingham incident, the players who were hit had limited vision in that they were looking the other way when the contact came or saw it at the last minute. The Carlton players who were hit may have had half an inkling that someone coming the other direction could kill them.Or at least their limited vision would have had them thinking that they were exposed. Saint Nick does a nice hit up lead - can see the whole field ahead - clear and open. Burns Merritt off and takes a strong grab -clearly beaten his man and then moments later BANG. Double knees in the back. Low act which hurt but no permanent damage. i dont care - it could have broken ribs and there is no way a player could even assume he is going to be cleaned up like that. It is a cheap shot And Merritts penalty got reduced !!!!

I hope there are good witnesses to verify the story so it is cut and dried and those animals get what they deserve.