Eddie is known for his discretion. He is the Kong Kong of discretion.If Eddie did the same that would be a commentary on the kind of man he is. When he does, let me know.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Eddie is known for his discretion. He is the Kong Kong of discretion.If Eddie did the same that would be a commentary on the kind of man he is. When he does, let me know.
So witty! The King Kong gaffe was a clumsy and poorly timed poke at unscrupulous promoters and entrepreneurs. Only the truly deceitful continue to pretend it was a racist jibe. This is not to be compared to making mileage out of a private conversation.Eddie is known for his discretion. He is the Kong Kong of discretion.
Yes, Eddie is the equivalent of a 13 year old fan. I love Eddie's passion but please don't pretend he is a saint.So witty! The King Kong gaffe was a clumsy and poorly timed poke at unscrupulous promoters and entrepreneurs. Only the truly deceitful continue to pretend it was a racist jibe. This is not to be compared to making mileage out of a private conversation.
Interesting comments from Bomber Thompson recently in an interview about the Don's doping program:
Thompson also said that under law, AFL chairman Mike Fitzpatrick was legally responsible because of the contract between players, their clubs and the league.
"For me, the whole thing is about providing a safe workplace," he said.
"Do you know who's most responsible there? It's the chairman of the AFL because it's a (tripartite) agreement.
"I'm not saying the AFL is most responsible - I'm just saying, by law, that's what happens."
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/08/08/thompson-says-dons-drowning-afl
The sharks are circling.
Interesting comments from Bomber Thompson recently in an interview about the Don's doping program:
Thompson also said that under law, AFL chairman Mike Fitzpatrick was legally responsible because of the contract between players, their clubs and the league.
"For me, the whole thing is about providing a safe workplace," he said.
"Do you know who's most responsible there? It's the chairman of the AFL because it's a (tripartite) agreement.
"I'm not saying the AFL is most responsible - I'm just saying, by law, that's what happens."
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/08/08/thompson-says-dons-drowning-afl
The sharks are circling.
Nothing like a bit of personal responsibility with Bomber already looking to pass blame.that's just bullshit, although the AFL could be sued the main culprit is and always will be the EFC. you'd have to prove mike was aware of the program before you could even think about getting his head near the plate.
Nothing like a bit of personal responsibility with Bomber already looking to pass blame.
This is not the players or the fans fault entirely the management and coachs and none of them should be allowed near any sports club again.
Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
I don't for a second think that the AFL admin will actually be held legally responsible, I was more referring to the media sharks. Between the recent articles about the Goodes response, the trade ban and this, it seems clear that Fitzpatrick is no longer a protected species.Not sure I'd hang my hat on a bush lawyer with a vested interest.
I don't for a second think that the AFL admin will actually be held legally responsible, I was more referring to the media sharks. Between the recent articles about the Goodes response, the trade ban and this, it seems clear that Fitzpatrick is no longer a protected species.
He cares if for no other reason than the rest of the Commission care and it will end his tenure.I doubt Fiztpatrick cares about the media campaign. He's not exactly new to business or football.
He cares if for no other reason than the rest of the Commission care and it will end his tenure.
They care because they are paranoid about negative media commentary.
Do you really think they are going to change the 3 strike regime for the players benefit?
They also care because the clubs have had enough and it's actually the clubs that can oust the lot of them.
The Commissioners are elected by the clubs.
Clubs can veto decisions with a 2/3 majority.
The power ultimately rests with the clubs if the get organised.
I don't for a second think that the AFL admin will actually be held legally responsible, I was more referring to the media sharks. Between the recent articles about the Goodes response, the trade ban and this, it seems clear that Fitzpatrick is no longer a protected species.
What makes you think the rest of the Commission care? Which of them - other than Mclachlan - has said anything at all recently?
Again, Commissioners are voted by the clubs, there is no mechanism to remove them. Clubs only have the power to veto a decision where it pertains to relocation/mergers and new licenses. There is literally no other power they have over commission decisions - they did this to themselves in 1993.
Terry O'Connor?
Terry O'Connor?
Given most of the Commission were tapped on the shoulder by Fitz they are unlikely to revolt, thus the relevance of the Terry O'Connor ousting by the Melbourne clubs led by Jack Elliot & his mate Eddie.
Having looked at this further. Im not sure how much of a "coup" it was, rather that he wasnt re-elected after standing again - which is a mechanism the clubs do have some control over. Non executive Commissioners are elected for three years, and it looks like the clubs simply didnt vote him back in for a fourth term. He was replaced by SA's Bob Hammond.