Open Mike with Jason Akermanis

[romeoh]

Watch the video. Then you might be in a position to comment. For someone that has obviously not even bothered to watch the interview that this whole thread is about, you sure do have a lot to say about it.

No need to be so precious old thing. You sure have a lot of blind faith for a man you don't have high regard for-and even though you don't think much of him, his version is still likely to be more acceptable than a whole club's?
Is the Doggies admin, or any of the Bulldog players part of the interview? Any neutrals or impartial commentators versions sought?
Otherwise its just Aker talking about how he saw things. I imagine Hirdy's version of events will be interesting too, but not perhaps accurate.
I am pretty sure most of the stuff i have referred to has been in the public forum for sometime now and not so unreasonable for anyone to have an opinion on.
Might watch the video though. About the only sensible suggestion you have offered so far.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

No need to be so precious old thing. You sure have a lot of blind faith for a man you don't have high regard for-and even though you don't think much of him, his version is still likely to be more acceptable than a whole club's?

Precious? It's a pretty simple suggestion. And yes, I happen to believe him in this instance.

Is the Doggies admin, or any of the Bulldog players part of the interview? Any neutrals or impartial commentators versions sought?

I thought we'd gone over this. Anyone involved with the Bulldogs at the time has had over two years to blow Aka's version completely out of the water. I'm not aware of anyone taking the opportunity to do so, to date.

Otherwise its just Aker talking about how he saw things. I imagine Hirdy's version of events will be interesting too, but not perhaps accurate.
I am pretty sure most of the stuff i have referred to has been in the public forum for sometime now and not so unreasonable for anyone to have an opinion on.
Might watch the video though. About the only sensible suggestion you have offered so far.

Hallelujah.

 

[romeoh]

..and I would still back Aker.

Precious? It's a pretty simple suggestion. And yes, I happen to believe him in this instance.



I thought we'd gone over this. Anyone involved with the Bulldogs at the time has had over two years to blow Aka's version completely out of the water. I'm not aware of anyone taking the opportunity to do so, to date.



Hallelujah.

Ok Mc have watched it and can't see anything much there that changes my mind on previous posts.
It is still Aker's version and within the first 5 minutes Sheahan has questioned Aker's version of events -several times already.
The carrying on over Cooney- who was stupid enough to say give up the media and you might be a 4 time premier-yep stupid but hardly devastatingly bullyboy stuff.
Aker's targets -johnson, murphy-have jobs in the media-does this tell you nothing? Aker can't get a job in the media, the afl doesn't want to know him, he has no friends from Brissy, or dogs presumably-does none of this tell you anything about how people who have worked with him, see him?
I have always found him to be interesting, bright, charming and this interview supports that view. He accepts responsibility for his mistakes, good on him. But then he continues to make them. He is a complex person with 'trust' issues, and so can't see how I would accept the stuff he says over Murphy, Johnson and co who have always struck me as people with character.
And that will do me. No common ground here. Thanks for the chat.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Ok Mc have watched it and can't see anything much there that changes my mind on previous posts.
It is still Aker's version and within the first 5 minutes Sheahan has questioned Aker's version of events -several times already.
The carrying on over Cooney- who was stupid enough to say give up the media and you might be a 4 time premier-yep stupid but hardly devastatingly bullyboy stuff.
Aker's targets -johnson, murphy-have jobs in the media-does this tell you nothing? Aker can't get a job in the media, the afl doesn't want to know him, he has no friends from Brissy, or dogs presumably-does none of this tell you anything about how people who have worked with him, see him?

It doesn't tell me that he's a liar. He's done A LOT of 's**t bloke' things in his life (and I'm not talking about handstands, with some of the things that he got away with at Brisbane, I'm not surprised that he's bemused with how precious the Bulldogs were with things like that), but as far as I'm concerned, he's got a very good record of being honest with his opinions (as stupid as they've often been) and speaking his mind.

 

[romeoh]

It doesn't tell me that he's a liar. He's done A LOT of 's**t bloke' things in his life (and I'm not talking about handstands, with some of the things that he got away with at Brisbane, I'm not surprised that he's bemused with how precious the Bulldogs were with things like that), but as far as I'm concerned, he's got a very good record of being honest with his opinions (as stupid as they've often been) and speaking his mind.

Well yep he has a good record of speaking his mind and there is a certain valour in that, although the flipside is it can be damaging and often gets easy targets. And he has always been honest with expressing his opinions, but his recollections, when challenged (as with Sheahan) seem questionable. It sounds like it might have gotten a bit precious at the dogs, but perhaps that is what happens when you have sought success for so long with little return-maybe you get unnecessarily neurotic. Its not that fair to compare the culture or the team at Brisbane, with Footscray. Maybe at Brisbane, before their untold success, they were a bit sensitive on occasion too? At the same time, I am still going to value the likes of Johnson, Murphy and co over Akermanis. And sometimes discretion is the better part of valour, and maybe that is the line they have taken. You seem to take their silence as concession that Aker has it right, whereas I don't.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

The Dogs made a statement early on that they would not get into any public wrangling - he did this, no I didn't - stuff and they never have.

 

[Flags_In_The_Bag]

As a bulldog person i think he was sooo hard done by

 

[Northworth]

A champion player that played some VERY good footy for the dogs at the end of his career - he definitely had off-field issues - but he retired with three premierships, a norm smith and a brownlow…. he earned the right to question things at the club while he was there - but he was definitely too bitter/public in the way he responded to the leadership group's instructions to him - and hasn't let it go since.

But the club knew what they were getting on that front when they recruited him. They have moved on - and were unable to capitalise on that extended period of on-field dominance… so I daresay they would be wary the next time a high profile /outspoken recruit is considered

 

[Flags_In_The_Bag]

A champion player that played some VERY good footy for the dogs at the end of his career - he definitely had off-field issues - but he retired with three premierships, a norm smith and a brownlow…. he earned the right to question things at the club while he was there - but he was definitely too bitter/public in the way he responded to the leadership group's instructions to him - and hasn't let it go since.

But the club knew what they were getting on that front when they recruited him. They have moved on - and were unable to capitalise on that extended period of on-field dominance… so I daresay they would be wary the next time a high profile /outspoken recruit is considered

Yes but i still think hearing what happened about the handstand and giving up his media pay check was wrong and the way some bulldog players acted were a little touchy

 

[DangerSloane]

Except haven't you just invented this whole scenario? Where do you get the idea that the other players decided he needed a pay cut? That sounds completely fictional to me.
Aker was going to retire. The club set itself and its salaries etc up for the next season. Then Aker came changed his mind and decided to play on, after everything had been put in place. And he happily agreed to a pay cut because he understood the situation and financial pressures re the cap, and he loved playing footy so would play for nothing. ( good on him) Several other players also took pay cuts to help the club out.

He already said media was more than half his pay.
The bulldogs 'leadership group' told him if he wanted to play he'd have to give up the media.

So in other words give up the media and lets say 60% of your pay...
Or we'll sack you and you give up 40% of your pay...

This is all after signing him for less, knowing that he'd earn enough with TV, Radio and Paper commitments.

 

[romeoh]

He already said media was more than half his pay.
The bulldogs 'leadership group' told him if he wanted to play he'd have to give up the media.

So in other words give up the media and lets say 60% of your pay...
Or we'll sack you and you give up 40% of your pay...

This is all after signing him for less, knowing that he'd earn enough with TV, Radio and Paper commitments.

Still think your order of events not quite right. In any case, so he had to get by on $200.000. Tough. He didn't seem to really have an issue with that side of things.
Perhaps if he had been more responsible and trustworthy it would be a non issue-why couldn't he just write interesting pieces, that were then given the ok, and that didn't involve disparaging someone/thing? One assumes there were always conditions attached to his media role-Aker didn't keep his end of the deal-simple. Brisbane also took issue with his media role.
Why carry on as though Aker is some kind of persecuted victim here-he knows that the way he conducts himself walks a fine line, and if it is crossed, as there is always a chance if you take risky options, then there may be consequences. Its seems to me he mostly cops to those consequences. He takes some responsibility for his errors-not sure why you can't see that?

 

[DangerSloane]

Still think your order of events not quite right. In any case, so he had to get by on $200.000. Tough. He didn't seem to really have an issue with that side of things.
Perhaps if he had been more responsible and trustworthy it would be a non issue-why couldn't he just write interesting pieces, that were then given the ok, and that didn't involve disparaging someone/thing? One assumes there were always conditions attached to his media role-Aker didn't keep his end of the deal-simple. Brisbane also took issue with his media role.
Why carry on as though Aker is some kind of persecuted victim here-he knows that the way he conducts himself walks a fine line, and if it is crossed, as there is always a chance if you take risky options, then there may be consequences. Its seems to me he mostly cops to those consequences. He takes some responsibility for his errors-not sure why you can't see that?

a) you obviously havent watched the interview. Aker was heavily managing his finances, so that loans and investments required him to earn the money he was contracted to earn.

b) the amount is not relevant, forget that he was being paid, to be told to give up one of your hobbies because a bunch of unqualified people with no authority tell you to is disgusting.

c) he was paid to write controversial pieces. He also expressed his opinion instead of writing absolute waffling crap that he didnt believe (like all the players these days). Just because half the readers cant actually read and interpret the points he's trying to make is not his fault. Seems like you might be one of them.

d) he made mistakes, but at the bulldogs he was paying for their distinct lack of success which was absolutely nothing to do with him. They failed because they had no discernable leadership at the club (board level to player level). This was blatantly obvious to anyone, let alone someone inside the club.

e) in the bulldogs case he was a victim.

f) you said it perfectly. He MOSTLY cops it. He cops it when he knows he's wrong (like the Nigel Lappin rib injury or the Jim Stynes comment). But the one thing he wasnt willing to cop was the bulldogs incidents. And the way he spoke about that compared with the other 'mistakes' he made tells you that this one wasnt him. It almost brought him to tears.

 

[romeoh]

a) you obviously havent watched the interview. Aker was heavily managing his finances, so that loans and investments required him to earn the money he was contracted to earn.

b) the amount is not relevant, forget that he was being paid, to be told to give up one of your hobbies because a bunch of unqualified people with no authority tell you to is disgusting.

c) he was paid to write controversial pieces. He also expressed his opinion instead of writing absolute waffling crap that he didnt believe (like all the players these days). Just because half the readers cant actually read and interpret the points he's trying to make is not his fault. Seems like you might be one of them.

d) he made mistakes, but at the bulldogs he was paying for their distinct lack of success which was absolutely nothing to do with him. They failed because they had no discernable leadership at the club (board level to player level). This was blatantly obvious to anyone, let alone someone inside the club.

e) in the bulldogs case he was a victim.

f) you said it perfectly. He MOSTLY cops it. He cops it when he knows he's wrong (like the Nigel Lappin rib injury or the Jim Stynes comment). But the one thing he wasnt willing to cop was the bulldogs incidents. And the way he spoke about that compared with the other 'mistakes' he made tells you that this one wasnt him. It almost brought him to tears.

Have watched the interview and much of what you say here is exaggerated or a bit hysterical or just plain wrong. Aker had no real issues re his mortgages etc-all doable and he agreed to it. There is a difference between writing controversial pieces and writing offensive pieces. To say he was paying the price for Bulldogs lack of success has no basis in reality. If Aker is a victim, on wonders what a bully looks like etc etc
Have been over this already with people more reasonable than you. Can't be bothered going over it again with someone as prejudiced as you seem to be.

 

[DangerSloane]

Have watched the interview and much of what you say here is exaggerated or a bit hysterical or just plain wrong. Aker had no real issues re his mortgages etc-all doable and he agreed to it. There is a difference between writing controversial pieces and writing offensive pieces. To say he was paying the price for Bulldogs lack of success has no basis in reality. If Aker is a victim, on wonders what a bully looks like etc etc
Have been over this already with people more reasonable than you. Can't be bothered going over it again with someone as prejudiced as you seem to be.

Theres also a difference in the points aker was trying to show in his articles and the ones that people misintepreted and the media turned around on him.
Just because someone can be a bully doesnt mean they cant be a victim. I'd say through childhood, and adulthood, Aker has been the victim more times than the bully.

Mate, prejudiced would be yourself. You came out and had swings at him before even watching the interview. You refuse to believe anything he says is the truth.

Personally I am a bit "meh" on him. Great player, and I respect him for writing what he believed, and a lot of hte time writing the right thing which was intepreted the wrong way (like the gay footballers thing). He copped flack when he stuffed up, and took it on the chin and kept moving most of the time.

 

[romeoh]

Theres also a difference in the points aker was trying to show in his articles and the ones that people misintepreted and the media turned around on him.
Just because someone can be a bully doesnt mean they cant be a victim. I'd say through childhood, and adulthood, Aker has been the victim more times than the bully.

Mate, prejudiced would be yourself. You came out and had swings at him before even watching the interview. You refuse to believe anything he says is the truth.

Personally I am a bit "meh" on him. Great player, and I respect him for writing what he believed, and a lot of hte time writing the right thing which was intepreted the wrong way (like the gay footballers thing). He copped flack when he stuffed up, and took it on the chin and kept moving most of the time.

The swings (think I have been pretty fair to him actually) I had at Aker were all events, incidents, proclamations that have been in the public sphere for several years now and discussed many times, in many forums. You seem to have based your opinions on Aker's interview-His version of things. I have formed my opinions on what other people have had to say about it, or his failure to get jobs in certain organizations, or his own acknowledgements of some mistakes, or material I have read about this. And now that I have watched it and I have the same view I had before, because reckon I was already pretty well informed about it. Aker's venison of events is not really borne out by any factual evidence -so who knows.
Aker is all right, but your sinking the boots into Footscray seems neither fair, nor accurate
I have no doubt that he, like the rest of us, has been a victim too. But has that given him more empathy and understanding? Otherwise, so what?
FWIW I quite like Aker, and have acknowledged he has some good qualities-just don't like his version of the Doggie saga.

 

[DangerSloane]

The swings (think I have been pretty fair to him actually) I had at Aker were all events, incidents, proclamations that have been in the public sphere for several years now and discussed many times, in many forums. You seem to have based your opinions on Aker's interview-His version of things. I have formed my opinions on what other people have had to say about it, or his failure to get jobs in certain organizations, or his own acknowledgements of some mistakes, or material I have read about this. And now that I have watched it and I have the same view I had before, because reckon I was already pretty well informed about it. Aker's venison of events is not really borne out by any factual evidence -so who knows.
Aker is all right, but your sinking the boots into Footscray seems neither fair, nor accurate
I have no doubt that he, like the rest of us, has been a victim too. But has that given him more empathy and understanding? Otherwise, so what?
FWIW I quite like Aker, and have acknowledged he has some good qualities-just don't like his version of the Doggie saga.

a) those things have been discussed by a biased media, when often at times the total point of the article or comment has merit and has been totally missed (like the gay footballer and even the Jim Stynes thing). Nobody mentions that he said nice things about Stynes but also mentoned that he was a bit of a prick in his playing days. A fact that has been confirmed by many. Bad timing yes, but was he wrong?

b) there is one reason why Aker wont get a job at the AFL and thats because hes seen to be too controversial. Not the first, and wont be the last to not get a job because of that fact.

c) the factual evidence? so what you were behind those closed doors and are 100% certain that the bulldogs players did not ask him to give up his media career or they were going to sack him? or you were there when cooney told him they wouldnt win a flag unless he quit the media? It reeks of desperation stemming from years of choking and underperformance. That to me is as close as you'll get to a fact in this debate.

 

[romeoh]

a) those things have been discussed by a biased media, when often at times the total point of the article or comment has merit and has been totally missed (like the gay footballer and even the Jim Stynes thing). Nobody mentions that he said nice things about Stynes but also mentoned that he was a bit of a prick in his playing days. A fact that has been confirmed by many. Bad timing yes, but was he wrong?

b) there is one reason why Aker wont get a job at the AFL and thats because hes seen to be too controversial. Not the first, and wont be the last to not get a job because of that fact.

c) the factual evidence? so what you were behind those closed doors and are 100% certain that the bulldogs players did not ask him to give up his media career or they were going to sack him? or you were there when cooney told him they wouldnt win a flag unless he quit the media? It reeks of desperation stemming from years of choking and underperformance. That to me is as close as you'll get to a fact in this debate.

Think plenty of people in the media acknowledge Aker's value. Think plenty of controversial people get jobs in the media. Re factual evidence-I wasn't there, neither were you. Your assumptions based on things 'that reek'-give it a spell, hardly convincing, hardy verifiable. Just sinking the boots into a struggling club for the sake of Aker and why would you want to do that? You go with Aker, i don't. Let's leave it at that.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

The fact is that Dogs will not come out and deny or refute anything Jason says so he's pretty much free to paint himself any colour he wishes.

Your dislike for the Dogs surely can't be based solely on Aker's very old "stories" so what's your problem?

 

[DangerSloane]

Think plenty of people in the media acknowledge Aker's value. Think plenty of controversial people get jobs in the media. Re factual evidence-I wasn't there, neither were you. Your assumptions based on things 'that reek'-give it a spell, hardly convincing, hardy verifiable. Just sinking the boots into a struggling club for the sake of Aker and why would you want to do that? You go with Aker, i don't. Let's leave it at that.

My theory is based on the fact that someone that WAS there has specifically said what happened.

None of the bulldogs have come out and said thats false...

What are you basing your opposing assumptions on?

I'm not sinking the boots in. Its something that happened years ago...and its a fact that they didnt live up to expectations in that time.
The bulldogs are looking pretty decent for the future if you ask me. I reckon 17 teams would swap their midfield for the bulldogs for the next 10 years. They'll get their chance.

 

[DangerSloane]

The fact is that Dogs will not come out and deny or refute anything Jason says so he's pretty much free to paint himself any colour he wishes.

Your dislike for the Dogs surely can't be based solely on Aker's very old "stories" so what's your problem?

Presume you're talking to me....?
Nothing against the bulldogs at all, but if what Aker says is true it just reeks of a complete lack of professionalism and class on behalf of hte playing group and the club.

If it wasnt Jason Akermanis, then people would have made a much bigger issue of it.

 

[Docker Alyssa]

You two need to get a room, and keep it out of the locker room. I think maybe aker made a controversial article about that inclination.

 

[romeoh]

My theory is based on the fact that someone that WAS there has specifically said what happened.

None of the bulldogs have come out and said thats false...

What are you basing your opposing assumptions on?

I'm not sinking the boots in. Its something that happened years ago...and its a fact that they didnt live up to expectations in that time.
The bulldogs are looking pretty decent for the future if you ask me. I reckon 17 teams would swap their midfield for the bulldogs for the next 10 years. They'll get their chance.

Yep and that someone who was there -is it possible he has a vested interest, a biased perspective? Yes it is. is it also possible that his recollections of events is blurry/tainted/incorrect/biased/coloured by...? -yes it is.
Sheahan questioned Aker's recollections of several other incidents within the first 5 minutes of his interview. Sheahan disputed them, because there were other versions of these events. Turns out Aker's recall was flawed. Doesn't that tell you anything about Aker's relationship with the truth?
Yep enough already.

 

[romeoh]

You two need to get a room, and keep it out of the locker room. I think maybe aker made a controversial article about that inclination.

Haha fair enough.

 

[Kickin_Goals]

Another "poor me" off between anti-aker people and no one.
Monocle wearing flogs are why we have the most dead boring personalities in the game about and not people who might say something controversial.

Everything is moronic simply because you people don't agree with it, leftist extremists throughout seek psychological counseling, you have no idea where neutral lies so everything is extreme to you.
Aker is entertaining and self determinate, that's always going to threaten herd think wherever he is.
It's a dull stupid person who doesn't cause controversy.

 

[My North]

this was a good open mike.