What They're Saying - The Bulldogs Media Thread - Part 2

[Pugz89]

Quite interesting to read that Peter Gordon is going to act on behalf of the AFL in the Joel Wilkinson case.

I believe I read clubs and individuals are also set to be involved in the case, and given Justin Sherman was one specific player who from memory was embroiled in a racist incident with Joel, I wouldn't be surprised if the Dogs would potentially be in the gun, if Wilkinson is successful against the AFL hence I suspect PG has a vested interest in this on behalf of the club.

Could be way off the mark, but I can't imagine he would get involved in this kind of thing without some heavy thought.

 

[Sharkey66]

Just read the latest installment in the cheaters saga (Mike Fitzpatrick on talking footy) and they mentioned that jeff Kennett had a meeting with disgruntled afl president recently. Just wondering if anyone knew whether gordon went to that?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

He did. Was a story last week about a meeting at kennetts mancave.

 

[BRWB]

I believe I read clubs and individuals are also set to be involved in the case, and given Justin Sherman was one specific player who from memory was embroiled in a racist incident with Joel, I wouldn't be surprised if the Dogs would potentially be in the gun, if Wilkinson is successful against the AFL hence I suspect PG has a vested interest in this on behalf of the club.

Could be way off the mark, but I can't imagine he would get involved in this kind of thing without some heavy thought.

its messy. What if the Dogs are sued as well as the AFL and the Dogs are offered a deal to roll over on the AFL but hurting Gordo's case for the AFL in the process?

Does Gordo pick up the phone and have a conversation with himself on which conflicted vested interest he screws? Money or love???

More broadly, does Gordo roll over as Dogs Prez and let the AFL tickle his belly in the hope that his firm gets lucrative AFL contracts?

No way should Gordon be acting for the AFL in any matter while President. Its the very definition of potential conflict of interest.

 

[Sentinel]

I believe I read clubs and individuals are also set to be involved in the case, and given Justin Sherman was one specific player who from memory was embroiled in a racist incident with Joel, I wouldn't be surprised if the Dogs would potentially be in the gun, if Wilkinson is successful against the AFL hence I suspect PG has a vested interest in this on behalf of the club.

Could be way off the mark, but I can't imagine he would get involved in this kind of thing without some heavy thought.

I'm not saying that you are wrong, but I'd be interested to see how the Bulldogs could be in the gun. Obviously the Justin Sherman incident potentially drags us into it, but he was acting as an individual and the club and league very swiftly responded and acted once it came to light - I'm not sure what else they could have done once it occurred (beside perhaps further education to players as a preventative measure, if they didn't already do that?)

I would have thought Sherman's episode stands as an (extremely disappointing) one-off which was dealt with at the time, whilst Wilkinson's main gripes are the day to day stuff he might have faced in the locker room and from others at the Suns/AFL which he suggests were ongoing over his 3 years and that he says ruined his career.

Having said that, Gordon would normally be getting behind the smaller dog in the fight, the fact he is on the AFL's side is very interesting.

 

[Cam1967]

Good to see Matthew Lloyd call out Longmire on his whine about Clarkson sooking about umpiring. Brought up the 16 Grand Final and aftermath of the Swans whinging...even Caro backed him up

 

[immortalmike]

PG has copped some criticism on here for some of his 'leftie' extracurricular activities. Fair call by fpcookie, I don't see why he should have to go back through posts to find out names for you.

Because it doesn't give people the right of reply. It's a weak way of discussing an issue. What's the point of saying people are quiet on this issue when a) they might be unaware of it, b) they might not know who you're talking about and c) they may have a perfectly consistent reason for their silence? The only reason you'd do so without naming names is that you're a coward who'd rather take a snipe than have an open discussion.

 

[maddog37]

Because it doesn't give people the right of reply. It's a weak way of discussing an issue. What's the point of saying people are quiet on this issue when a) they might be unaware of it, b) they might not know who you're talking about and c) they may have a perfectly consistent reason for their silence? The only reason you'd do so without naming names is that you're a coward who'd rather take a snipe than have an open discussion.

Strong words. Some people still want to make a point but avoid outright confrontation. It’s not easy for all personality types to be combative but they still need to have a voice.

 

[immortalmike]

Strong words. Some people still want to make a point but avoid outright confrontation. It’s not easy for all personality types to be combative but they still need to have a voice.

So they still choose to post combative content but in a "safe" way? Seems cowardly to me. And extremely unfair to those they are talking about.

 

[maddog37]

So they still choose to post combative content but in a "safe" way? Seems cowardly to me. And extremely unfair to those they are talking about.

Yep. A touch snide but not a hangable offense. I’m sure the ones being spoken about know who they are and will jump in if they feel slighted.

 

[BEaston]

Good to see Matthew Lloyd call out Longmire on his whine about Clarkson sooking about umpiring. Brought up the 16 Grand Final and aftermath of the Swans whinging...even Caro backed him up

Shhhhh don't tell the Swannies supporters on the main board...very sensitive about this.

 

[adsum]

Shhhhh don't tell the Swannies supporters on the main board...very sensitive about this.

Methinks Longmire doth protest too much.
The following is from a piece by Caroline Wilson on 4 April 2017.

"The AFL's Peter Schwab has admitted the umpires erred in awarding the Bulldogs' Tom Boyd a free kick in front of goal last Friday night in one of a number of concessions on Tuesday to Sydney coach John Longmire.In a conversation Longmire described as "an overdue chat which would have been useful in the pre-season", Schwab also undertook to meet the disenchanted coach and his football lieutenant Tom Harley in Sydney before Friday night's Collingwood game.

While Longmire chastised the umpires' boss in their first phone call last Saturday after the round-two clash for not making the effort to meet him in Sydney before round one, both parties agreed the talks on Tuesday had ultimately proved productive.
...

Having publicly avoided the issue of the lopsided free kick count after the 2016 grand final, then generally questioned the umpires' professionalism four months later, Longmire's bitter disappointment with the umpiring in Friday night's re-match against the Bulldogs has provoked three conversations with Schwab since then."

 

[Contador]

Representing a party in a legal case doesn't mean you necessarily agree with that party's argument. It just means you will represent your client in the best way you can to ensure a fair outcome is achieved. Lawyers often have to represent people who are obviously guilty.

'Gordon said racism is a "creeping disease" and he is interested in the case'. I doubt he's doing it because he passionately believes he needs to defend the AFL against any charge of racism. He's not doing it free of charge.

He also has a brand new law firm he'd like to promote. A high profile court case is a good way of doing it.

 

[RedWhite&Blue]

Good to see Matthew Lloyd call out Longmire on his whine about Clarkson sooking about umpiring. Brought up the 16 Grand Final and aftermath of the Swans whinging...even Caro backed him up

John Longwhinge
Whingedney Swans
The Bloodsie Whingers

 

[_M_16_]

Shhhhh don't tell the Swannies supporters on the main board...very sensitive about this.

Try telling them they did little for most of the game except the second half of the second quarter, and that they only kicked 4 goals across the three other quarters. Nor the massive inside 50 differential, and that if they played a more efficient forward 50 team/we were not wasteful they'd have been flogged by 6-7 goals.

But no, instead they were the better team all day and would have won if it wasn't for the umpires

Don't think I have ever copped such heated an angry responses in the past for pointing all the above out. You'd think someone died, because two years later they are still bitter. Used to love Swan fans, now they are just rude and hold a chip on their shoulder anytime in any thread that is to do with the Bulldogs and take shots at the club and its fans

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

Try telling them they did little for most of the game except the second half of the second quarter, and that they only kicked 4 goals across the three other quarters. Nor the massive inside 50 differential, and that if they played a more efficient forward 50 team/we were not wasteful they'd have been flogged by 6-7 goals.

But no, instead they were the better team all day and would have won if it wasn't for the umpires

Don't think I have ever copped such heated an angry responses in the past for pointing all the above out. You'd think someone died, because two years later they are still bitter. Used to love Swan fans, now they are just rude and hold a chip on their shoulder anytime in any thread that is to do with the Bulldogs and take shots at the club and its fans

Yeah I have no respect for them, rude, nasty, over entitled whiners. The way they put our club down before the grand final, was pure arrogance.

 

[Dogs Rule]

Yeah I have no respect for them, rude, nasty, over entitled whiners. The way they put our club down before the grand final, was pure arrogance.

I still laugh myself silly at bitter, salty tears that continue to be shed by Swannies supporters....especially when I watch this.

 

[NBates]

Poor Swannies . We've still got our Melbourne club - they ain't

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[_M_16_]

Just a little stat on our current streaks for those interested

 

[SCRAY72]

Just a little stat on our current streaks for those interested

View attachment 497799

Roll on Friday, June 29th. That will be Geelong's only Etihad game for the year and they will be coming off the byè..
Dogs play North the week before at Etihad .

 

[Snake Livermore]

Because it doesn't give people the right of reply. It's a weak way of discussing an issue. What's the point of saying people are quiet on this issue when a) they might be unaware of it, b) they might not know who you're talking about and c) they may have a perfectly consistent reason for their silence? The only reason you'd do so without naming names is that you're a coward who'd rather take a snipe than have an open discussion.

I just think you're being unrealistic. If I was to post something along the lines 'all them idiots what said Bailey Williams should be dropped after round 1, look at youse all now' - would you expect me to go back and search through all the posts at that time and name check everyone who slighted Bailey Williams ability?

Often a group of posters will align on an issue and they'll be referred to with some vague description or terminology. Eg lemmings It happens all the time. It's not cowardly. It's just an anonymous public group forum and that's how it's works.

 

[immortalmike]

I just think you're being unrealistic. If I was to post something along the lines 'all them idiots what said Bailey Williams should be dropped after round 1, look at youse all now' - would you expect me to go back and search through all the posts at that time and name check everyone who slighted Bailey Williams ability?

Often a group of posters will align on an issue and they'll be referred to with some vague description or terminology. Eg lemmings It happens all the time. It's not cowardly. It's just an anonymous public group forum and that's how it's works.

No, that is a very different type of post (one I'm also not fond of I'd prefer it phrased along the lines of "always thought Bailey would make it" ) it is more about football forum generalities. This is a political discussion in which fpcookie knows exactly who he's talking about, but would rather snipe than have a discussion.

 

[BEaston]

Hahaha * me dead mike. I know you like to follow me around, boner in hand, ready for a stoush but seriously mate I reckon it's time to give it up. It might seem crazy to you, but actually I don't have a timestamped spreadsheet of every perceived personnal slight or comment I've disagreed with on bigfooty at my fingertips to reference. It's exactly how Snake Livermore explained it, I've no idea who made the comments previously. I made a general observation on based on general comments made in the past.

Now. Although I didn't really want to, I've looked at the ignored content in this thread as people were referencing my name and can't say I was too surprised to see who showed up. After this post, it will be the last time I do so. Unfortunately, I was painfully slow in ignoring in the first place. I reckon it would be better for you to do the same to me because I don't think this whole "defender of the people" complex is working too well for you.... especially when you'll likely be biting their heads off in a months time.

Bye (and please don't PM me)

 

[immortalmike]

Hahaha **** me dead mike. I know you like to follow me around, boner in hand, ready for a stoush but seriously mate I reckon it's time to give it up. It might seem crazy to you, but actually I don't have a timestamped spreadsheet of every perceived personnal slight or comment I've disagreed with on bigfooty at my fingertips to reference. It's exactly how Snake Livermore explained it, I've no idea who made the comments previously. I made a general observation on based on general comments made in the past.

Now. Although I didn't really want to, I've looked at the ignored content in this thread as people were referencing my name and can't say I was too surprised to see who showed up. After this post, it will be the last time I do so. Unfortunately, I was painfully slow in ignoring in the first place. I reckon it would be better for you to do the same to me because I don't think this whole "defender of the people" complex is working too well for you.... especially when you'll likely be biting their heads off in a months time.

Bye (and please don't PM me)

More sniping a d avoiding discussion. Silly silly child. Enjoy your bubble.

 

[BRWB]

Hahaha **** me dead mike. I know you like to follow me around, boner in hand, ready for a stoush but seriously mate I reckon it's time to give it up. It might seem crazy to you, but actually I don't have a timestamped spreadsheet of every perceived personnal slight or comment I've disagreed with on bigfooty at my fingertips to reference. It's exactly how Snake Livermore explained it, I've no idea who made the comments previously. I made a general observation on based on general comments made in the past.

Now. Although I didn't really want to, I've looked at the ignored content in this thread as people were referencing my name and can't say I was too surprised to see who showed up. After this post, it will be the last time I do so. Unfortunately, I was painfully slow in ignoring in the first place. I reckon it would be better for you to do the same to me because I don't think this whole "defender of the people" complex is working too well for you.... especially when you'll likely be biting their heads off in a months time.

Bye (and please don't PM me)

Mate I went to PM you and can't, hence the public post. FYI BF has a function to allow you to block individual people PMing you rather than blocking everyone. I've only permablocked and ignored one person and it has significantly improved my... BF experience...

Enjoy the serenity.

 

[BEaston]

Mate I went to PM you and can't, hence the public post. FYI BF has a function to allow you to block individual people PMing you rather than blocking everyone. I've only permablocked and ignored one person and it has significantly improved my... BF experience...

Enjoy the serenity.

Ahhh cheers mate. I just went pre-emptive and un-ticked every box I saw. I'll go back and see how to do that.