News 2019 Rumour File - discuss rumours here! (Part 2)

Remove this Banner Ad

I don't think Burton was ever safe, the real talk started mid year. Fagan really pushed for the review, he was obviously listening to the groundswell.

Campo is harder to judge, some players really rate him. I think as the group was set for a huge change it was clear he wasn't equipped for it. Had a lot of credits after 2015 but burnt them all and then some.

Fagan may get a pass as he called for the review (despite Chapman claiming this as his decision)

I believe Campo was liked by senior players but not so much with younger players. This is based on observations and rumours not inside info this.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sounds like he must have something lined up given Essendon had a contract on the table. Not the worst KPD going around by a long stretch...

 
Campo is harder to judge, some players really rate him. I think as the group was set for a huge change it was clear he wasn't equipped for it. Had a lot of credits after 2015 but burnt them all and then some.

Will not be naming names, but apparently he was a big problem with the players. This actually surprised me, as I had always thought he was well liked by the playing group.
 
Will not be naming names, but apparently he was a big problem with the players. This actually surprised me, as I had always thought he was well liked by the playing group.
The players aren’t stupid. Imagine continually getting towelled up in the middle, and being instructed to continually back yourself in and follow the same plan.

I’m not surprised players were getting the shits with him
 
I don't think Burton was ever safe, the real talk started mid year. Fagan really pushed for the review, he was obviously listening to the groundswell.

Campo is harder to judge, some players really rate him. I think as the group was set for a huge change it was clear he wasn't equipped for it. Had a lot of credits after 2015 but burnt them all and then some.
From what I'd been told it had become Fagan vs Roo/Chapman on the review. Fagan was pushing for it, Roo/Chapman kept telling him it wasn't needed, Burton and Campo were great, then Roo put his foot in his mouth with the "go support someone else" comment and so Roo/Chapman called the review as damage control, but limited the scope not to include the board (which Fagan wanted)

Will not be naming names, but apparently he was a big problem with the players. This actually surprised me, as I had always thought he was well liked by the playing group.
Liked by some of the older senior core, but not as much outside that.
 
From what I'd been told it had become Fagan vs Roo/Chapman on the review. Fagan was pushing for it, Roo/Chapman kept telling him it wasn't needed, Burton and Campo were great, then Roo put his foot in his mouth with the "go support someone else" comment and so Roo/Chapman called the review as damage control, but limited the scope not to include the board (which Fagan wanted)


Liked by some of the older senior core, but not as much outside that.

Interestingly, this info came from a senior player.

Maybe playing favourites? It would probably be hard not to when you've been at the club for a decade.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

From what I'd been told it had become Fagan vs Roo/Chapman on the review. Fagan was pushing for it, Roo/Chapman kept telling him it wasn't needed, Burton and Campo were great, then Roo put his foot in his mouth with the "go support someone else" comment and so Roo/Chapman called the review as damage control, but limited the scope not to include the board (which Fagan wanted)


Liked by some of the older senior core, but not as much outside that.
From what I heard, Brett was surprised (probably all that public support he was receiving from Chapman), and is pretty unhappy that he is the scapegoat when there are others still there who perhaps shouldn't be.

I'm not sure who they are though
 
From what I'd been told it had become Fagan vs Roo/Chapman on the review. Fagan was pushing for it, Roo/Chapman kept telling him it wasn't needed, Burton and Campo were great, then Roo put his foot in his mouth with the "go support someone else" comment and so Roo/Chapman called the review as damage control, but limited the scope not to include the board (which Fagan wanted)


Liked by some of the older senior core, but not as much outside that.
I believe that. Fagan is an outsider and not stupid, I believe he’s eventually seen through the Boys Club culture and wants to change it.

Burton was Roos appointment. Chapman loves Roo and the Boys Club culture. It’s obvious they would have held on if they could, you just had to see what Chapman was trying to do by pumping up Burton in that needless interview. Thankfully Roo has a big mouth and isn’t that bright at times.

Chapman and Roo have to go.
 
From what I heard, Brett was surprised (probably all that public support he was receiving from Chapman), and is pretty unhappy that he is the scapegoat when there are others still there who perhaps shouldn't be.

I'm not sure who they are though

They should get him on Footy Classified to explain his side of the story. Would be a good laugh I reckon.
 
Will not be naming names, but apparently he was a big problem with the players. This actually surprised me, as I had always thought he was well liked by the playing group.
The group he was well liked by was diminishing by the day
 
From what I'd been told it had become Fagan vs Roo/Chapman on the review. Fagan was pushing for it, Roo/Chapman kept telling him it wasn't needed, Burton and Campo were great, then Roo put his foot in his mouth with the "go support someone else" comment and so Roo/Chapman called the review as damage control, but limited the scope not to include the board (which Fagan wanted)

No that's not right, Fagan didn't think we needed the review and had ideas on what he wanted to change, took those ideas to the board, the board said they want a full review before implementing what Fagan wanted to do.

"go support someone else" was Roos hypothetical response to people who would not accept the findings of the review so it definitely wasn't what caused the review.
 
No that's not right, Fagan didn't think we needed the review and had ideas on what he wanted to change, took those ideas to the board, the board said they want a full review before implementing what Fagan wanted to do.

"go support someone else" was Roos hypothetical response to people who would not accept the findings of the review so it definitely wasn't what caused the review.
Roo was not responding to questions about the review but in general about the clubs leaders making decisions, that could have meant them keeping certain members.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top