Prediction What happens next? - Collingwood after Ed

[sr36]

This isn’t really a discussion for this topic, but anyone who doesn’t currently see those as societal norms will be on the wrong side of history...

I think you're just defining societal norms differently and perhaps the issues differently - don't think there is much of a societal norm where Australians are pushing to "Allow the boats".

 

[Pragmatic Shill]

No thank you to another journalist on the board. Given the delicate financial situation we currently find ourselves in someone with connections at the top end of town plus a demonstrable track record in promoting reconciliation would be my preference.

A starting point could be to reach out to the signatories of the open letter be it in a board or consultant capacity. Given it’s an open letter I find it strange we haven’t yet seen the list of who signed.

I’d also suggest removing the Holden signage immediately and open it up to indigenous service groups to apply for it. I would then match CGU’s $1m funding of toward race relations.

Agree to disagree Sco. I personally think it would still be good to have an established media performer on the board, albeit one that's less prone to foot in mouth disease. That doesn't exclude people from the top end of town with connections from also joining the board - it's more than just Eddie that I think should step away.

 

[manicpie]

Do people still use the phrase SJW unironically? Get out of 2016 my dude - and while I've got your attention I should break it to you that no one takes people who posts in the comment section of online Herald Sun articles seriously.

So you say it's ok for a person to be vilified because of his beliefs? Answer the question SJW. Just because you are selective in what you support doesn't make you right, are you getting it yet? Got to love me a hypocrite

 

[sideswipe]

I don't know why your perceived views of his political beliefs are worth mentioning or so triggering for you, but I find him to be a breath of fresh air and despite having a media presence like Eddie did, certainly nowhere near as much of a blowhard - while still being a one-eyed Collingwood supporter.

On SM-G981B using BigFooty.com mobile app

Hardly triggered - more surprised that you raised him as an option. His career-long political views are very important - they may well influence his thinking on commercial matters that a board considers. And what would his "media presence" do for the Club?

In an article today he wrote of Collingwood's "descent into racism". Do you think that is accurate or fair?

Not that I believe he would be considered. You think he would be good because he has some views that you like? What would he bring to a club board?

 

[sr36]

I quoted whiskeytown? Have you gone Pat Reed on us here?

I would suggest that his reminder yesterday that the review was “inspired by Black Lives Matter” and his comment that he’s a “lightning rod for vitriol” suggest that no he very clearly still doesn’t get it.

A Pauline Hanson gif would be appropriate as I have no idea what Pat Reed's referring to?

Not sure how suggesting the review was inspired by BLM is not getting it. The BLM put race back on the front page and shifted public sentiment. This put Colllingwood's history with racial issues back in the news, including H. Collingwood responded with the review. Isn't that the most common read of the way this played out.

"Lightning rod for vitriol." Not sure why you'd think that Ed isn't an easy commonly aimed at target for criticism.

 

[manicpie]

My views expressed in a BF post are now enough to place me in the left? Righto. I actually think it’s pathetic that you’ve twisted Falau’s actions into him being the victim. Next you’ll be telling us McGuire was as well or Court is a shining light. Religious racism
[/QUOTE

How have I twisted the folau situation in any way other than what it is? Why is he not allowed to have his beliefs? You are unable to answer the question so you try and use ridicule. Deny and deflect, either way, you are just another selective Racist, you might not see it, but millions of us do

 

[manicpie]

Still no response, yep, just as I thought, baaaaaaa, baaaaaaaa

 

[Scodog10]

A Pauline Hanson gif would be appropriate as I have no idea what Pat Reed's referring to?

Not sure how suggesting the review was inspired by BLM is not getting it. The BLM put race back on the front page and shifted public sentiment. This put Colllingwood's history with racial issues back in the news, including H. Collingwood responded with the review. Isn't that the most common read of the way this played out.

"Lightning rod for vitriol." Not sure why you'd think that Ed isn't an easy commonly aimed at target for criticism.

This is it for me because my ignore function is about to get much more active.

The report was not in response to BLM that was spin to avoid stating publicly that it was in response to Lumumba’s claims. Clearly he couldn’t state that it was because of Lumumba’s claims because of the court case, but simply acknowledging the review was enough.

By proclaiming himself as a target it takes power from the do better report. He’s stating that he’s the issue not our systemic racism.

 

[sideswipe]

No thank you to another journalist on the board. Given the delicate financial situation we currently find ourselves in someone with connections at the top end of town plus a demonstrable track record in promoting reconciliation would be my preference.

A starting point could be to reach out to the signatories of the open letter be it in a board or consultant capacity. Given it’s an open letter I find it strange we haven’t yet seen the list of who signed.

I’d also suggest removing the Holden signage immediately and open it up to indigenous service groups to apply for it. I would then match CGU’s $1m funding of toward race relations.

I was also a little skeptical on the signatories. Here are a few of them, according to SBS

"Over seventy people signed the open letter, including Professor Gary Foley; former AFL star Nathan Lovett-Murray; Mick Gooda, former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner; and legendary Aboriginal sports photographer Barbara McGrady.

"Labor Member for Wills Peter Khalil; Labor Member for Cowan Anne Aly; and Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi also endorsed the letter.

"Prominent academics and writers who signed include Celeste Liddle, Dr Tony Birch, Chelsea Bond, Ghassan Hage, Randa Abdel-Fattah, Maxine Beneba-Clark, Benjamin Law, and poet Omar Sakr, winner of the 2020 Prime Minister’s Literary Award."

Dunno if I can agree with you on us being in a delicate financial position. Yes, Covid has done damage, but I would hazard a guess our balance sheet is pretty solid compared to other clubs. And it's pretty healthy looked at in isolation. Gotta love that we have $15m of financial assets sitting there.

And never under-estimate the Club's asset that is bozos like us who sponsors love!

Edit: I just reviewed the list of signatories. Didn't recognize many of the names, but wow, their titles/occupations look fun.

 

[Scodog10]

How have I twisted the folau situation in any way other than what it is? Why is he not allowed to have his beliefs? You are unable to answer the question so you try and use ridicule. Deny and deflect, either way, you are just another selective Racist, you might not see it, but millions of us do

So you’re telling me there’s millions out there as batshit crazy as you?

 

[whiskeytown]

Like Ed you clearly don’t get it!

All six of those are not left wing causes they’re simply societal norms in 2021 and the only people not in support of them are racist nuffies. What makes your assessment that they’re left wing is that the neutral and right wing aren’t as focussed on them.

For instance I’m a swing voter the government of the day makes no difference to me in my daily life, I support both sides depending on the details and I’m 100% behind all 6 of those causes because they’re just societal norms that we should all be in support of.

They are the norm in 2021 because they have become established ideas. They were originally left wing focuses. History shows that... think about the Australian civil rights movement, pride marches, abortion protests etc

Several people here have seemingly not comprehend what I’ve said. I never said they was no merit to improving things for those particular minority groups. But undeniably the momentum, money and activism is bigger for left wing supported movements eg indigenous rights than other movements that are more politically neutral e. g disability rights

To this end, The 100 signatories of the remove Eddie group are a who’s who of left wing academics, politicians, activists etc

 

[Pragmatic Shill]

So you say it's ok for a person to be vilified because of his beliefs? Answer the question SJW. Just because you are selective in what you support doesn't make you right, are you getting it yet? Got to love me a hypocrite

I have given you absolutely zero indication of what my political beliefs are. Have a spell, you're delirious.

 

[sr36]

The report was not in response to BLM that was spin to avoid stating publicly that it was in response to Lumumba’s claims. Clearly he couldn’t state that it was because of Lumumba’s claims because of the court case, but simply acknowledging the review was enough.

By proclaiming himself as a target it takes power from the do better report. He’s stating that he’s the issue not our systemic racism.

BLM was the impetus for the H story to get back in the news and I daresay the public sentiment to apply more pressure to respond differently than they had. if it was just the H thing, they would have only reviewed their response to H, not to other issues as well.
He was saying that he'd become the issue that everyone was talking about in response to the report. Not sure how you could disagree with that.

 

[Scodog10]

I was also a little skeptical on the signatories. Here are a few of them, according to SBS

"Over seventy people signed the open letter, including Professor Gary Foley; former AFL star Nathan Lovett-Murray; Mick Gooda, former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner; and legendary Aboriginal sports photographer Barbara McGrady.

"Labor Member for Wills Peter Khalil; Labor Member for Cowan Anne Aly; and Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi also endorsed the letter.

"Prominent academics and writers who signed include Celeste Liddle, Dr Tony Birch, Chelsea Bond, Ghassan Hage, Randa Abdel-Fattah, Maxine Beneba-Clark, Benjamin Law, and poet Omar Sakr, winner of the 2020 Prime Minister’s Literary Award."

Dunno if I can agree with you on us being in a delicate financial position. Yes, Covid has done damage, but I would hazard a guess our balance sheet is pretty solid compared to other clubs. And it's pretty healthy looked at in isolation. Gotta love that we have $15m of financial assets sitting there.

And never under-estimate the Club's asset that is bozos like us who sponsors love!

Our cash at bank begs to differ. It was in a delicate position prior to the reallocation of $1m in revenue from CGU. If we’re taking a hit though I’d at least like us to shift public perceptions while we’re at it. The $15m in assets aren’t liquid. We’ll be relying on borrowings and support payments to keep the doors open by the end of 2021 if Covid wipes out the season again* (from an attendance perspective).

*most clubs will, but we aren’t the impregnable force that some see us as.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

This is it for me because my ignore function is about to get much more active.

The report was not in response to BLM that was spin to avoid stating publicly that it was in response to Lumumba’s claims. Clearly he couldn’t state that it was because of Lumumba’s claims because of the court case, but simply acknowledging the review was enough.

By proclaiming himself as a target it takes power from the do better report. He’s stating that he’s the issue not our systemic racism.

I am inclined to agree that Lumumba was most likely the catalyst for the review, perhaps on the grounds that Eddie believed the review would show the club's recent racism record in a good light and discredit Lumumba's rather threadbare claims. While Lumumba's claims haven't gained weight. the impact of the report's release has propelled him into the public eye where he has become the go to expert on racism in sport, the man who 'was called chimp for 7 years'. Lumumba will enter his course case riding the wave of popular appeal and the club's defence will be disadvantaged as a result. It's all a big mess really, one which was probably unwittingly created in the belief that the club ran a clean organisation.,

 

[whiskeytown]

The environment was once seen as a left wing cause, but is now considered very mainstream. Indigenous and women have been very mainstream issues for a very long time (suffrage movement, 1967 referendum result), and whilst the left have been striving to advance them further, they’ve been following across to the mainstream. Racism has more recently become mainstream. Sure, racists around the world are probably more inclined to vote right wing, but you can’t say that all right wing voters are racist. Climate change is now mainstream and probably has been for a few years ... Climate Change action was a policy of Kevin ‘07, and he can hardly be labelled as an extreme lefty. The “LG” part of “LGBTQAI+” is now mainstream since the SSM referendum and the rest of the acronym are slowly following.

‘Refugees‘ is probably the only item on that list that is currently tied to left wing identity.

They were originally left wing, counter culture, anti establishment movements

Fast forward and the left is now very much a part of the establishment. Hence these ideas are more mainstream because every uni graduate journo comes from a social science university sector that is beholden to left wing politics.

Explains in part why you never find a conservative position sprouted by any of the journos or editors of the ABC. The majority of them are left leaning because they were taught at university to see the world that way

 

[domus]

Reading any social media or even watching abc news today, you'd assume that Collingwood has been a front for the nazi party. I'm very scared we are witnessing the last days of Collingwood.

That might be seen as over the top by some, but some of the viewpoints being presented (not just on social media but by credible news outlets) seem incredibly aggressive and pointed towards Collingwood. Whoever comes in needs to act swiftly or we'll find ourselves losing sponsorship and supporters rapidly.

The truth is none of the sponsors give a stuff about racism, real or perceived, they are simply play acting their role as concerned , upstanding corporations who have standards. The only concern they ever have is the bottom line-money. So much posturing and posing-it's sickening.

 

[sr36]

I am inclined to agree that Lumumba was most likely the catalyst for the review, perhaps on the grounds that Eddie believed the review would show the club's recent racism record in a good light and discredit Lumumba's rather threadbare claims. While Lumumba's claims haven't gained weight. the impact of the report's release has propelled him into the public eye where he has become the go to expert on racism in sport, the man who 'was called chimp for 7 years'. Lumumba will enter his course case riding the wave of popular appeal and the club's defence will be disadvantaged as a result. It's all a big mess really, one which was probably unwittingly created in the belief that the club ran a clean organisation.,

it was undoubtedly HL on the surface, but nothing within the story had changed from the last 6 times the story had re-ignited . Not only was it BLM that made the story big again. It was BLM and the extra pressure that it created that compelled the Pies to respond differently than they had previously. No doubt it was intentional to leave mention of H out of the ED speech, but so he should of - the motivation for the review, it's scope and impact is much bigger than the H issue. Neither Ed or HL is or should be the real story here.

 

[Scodog10]

I am inclined to agree that Lumumba was most likely the catalyst for the review, perhaps on the grounds that Eddie believed the review would show the club's recent racism record in a good light and discredit Lumumba's rather threadbare claims. While Lumumba's claims haven't gained weight. the impact of the report's release has propelled him into the public eye where he has become the go to expert on racism in sport, the man who 'was called chimp for 7 years'. Lumumba will enter his course case riding the wave of popular appeal and the club's defence will be disadvantaged as a result. It's all a big mess really, one which was probably unwittingly created in the belief that the club ran a clean organisation.,

It’s not likely it’s factual. The club released a statement at the time which read “The Collingwood Football Club has appointed Distinguished Professor Larissa Behrendt AO to head an independent review of the environment at the club between 2005-2014 following accounts of racism from Heritier Lumumba”. Murphy also commented “during Heritier’s time we were unable to understand his experience; see and hear what he saw and heard”.

Collingwood appoints Professor Larissa Behrendt

The Collingwood Football Club has appointed Distinguished Professor Larissa Behrendt AO to head an independent review of the environment at the club between 2005-2014

www.collingwoodfc.com.au

Perhaps in some way it was linked to BLM and we can’t discuss that because it wasn’t stated publicly, but it’s clear on the basis of public comment that Lumumba was the trigger. Again Ed couldn’t acknowledge that the problem was he chose to spin it instead. If people can’t grasp what’s wrong with that after the events of the past week and why it’s obvious he still doesn’t get it I’m not sure what else can be said.

 

[domus]

I was listening to ABC radio in perth today. They invited comment via text from the listeners. If you didnt know already, people in Perth hate Eddie. They dont need a reason. They hate the Pies too. They dont need a reason. I suspect a new president, if they are low-key and not connected to the media, might tone the hate a little. If the new person gets the club smelling like roses, it wont change the opinions of opposition fans. We're damned if we fail and damned if we succeed. That's just the way things are...

We were once proud to be the most hated club. Who cares what other teams supporters think about us? Why should we want to tone the hate? I don't want to be a vanilla club which people can take or leave. If they choose to believe we are racist monsters that's their issue.

 

[sr36]

They were originally left wing, counter culture, anti establishment movements

Fast forward and the left is now very much a part of the establishment. Hence these ideas are more mainstream because every uni graduate journo comes from a social science university sector that is beholden to left wing politics.

Explains in part why you never find a conservative position sprouted by any of the journos or editors of the ABC. The majority of them are left leaning because they were taught at university to see the world that way

I reckon you're blurring economics with social stuff. They weren't as clear cut as this. They were originally interest groups that came together with a common goal - irregardless of economic leanings. It's only more recently that they've been pigeon-holed into one of two streams where people are viewed as conforming to the group on all issues.

 

[domus]

So you’re telling me there’s millions out there as batshit crazy as you?

That's not an answer to an intelligent question. Why would you do that? Surely a straight question deserves a considered response?

 

[sr36]

Perhaps in some way it was linked to BLM and we can’t discuss that because it wasn’t stated publicly, but it’s clear on the basis of public comment that Lumumba was the trigger. Again Ed couldn’t acknowledge that the problem was he chose to spin it instead. If people can’t grasp what’s wrong with that after the events of the past week and why it’s obvious he still doesn’t get it I’m not sure what else can be said.

It was stated publicly yesterday. Perhaps it was spin. Or perhaps with the two comments that you highlighted, Eddie was acting in a lot less self absorbed and out of touch way than you were suggesting. Perhaps he was intentionally trying to steer the conversation away from the two figures that have dominated headlines and towards the real issues.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

Other way I reckon. I think the pass mark has probably been lowered. Finals would do it.

If we have a poor(ish) year, Bucks will be able to speak to the leaking of the report, McGuire going, lots of change generally and say that those are the reasons we have suffered poorer on-field performance.

The report will help him you reckon?
Given that the racism came from within the player group;
who in your opinion should rightly be held more responsible for the culture of the playing group... The president? Or the coach?

 

[Drought Break]

I am inclined to agree that Lumumba was most likely the catalyst for the review, perhaps on the grounds that Eddie believed the review would show the club's recent racism record in a good light and discredit Lumumba's rather threadbare claims. While Lumumba's claims haven't gained weight. the impact of the report's release has propelled him into the public eye where he has become the go to expert on racism in sport, the man who 'was called chimp for 7 years'. Lumumba will enter his course case riding the wave of popular appeal and the club's defence will be disadvantaged as a result. It's all a big mess really, one which was probably unwittingly created in the belief that the club ran a clean organisation.,

When they selected an activist to run the investigation this result was always going to eventuate. I found very little in the report stretching over 50 years but every incident was always going to get magnified 100 times.