2013 Board Elections

[Old Campaigner]

My understanding is that the coteries have always had lots of influence at Board Level. Some may say too much influence.

I guess whether it is too much depends on what they are asking for.

 

[Jab]

I guess whether it is too much depends on what they are asking for.

When they're trying to appoint a senior coach then that's way too far. That's what happened this year with some coterie members tried to do this year. They wanted Sheedy back and made an approach to him.

Appointing a senior coach should not be made by groups like that. Doing things like that shows that they need to be reminded who runs the club and who plays what role. If you get to the point where you believe that you have the right to make such calls then there is an issue.

Coterie groups have their place, as ours do too, but maybe they need to be reminded of their role.

 

[Old Campaigner]

I'd forgotten about that. You're right, that is going too far and maybe we need some sort of separation created so that decisions are made by the people with all the information and not some cashed up footy fan.

 

[The_Red_Sash]

I would like to thank the administration of this site who contacted me via Twitter last night informing me that someone had set up accounts using my details. I find this disturbing after some recent events this past week. I also notice there have been some untruths written on this site about me. I would like to clarify - I was never thrown off a coterie committee - I resigned; and am still a member of the best coterie group in AFL after 12 years. I am hardly political - those 2000 twitter followers I have along with the coaches, players and admin both past & present at the club of whom I know many have always welcomed by support especially this year. I am close friends with many people at the EFC. I would appreciate those who are masquerading with my details would delete their account/s. I will be informing the club today. This will most likely be my one and only post. Please follow me on Twitter The_Red_Sash once again thank you to the admin on here. I am THE RED SASH....p.s its Yallouz not Yallutz

 

[Whispering_Jack]

Do these latest developments change your opinion of Little and the board's actions throughout the saga Jade and Ben the Gooner ? As I always said, there was much more to this than meets the eye, Robbo's article explains Little's position brilliantly...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/robbo-hearing-was-an-illusion/story-fni5f6kv-1226774671068

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Then why did Little come out and promise to fight? It wasn't to string us and our wallets along was it?

 

[Andronicus]

I'm still a bit uneasy.

I can understand they may well have got us the best possible results, but the fact that they promised a fight, and I was excited about hearing the truth because of what they said only to be so disappointed doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Jade]

Do these latest developments change your opinion of Little and the board's actions throughout the saga Jade and Ben the Gooner ? As I always said, there was much more to this than meets the eye, Robbo's article explains Little's position brilliantly...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/robbo-hearing-was-an-illusion/story-fni5f6kv-1226774671068

All this did is reaffirm the 'likeliest' scenario. That Essendon never set out to dope, had lax processes and poor management......

.....which was then blown completely out of proportion, and a media driven witchhunt ensued which eventually led to a DOPING investigation being prosecuted as a 'disrepute' charge - because no actual evidence of doping could be found.

A joke, a lack of natural justice.

BUT, serious questions still need to be asked of the board - and I intend to ask them whether answers are forthcoming or not.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

Then why did Little come out and promise to fight? It wasn't to string us and our wallets along was it?

No, it was because we were going to until Wylie got involved as the go between for Fitzpatrick and Little... It's pretty obvious IMO that talks broke down completely between the AFL Exectutive and the EFC and when Wylie got involved and presented that the only way to get this behind us is for us to accept the pentalties offered. It's clear to me that the board, Little and Hird wanted to fight until the end when it became inevitable that someone had to cop a hiding to put 2012/13 behind us... Again, it is so easy for us to say why didn't you do this, why did you do that etc, but unless you were in that position, you couldn't possibly know how hard it was for all involved. Did you read the Robbo article I pasted the link to?

 

[Whispering_Jack]

All this did is reaffirm the 'likeliest' scenario. That Essendon never set out to dope, had lax processes and poor management......

.....which was then blown completely out of proportion, and a media driven witchhunt ensued which eventually led to a DOPING investigation being prosecuted as a 'disrepute' charge - because no actual evidence of doping could be found.

A joke, a lack of natural justice.

BUT, serious questions still need to be asked of the board - and I intend to ask them whether answers are forthcoming or not.

I support questions being asked, I just personally think that we have to understand that the board was doing what it could to bring this to the best resolution possible. Clearly when the "fight" rhetoric was thrown around, there was little to no communication between the EFC and the AFL executive. Then Wylie got involved and was the conduit between the EFC and the commission. This outside and fairly independent perspective would have clearly changed opinions on how to proceed from both sides of the fence...

 

[Jade]

I support questions being asked, I just personally think that we have to understand that the board was doing what it could to bring this to the best resolution possible. Clearly when the "fight" rhetoric was thrown around, there was little to no communication between the EFC and the AFL executive. Then Wylie got involved and was the conduit between the EFC and the commission. This outside and fairly independent perspective would have clearly changed opinions on how to proceed from both sides of the fence...

Then to answer your initial question - no, this has not in anyway changed my opinion/approach to the board; as I'm not hearing any significant 'new' information.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

Then to answer your initial question - no, this has not in anyway changed my opinion/approach to the board; as I'm not hearing any significant 'new' information.

Fair enough, that's your call. Personally, I put myself in their shoes and couldn't imagine how hard the whole thing was to deal with. It was changing on a minute by minute basis...

 

[Burzum]

Hello, my name is Mr. Neddam. And I come from, uh... some place far away. Yes, that'll do. Anyway, I say we all vote for Simon Madden.

 

[Jade]

Fair enough, that's your call. Personally, I put myself in their shoes and couldn't imagine how hard the whole thing was to deal with. It was changing on a minute by minute basis...

I have no doubt. Again, I'm not passing judgement on the board (yet); I have questions that need answers in order to form that opinion/judgement.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Then why did Little come out and promise to fight? It wasn't to string us and our wallets along was it?

Probably because the AFL either made an offer too good to refuse or they made a threat too dire to ignore. I suspect we'll find out soon enough, News Ltd is going berserk with this leak, they must feel they have some pretty good stuff.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

No, it was because we were going to until Wylie got involved as the go between for Fitzpatrick and Little... It's pretty obvious IMO that talks broke down completely between the AFL Exectutive and the EFC and when Wylie got involved and presented that the only way to get this behind us is for us to accept the pentalties offered. It's clear to me that the board, Little and Hird wanted to fight until the end when it became inevitable that someone had to cop a hiding to put 2012/13 behind us... Again, it is so easy for us to say why didn't you do this, why did you do that etc, but unless you were in that position, you couldn't possibly know how hard it was for all involved. Did you read the Robbo article I pasted the link to?

I thought Little was negotiating the penalties since he took over?

 

[Whispering_Jack]

I thought Little was negotiating the penalties since he took over?

You think penalties were being negotiated when all communication broke down and Wylie had to be brought in?

 

[Ben the Gooner]

You think penalties were being negotiated when all communication broke down and Wylie had to be brought in?

On August 10, in response to a claim by Tim Watson that a deal with Essendon had already been negotiated, Demetriou insisted that the AFL was not in the business of making deals.

Wylie's involvement clearly worked, because Little went from a fighting tiger on August 21, at the Olsen Hotel in South Yarra where he was critical of the AFL's administration, to effectively agreeing to penalties on the Friday, August 23.

Yeah, I do.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

Yeah, I do.

I meant during that period of the serious communication breakdown... Before yes, after yes...

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Do you really think a cold, calculating man like Paul Little would go all in on a breakdown in massive, high stakes negotiations? To suggest that a lull in negotiations was the reason for his over-the-top fighting talk was a warning to the AFL is to massively discredit the man. Even more so than his meek acceptance of the penalties 2 weeks after that press conference does.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

Do you really think a cold, calculating man like Paul Little would go all in on a breakdown in massive, high stakes negotiations? To suggest that a lull in negotiations was the reason for his over-the-top fighting talk was a warning to the AFL is to massively discredit the man. Even more so than his meek acceptance of the penalties 2 weeks after that press conference does.

The "over-the-top" fighting talk was happening before Wylie got involved though wasn't it? It just ramped up substantially in that week of the Hird and Little press conference where they said they had lost confidence in the AFL Executive and AD.

It's plain to me that we wanted to fight, we were prepared to fight, but Wylie got involved and explained from an effective outsiders point of view what will likely happen. Add the pressure from the players and the other clubs to just cop penalties and try to move on, and it's little wonder the rhetoric coming from the EFC changed.

To suggest the fight talk was a money grab is ludicrous, it cost us millions in legal fees alone...

 

[Ben the Gooner]

If Little was talked around from a position of being willing to take on the League in court with no plans for a settlement to taking the sanctions we ended up with in 2 weeks, he's a terrible negotiator. He must have won Tatts a few hundred times to earn his $700m, because the situation you're describing has him as a terrible businessman.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

If Little was talked around from a position of being willing to take on the League in court with no plans for a settlement to taking the sanctions we ended up with in 2 weeks, he's a terrible negotiator. He must have won Tatts a few hundred times to earn his $700m, because the situation you're describing has him as a terrible businessman.

Respectfully, I strongly disagree. The pressure from the players and other clubs to get this finalised would have been immense. It's easy to look at it from afar and judge it.

 

[yaco55]

Respectfully, I strongly disagree. The pressure from the players and other clubs to get this finalised would have been immense. It's easy to look at it from afar and judge it.

The players needs/wants would be paramount in any decision made by the board.

 

[Doss]

You have to remember that according to BTG the players don't count - Even the players pushed for a settlement.

Yaco, with all due respect, BTG has said nothing about players not counting.