Opinion A different perspective

[John Who]

It's one of the more aggravating factors of the debate, I think. That when you boil it down, the self professed 'true fans' are actually the worst fans. They don't believe in the club, or it's potential at all. They don't dream of being the best, or successful.

They dream of a cosy little club-scrappy and to be praised for punching above its weight but not a true heavyweight and not really able to compete with them. A club you can be proud of in its defeats, because they did their best and it was the best that could be done for us.

And what a miserable betrayal of what should be our club's true mission- to be the best, and the most successful club in Australia. They would betray the club itself to enable the administration to exist in a state where no criticism can be levelled. By conceding that better is not possible, by refusing any expectation of better, they seek to create a circumstance whereby we cannot ever fail- you can't fail if you could never have passed due to circumstances out of your control.

Meanwhile, the 'negatives', the frustrated fans are the ones who actually do have a belief in the club (as distinct from its administration). They're the ones that believe that the club could, and should, be better, and who want a relentless drive for improvement until we are.

We should always oppose the defeatists, and we should not be fooled for an instant when they claim to have some greater love or loyalty to the club. They're the ones that don't believe in it.

Unfortunately, you're constantly propagating a false misperception on this board. I see it as the "pervasive negatives" who constantly bag the club no matter what (unless a premiership win results), and then there's the broad spectrum of "varied opinions" who are wanting further discussions on their club.

Who are the "true fans" you speak of? And by that, do you mean fans who are deluded and only speak of bubbly positive things for the club? I see no such fan of this positive delusion on this board.

 

[John Who]

Moving past all the garbage that has infested this thread since the OP, I thought I'd get back to the original discussion.

The OP lays out almost exactly the argument I raised when details of the camp came through. It is exactly what I raised with Fagan both in email and in direct conversation. It wasn't so much about the ins and outs of what did or didn't happen on the camp - it was about the reaction to the GF loss. The decision to even hold a camp of the nature it was, demonstrated incredibly poor decision making from those responsible.

In 2018 I wrote this to Fagan;
As I am sure you are all too aware, the AFC, players, staff and many coaches have been through an enormous amount in the past few years. From the suspension and then death of Dean Bailey, through to the loss of coach Phil Walsh, the group has endured an incredibly challenging time. To the great credit of all involved, the club held itself together and continued to rise to the challenges presented. The playing group will have carried the loss and lessons of Walsh with them over the next few years. I would be certain that in approaching the Grand Final, many will have felt they were doing so in a manner to pay tribute to him. Many will have entertained thoughts of ‘getting the job done’ and paying tribute to him. Taylor Walker would not have been able to avoid considering how he might pay tribute to Phil in an acceptance speech (it is human nature to have done so).

The loss then would have been devastating for the group. All grand final losses are challenging to accept and move on from, this one in particular will have been heart breaking for the players. To have come so far and to have ‘failed’ Walsh (clearly not true but some will have felt this way) will have left the players feeling as though they were grieving all over again.

Anyone with a remote knowledge of psychology, of team performance, of coping with loss or a basic understanding of the players and what they have been through, would have understood this. The players were always going to need support and understanding at this time.

The decision then to hold a camp of the nature suggested is a baffling one. It points to poor decision making, a lack of judgement and a lack of understanding of our playing group. I won’t go in to the ins and outs of the camp and of what it may or may not have entailed (another example of very poor communication and messaging from the club), but it is fair to say the camp was a disaster for the playing group. I find the decision to engage groups who are clearly unqualified to run any type of psychological program with a playing group that is worth millions of dollars to the club and to have suffered the trauma they had, to be utterly indefensible. The program entered in to was not a meditation or breathing exercise, but required a very significant increase in psychological knowledge and experience. The Collective Minds group did not have this level of expertise or experience. I am perplexed as to how the management structures at the club allowed this to occur.

I have heard your comments that decisions are made in consultation and it is not reasonable to point your finger at any one individual. However, we do have individuals who are employed to make these decisions. They are expected to have the experience and knowledge required to make the correct decisions...

It goes on a bit longer, but the point is clear - the players needed support, not blame at the end of 2017. The decision to ride the playing group and to blame them for the loss was appalling and a demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the group. I made the point that Burton in particular had a history of poor decision making.

Consider the difference between our reaction to the 2017 loss and that of Buckley to their loss (how he openly expressed his love for the playing group). The result? One club in crisis and one looking like playing in another GF. If ever a playing group needed support, it was after 2017. Our leaders got it so very, very wrong and they need to take ownership of that.

I appreciate your efforts in confronting your angst with Fagan and it really does show the passion you have for the club.

Fagan emailed me and rang me. We spoke for about an hour on the phone.
He was caught up a bit on the whole issue of what actually happened on the camp - ie refuting the more outlandish claims in the media.

It was a really good chat and I thought Fagan came across really well. I posted a more detailed run down last year.
I left the chat feeling like there was a deliberate move by the media to push a false narrative around the camp. However, there were elements of what he said I clearly did not agree with. I was also given a clear impression that many of the coaches etc... we end up appointing are not our first choices. It seems we try regularly to bring in others, but for whatever reason (Money or location or AFC culture or whatever) they won't come to us. It means we are often left with ex-Crows players as one of a very limited number of options.

I'm glad you commented on the media giving a false narrative thing, but I'm more curious to know why you said "however, there were elements of what he said I clearly did not agree with". Can you please expand on this?

 

[Southerntakeover]

Unfortunately, you're constantly propagating a false misperception on this board. I see it as the "pervasive negatives" who constantly bag the club no matter what (unless a premiership win results), and then there's the broad spectrum of "varied opinions" who are wanting further discussions on their club.

Who are the "true fans" you speak of? And by that, do you mean fans who are deluded and only speak of bubbly positive things for the club? I see no such fan of this positive delusion on this board.

Who on earth would want to rely upon your perceptions?

 

[John Who]

Who on earth would want to rely upon your perceptions?

How many times have you attempted deflection to a specific question? I've lost count.

 

[Southerntakeover]

How many times have you attempted deflection to a specific question? I've lost count.

You seem to be of the impression that people are obliged to engage with your rambling just because you choose to frequently offer it. That impression is not correct.

 

[Southerntakeover]

That's plainly dishonest. No one ever argues that they should run the club. If you assert that they do, produce the posts. But it's entirely reasonable to suppose, based upon results, that better than what we have might be possible.

The real difference is that you argue that no one could run the club better than what we presently have- including by reason that the club inherently cannot have good employees.

 

[Elite Crow]

The difference between the “negatives’ and the ‘apologists” as I see it, is that only one group has the ridiculous notion that they could run the club better than anyone else despite never having been in the AFL system as a player, coach or administrator. Remarkable delusions.

Come on Jenny that’s nonsense.

The main difference is the “negatives” identify issues beforehand and point them out, we don’t wait for the results to transpire and then claim hindsight.

The “apologists” despite the obvious staring them in the face, find ways to back the club and they wait and they wait, until guess what, we end up at an outcome they fought hard to defend against.

Where the club is at now in the need of the review, is the culmination of everything the “negatives” have been pointing out about our club for years.

And no one, not one poster, has ever said they could run the club better, what we’ve called for is competent people run our club. That those running the club put the chase for a premiership first ahead of their own self interests.

 

[Big Gazoongas]

The difference between the “negatives’ and the ‘apologists” as I see it, is that only one group has the ridiculous notion that they could run the club better than anyone else despite never having been in the AFL system as a player, coach or administrator. Remarkable delusions.

What total utter rubbish.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Just as both of you have taken exception to me suggesting you all think you can run the club better, I take exception to you suggesting that we are apologists and never see anything wrong with the club. Perhaps you can see how frustrating it is when words are often put into our mouths? Just because we don’t shout and scream and carry on like pork chops, doesn’t mean we don’t see the things that are wrong, rather we don’t waste our energy on carrying on about something we’ve got no control over. We each take different routes but does it really matter how we get there?

I don't take exception to it, I say it's made up. If you can support it, then do.

For my part, I'm happy to demonstrate that the statement that I accuse you of making was made. It was a page ago in this thread:

I’ve been saying that for some time now (hard to get people here). Everyone just assumes we are doing the job for the boys thing... when in reality, we just can’t get enough good folk here - also taking in to account, that the pool of candidates is not all that huge to begin with.

 

[Big Gazoongas]

The difference between the “negatives’ and the ‘apologists” as I see it, is that only one group has the ridiculous notion that they could run the club better than anyone else despite never having been in the AFL system as a player, coach or administrator. Remarkable delusions.

One group rightly expects the club to be run better by the appropriately skilled people for the role, the other group just accepts the mediocre appointments and results and continues to do so even when our result have declined.

Edit: and for the size of the club we also expect more and sustained success

 

[Elite Crow]

Just as both of you have taken exception to me suggesting you all think you can run the club better, I take exception to you suggesting that we are apologists and never see anything wrong with the club. Perhaps you can see how frustrating it is when words are often put into our mouths? Just because we don’t shout and scream and carry on like pork chops, doesn’t mean we don’t see the things that are wrong, rather we don’t waste our energy on carrying on about something we’ve got no control over. We each take different routes but does it really matter how we get there?

Yes it does.

Because you and the other apologists like to stifle the debate. You might want to sit back and wait, fine, but for those that don’t, keep your lecturing to yourself.

But if you truly believe there are issues and then prefer to sit back and shut us up, well then, what does that make you?

 

[Mr_Moogle]

The difference between the “negatives’ and the ‘apologists” as I see it, is that only one group has the ridiculous notion that they could run the club better than anyone else despite never having been in the AFL system as a player, coach or administrator. Remarkable delusions.

Can only speak for myself but I don't think I could run the club any better. I've just followed footy enough to pick up on certain red flags and call them out when I see them.

 

[1991firstgamer]

You said:

Her opinion that nothing sinister happened on the camp is stated
She is not sitting on the fence

I am telling you I NEVER said nothing sinister happened. So who is nuts? Sure as hell aint me.

I'm not convinced of that

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

 

[Cap]

Yes it does.

Because you and the other apologists like to stifle the debate. You might want to sit back and wait, fine, but for those that don’t, keep your lecturing to yourself.

But if you truly believe there are issues and then prefer to sit back and shut us up, well then, what does that make you?

Are you are honestly suggesting apologists, as you so eloquently put it, are the ones stifling debate?

Given you love a good example, can you show me some examples of Jenny and co ( i assume i fall into that category) stifling debate rather than offering a differing opinion?

 

[Elite Crow]

Really, stifle debate?

On a board where anything but absolute negativity is shouted down, you are honestly suggesting apologists, as you so eloquently put it, are the ones stifling debate?

Given you love a good example, can you show me some examples of Jenny and co ( i assume i fall into that category) stifling debate rather than offering a differing opinion?

Yeah I’m going to remember one off the top of my head, hang on, well actually I think I already have.

I remember one last week where you commented Wakefield’s post was crap, Chapman never said it. And yet even though it was supported by quotes Chapman made you doubled down. Then Jenny steps in telling me off for getting involved in an argument which didn’t involve me, yep no stifling going on.

Its hilarious that you were both involved in this example.

Game Set and Match.

 

[John Who]

As much as we are discussing about the mental welfare of the players (going back to the main point of this thread), we must also remember the entire club and admins also were going through as much as the players (particularly the ones involved in 2015-2016). The entire club itself had to push through the grieving processes back then and I think this overall caused a burnout effect after we pushed ourselves so hard in 2017 only to fall in a heap right at the end.

A lot of cognitive dissonance (#buzzword) going on in this board suggesting we should be mindful of not pushing the players too hard from our recent tragedies. Yet, the same people don’t mind crapping on players/club for not trying harder mentally during games. Where do we draw the line of pushing players enough or too much?

 

[John Who]

It's one of the more aggravating factors of the debate, I think. That when you boil it down, the self professed 'true fans' are actually the worst fans. They don't believe in the club, or it's potential at all. They don't dream of being the best, or successful.

They dream of a cosy little club-scrappy and to be praised for punching above its weight but not a true heavyweight and not really able to compete with them. A club you can be proud of in its defeats, because they did their best and it was the best that could be done for us.

And what a miserable betrayal of what should be our club's true mission- to be the best, and the most successful club in Australia. They would betray the club itself to enable the administration to exist in a state where no criticism can be levelled. By conceding that better is not possible, by refusing any expectation of better, they seek to create a circumstance whereby we cannot ever fail- you can't fail if you could never have passed due to circumstances out of your control.

Meanwhile, the 'negatives', the frustrated fans are the ones who actually do have a belief in the club (as distinct from its administration). They're the ones that believe that the club could, and should, be better, and who want a relentless drive for improvement until we are.

We should always oppose the defeatists, and we should not be fooled for an instant when they claim to have some greater love or loyalty to the club. They're the ones that don't believe in it.

You should run for the next election. Very good high and mighty speech there! Yet, you still haven’t answered the question: can you name me one person on this board who is positively deluded in thinking the club is at ZERO fault for the stuff up in the recent 2 years?

 

[Southerntakeover]

What is wrong with this statement exactly?

What I've already articulated.

 

[Southerntakeover]

You should run for the next election. Very good high and mighty speech there! Yet, you still haven’t answered the question: can you name me one person on this board who is positively deluded in thinking the club is at ZERO fault for the stuff up in the recent 2 years?

Ramble ramble ramble ramble. Why won't anyone engage with me?

 

[Elite Crow]

Ah point scoring again. Your ridiculous point scoring fills these pages with boring as s**t petty arguments. We’re not stifling debate, we’re trying to sift through the bulls**t to SEE the debate.

He asked for an example, I provided one and now I’m point scoring??? Once again you’ve just shown what a hypocrite you are.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Ah point scoring again. Your ridiculous point scoring fills these pages with boring as s**t petty arguments. We’re not stifling debate, we’re trying to sift through the bulls**t to SEE the debate.

Uh oh, the happiness zen master facade is slipping already...

 

[Southerntakeover]

There is no articulation. Whatsoever.

Have you discovered a taste for not telling the truth or something?

 

[Cap]

Yeah I’m going to remember one off the top of my head, hang on, well actually I think I already have.

I remember one last week where you commented Wakefield’s post was crap, Chapman never said it. And yet even though it was supported by quotes Chapman made you doubled down. Then Jenny steps in telling me off for getting involved in an argument which didn’t involve me, yep no stifling going on.

Its hilarious that you were both involved in this example.

Game Set and Match.

I notice that you've completely disregarded the fact i was in the right.

Wakefield misquoted Chapman to appeal to the masses and the masses took it hook line and sinker. I simply corrected it.

It's hardly Jennys fault you feel stifled, did i feel stifled by your incorrect and unfair challenge of my POV? No i didn't, because i enjoy a good discussion. Which some people, who like an echo chamber, do not.

 

[Elite Crow]

I notice that you've completely disregarded the fact i was in the right.

Wakefield misquoted Chapman to appeal to the masses and the masses took it hook line and sinker. I simply corrected it.

It's hardly Jennys fault you feel stifled, did i feel stifled by your incorrect and unfair challenge of my POV? No i didn't, because i enjoy a good discussion. Which some people, who like an echo chamber, do not.

You think you were right, you weren’t proven right. You also said he never made the comment and yet Chapman did.

When Jenny comes in and tells me I was attacking you, that I shouldn’t point score and it didn’t involve me and I shouldn’t get involved, it’s hardly Jenny’s fault I felt she tried to stifle me? Are you for real?

 

[Cap]

You think you were right, you weren’t proven right. You also said he never made the comment and yet Chapman did.

When Jenny comes in and tells me I was attacking you, that I shouldn’t point score and it didn’t involve me and I shouldn’t get involved, it’s hardly Jenny’s fault I felt she tried to stifle me? Are you for real?

Again, Chapman didn't. Simply repeating your mistake doesn't make it right.

Look, at the end of the day, if you feel stifled, well you feel stifled. I'd just assume that if you felt stifled at that point you'd probably acknowledge that you and others on this board would also be equally as guilty of stifling others? Or not.

Edit- I'd add i enjoy a good debate and discussion which yourself and others have provided. I didn't consider it to be stifling debate.