Mobbs
A Large Portion, Yes
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2000
- Posts
- 85,857
- Reaction score
- 103,347
- Location
- www.footypedia.com/qooty
- Other Teams
- Fitzroy FC
That was the headline in a recent article I found on realfooty, at http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/20...FXON4X9AOC.html
Wonderful timing, ooh lovely, like the pancake shop, how thoughtful
I have left a full detail of my somewhat excitable thoughts on the Fitzroy board, but I thought I'd also like to register a token whinge here, as is my wont
Full text of my dribble, for those with decrypters handy, is as follows (you'd think we'd all died if none of us got up and had a snipe) :
Jackson is actually considering tying a bunjy cord between the upper and lower classes of the AFL, in an attempt to contain to 'gap'.
In 2001!
It seems that once again, Murphy's Law strikes the Roys. The most hard done by club in ever to play VFL/AFL. It becomes more and more impressive to note the proud record of Fitzroy, with more premierships and more brownlows than many of the other clubs, and in fact more seasons than about 9 of them. Starting to feel like Albert Facey, here, or perhaps Philadelphia Gordon!
I was about to start blaming Richmond for this move, say that they're still not happy with their victimisation of the Roys, and want to rub it in even further. I know, in truth, that its a crock, that Richmond are the Milos Taverner of the league, undermining everybody, and not just Fitzroy. Yet it still nibbles at me, the thought that perhaps their only major agenda is to continue hurting Roys.
But it must be the more popular thought that is correct, that Richmond will bugger around on anybody they can. They've come out and opposed Jackson's idea. They want the lower clubs to continue to languish. It can't be just us they want to hurt, its everybody they can. Please feel some pain, Richmond, please understand.
Jackson reckons he doesn't want to reward poor management, he simply wants to lift the burden from clubs behind the eight-ball. I presume that was a preparatory statement for blokes like me who'll take him to task on it.
Bzzzz ... Galaxy was not poor management, Nauru was not poor management, Bernie Ahern was actually not even our idea, and not poor management. The draft concession scandal was not poor management. The pokies/ALbion Charles venture was not poor management ... and Bondborough was brilliant management! Canberra games are not poor management.
Perhaps the spending in the 70s/80s was arguably poor management, but I don't think so. Its a risk that all clubs take part in from time to time. It's not poor management, its Murphy's Law.
The only poor management I can recall is the 'second team' membership venture ... and it might have been the only venture that Oakley didn't outlaw.
It would be criminal if Fitzroy did not, from a legal perspective, remind Jackson that if he implements his latest travesty of football humanity, the compensatory payout to FFC (and supporters) on the grounds of, I dunno what, I'm not nouseful in this arena, malfeasance perhaps, would be of monumental proportions.
Perhaps we should allow Jackson to concretise his thoughts, and then go in for an easy possession ... of the league itself. Because the current market price of the AFL is on a par with what he'll be admitting, in signed print, that the AFL deprived of both the club and its myriad supporters.
I think they call it 'loss of enjoyment of life'.
Wonderful timing, ooh lovely, like the pancake shop, how thoughtful
I have left a full detail of my somewhat excitable thoughts on the Fitzroy board, but I thought I'd also like to register a token whinge here, as is my wont
Full text of my dribble, for those with decrypters handy, is as follows (you'd think we'd all died if none of us got up and had a snipe) :
Jackson is actually considering tying a bunjy cord between the upper and lower classes of the AFL, in an attempt to contain to 'gap'.
In 2001!
It seems that once again, Murphy's Law strikes the Roys. The most hard done by club in ever to play VFL/AFL. It becomes more and more impressive to note the proud record of Fitzroy, with more premierships and more brownlows than many of the other clubs, and in fact more seasons than about 9 of them. Starting to feel like Albert Facey, here, or perhaps Philadelphia Gordon!
I was about to start blaming Richmond for this move, say that they're still not happy with their victimisation of the Roys, and want to rub it in even further. I know, in truth, that its a crock, that Richmond are the Milos Taverner of the league, undermining everybody, and not just Fitzroy. Yet it still nibbles at me, the thought that perhaps their only major agenda is to continue hurting Roys.
But it must be the more popular thought that is correct, that Richmond will bugger around on anybody they can. They've come out and opposed Jackson's idea. They want the lower clubs to continue to languish. It can't be just us they want to hurt, its everybody they can. Please feel some pain, Richmond, please understand.
Jackson reckons he doesn't want to reward poor management, he simply wants to lift the burden from clubs behind the eight-ball. I presume that was a preparatory statement for blokes like me who'll take him to task on it.
Bzzzz ... Galaxy was not poor management, Nauru was not poor management, Bernie Ahern was actually not even our idea, and not poor management. The draft concession scandal was not poor management. The pokies/ALbion Charles venture was not poor management ... and Bondborough was brilliant management! Canberra games are not poor management.
Perhaps the spending in the 70s/80s was arguably poor management, but I don't think so. Its a risk that all clubs take part in from time to time. It's not poor management, its Murphy's Law.
The only poor management I can recall is the 'second team' membership venture ... and it might have been the only venture that Oakley didn't outlaw.
It would be criminal if Fitzroy did not, from a legal perspective, remind Jackson that if he implements his latest travesty of football humanity, the compensatory payout to FFC (and supporters) on the grounds of, I dunno what, I'm not nouseful in this arena, malfeasance perhaps, would be of monumental proportions.
Perhaps we should allow Jackson to concretise his thoughts, and then go in for an easy possession ... of the league itself. Because the current market price of the AFL is on a par with what he'll be admitting, in signed print, that the AFL deprived of both the club and its myriad supporters.
I think they call it 'loss of enjoyment of life'.
