Calthorpe: I should never have left

[Dan26]

From http://www.essendonfc.com.au

The Essendon draftees and rookie list players were officially welcomed to the Essendon Football Club at an induction night held in the Hall of Fame last night. The evening featured a number of speakers including former Bomber David Calthorpe who told the audience how much Essendon Football Club meant to him. Calthorpe was lured down to speak to the players by Essendon recruiting and welfare manager Adrian Dodoro. "He told them he had listened to some bad advice when he headed to Brisbane at the end of the 1998 season and that it was the biggest mistake of his football career," Dodoro said.

"He said it wasn't unitl he left that he realised how much Essendon and his teammates meant to him. He said if he had his time over again he would never have left the club," Dodoro said. "Damien Peverill also spoke and emphasised how important it was for the young players to grab their opportunity." Essendon chairman Graeme McMahon and senior coach Kevin Sheedy also spoke on the night.

Let's hope this will entice the current players not to waste their careers playing for the 15 inferior clubs.

 

[Darky]

I think Gravy Davy isn't on his own in wishing he'd never left Essendon. About 22,000 Kangaroos members feel the same way!

How did Dodoro lure him back to Essendon for that chat? Was it a paid-for dinner at Smorgy's, or did he promise Heavy D that he could deep fry and eat Dean Rioli?

 

[SydneyBomber]

Originally posted by Darky
I think Gravy Davy isn't on his own in wishing he'd never left Essendon. About 22,000 Kangaroos members feel the same way!

How did Dodoro lure him back to Essendon for that chat? Was it a paid-for dinner at Smorgy's, or did he promise Heavy D that he could deep fry and eat Dean Rioli?

Gravy Davy!

I may be wrong, but wasn't there some serious tensions between Heavy D and Barry Young, that kinda forced Calthorpe to leave?

Something to do with wandering hands (or other bits), and others peoples wives/girlfriends?

I watched the 93 final series during summer, and he wasn't bad player back then... shame the lure of the lard wrecked his career.

 

[cjwalkley]

Calthorpe isn't the only person who wishes he never left Essendon...there are about 25 000 Brisbane Members who are dirty that he left Essendon. He was absolutely disgraceful in Brisbane, a fat lair who thought he was much better than he was. The only good thing was that we got to ontrade him to the kangaroos. Mind you he would be one of the only players negatively traded, so Brisbane didn't have to pay him out he was traded with a 2nd round draft pick and Brisbane only received a third round draft pick in return.

 

[The Hitman]

What does it matter? He wouldn't have got a game anyway.

The Hitman

 

[Briedis]

Why was he so sad to leave Windy Hill? Was there a KFC near the ground?

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dan26
"He said it wasn't unitl he left that he realised how much Essendon and his teammates meant to him. He said if he had his time over again he would never have left the club,"

Isn't this much the same sentiment the club censured it's captain for espousing last year? Yet now it's seems that it's ok.......

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Darky
or did he promise Heavy D that he could deep fry and eat Dean Rioli?

Pisser!

 

[Dan26]

Re: Re: Calthorpe: I should never have left

Originally posted by Dave


Isn't this much the same sentiment the club censured it's captain for espousing last year? Yet now it's seems that it's ok.......

God, you're a knobhead sometimes.

James Hird made the statements in public, shortly after the trade period putting the club in a difficult position. He had a sook, and used a public forum to do it. The club rightly told him off.

Calthorpe is saying this 4 years afttr he left, and he didn't get up on a public stage and put the club in a difficult posiiton like James did. Calthorpe did nothing wrong and was not "told off" by anybody, nor should he have been.

James should have been told off, and quite rightly he was. He should never have said what he said. The forum, location and time he said it was not appropraite. That's why he was told off, Dave. Hird's comments were made during a period where the club was being forced to make difficult financial decisions regarding it's playing list. His timing could not have been worse, and the club penalised him. Calthorpes comments are not even comparable. He wasn't even at the club at the time, for Christ's sake.

 

[Dave]

You know Dan, one of these days you'll learn to debate without resorting to this sort of immature crap. Hopefully in the not too distant future.

Back to the issue. Censorship such as that the club attempted to impose wrt Hirds comments have no place in todays society. So they were going through a tough time. Big deal. Simply because a player is the captain does not mean he does not have the right to voice an opinion that disagrees with the club hierachy. Ever hear of freedom of speech Dan?

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Dave
Censorship such as that the club attempted to impose wrt Hird's comments have no place in todays society. So they were going through a tough time. Big deal. Simply because a player is the captain does not mean he does not have the right to voice an opinion that disagrees with the club hierachy. Ever hear of freedom of speech Dan?

Freedom of speech is fine as long as you are not the captain of the football club, speaking in public, deliberately politicising the situation, and creating even more difficulties for the football club. In a football club, everyone is equal. It is fine for him to air his opinion - just not at the time, location, or under the circumstances that James did. He should have used more tact and common-sense.

There are plenty of players that disagree with what their club does, but they shouldn't comment in a way, or at a time, when those comments adversely affect the football club. Constuctive criticism is fine. DEstructive criticism must be dealt with. James never complained about being "told off", because once the club voiced their displeasure with him, he realised his error.

This is a cut and dried issue Dave. James made a mistake and he was told off. Simple. The football club must come before the individual.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dan26
Freedom of speech is fine as long as you are not the captain of the football club, speaking in public, deliberately politicising the situation, and creating even more difficulties for the football club.

Crap Dan, absolute crap. As long as what he is saying does not breach our laws he is free to say what he likes. The fact that his employer doesn't like it is not a valid reason for it to be supressed or for him to be censured. The minute people cannot freely speak their minds becuase of fear of reprisal from their employers our society becomes a place I for one wouldn't want to live in.

James never complained about being "told off", because once the club voiced their displeasure with him, he realised his error.

You don't know why he said nothing. It may well have been because he realised they'd be as pig-headed about it as you. Equating his silence with agreement is simplistic and naive.

This is a cut and dried issue Dave.

Yep, and it's one that I'm right about and you are wrong about.

James made a mistake and he was told off. Simple. The football club must come before the individual.

Bulldust. The club is made up of individuals, without them there is no club. They got it wrong Dan, accept it. Trust me on this.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Dave


Crap Dan, absolute crap. As long as what he is saying does not breach our laws he is free to say what he likes. The fact that his employer doesn't like it is not a valid reason for it to be supressed or for him to be censured. The minute people cannot freely speak their minds becuase of fear of reprisal from their employers our society becomes a place I for one wouldn't want to live in.

Stop taking the high moral ground, Dave.

No one said he was breaking any laws. A player who gets suspended for striking isn't breaking any societal laws either, but he still gets penalised by a judiciary of the league.

James has always been able to say what he likes on basically any issue. But when the club is suffering salary cap problems, for him to come out and deliberately politicise a situation was poor and it hurts the club. Why do you think the club told him off, Dave? The club must always come first. Anything that is "bad" for the gretaer good of the football club must be dealt with.

It wasn't as if they censured him. They more or less told him to use more tact, and to be more understanding of the club's difficulties. He wasn't fined or anything, nor should he have been. He just needed, and recieved a reminder.

Going by your "freedom of speech logic" I could go into work tomorrow and criticise every employee I come across, insulting them with personal remarks. I could tell them I don't think thery are doing a good job (even if they are) and cause a deliberate ruckuss. Are you teling me my boss shouldn't grab me, take me to his office and tell me to cut it out? Or should he just continue to let freedom of speech go out of control?

What about a player who gets up and talks inappropriately during a silent team meeting where the coach is explaining some tactics? Does the coach just let him disrupt the "class" under your freedom of speech moral high ground diatribe?

Freedom of speech is fine, Dave and I am all for it. But James needed to use more tact and common-sense in his approach.

Originally posted by Dave
You don't know why he said nothing. It may well have been because he realised they'd be as pig-headed about it as you. Equating his silence with agreement is simplistic and naive.

If you look up some old newspaer articles, you should be able to find Peter Jackosn comments about the situation. From memory, he said that they gave James a reminder (nothing more) that the club has some tough decisons to make re: the salary cap, and he should have been more tactful. As captain, he is a spokekman for the football club. Because of this, his responsibility is more than the other players. He does more press conferences and public speaking than the other players. In his role as captain requires off-field matters too. As captain he should never say anything in public that will be bad for the greater good of the football club. He was criticising the football club for a decison that they had no choice but to make.

Originally posted by Dave
Yep, and it's one that I'm right about and you are wrong about.

You're not right about anything. You think night crowds are worse than day crowds, when they arent, which I stated, through various figures and you provided nothing substanial of your own. You think colour clashes aren't a problem, even though players coaches and officials have all said that they are a problem. And you think James Hird, shouldn't have been told off for publicily politicising a situation and putting the football club that he captains in a difficult position. Quite simply, you know very little, and have not proven to me in any way, shape or form, that you deserve my respect.

Originally posted by Dave
Bulldust. The club is made up of individuals, without them there is no club. They got it wrong Dan, accept it. Trust me on this.

Hahahahahahahaha. That was your response to my comment that: "the football club must come before the individual." Oh my God, what a embarrassing comment for you to make.

Your respnse to that is "Bulldust." So you think the individual comes before the footnball club do you? You idiot. The club comes before the individual, end of story. You can't argue that. Sure the club is made up of individuals, but together, as an entity they ARE the football club. They work TOGETHER as a football club. Everyone must work together to ensure that the football club does everything possible to win the premiership.

 

[Grendel]

Re: Re: Re: Calthorpe: I should never have left

Originally posted by Dan26




Calthorpe is saying this 4 years afttr he left, and he didn't get up on a public stage and put the club in a difficult posiiton like James did. Calthorpe did nothing wrong and was not "told off" by anybody, nor should he have been.

Isnt this a public stage/forum? Its out in the open so whats the difference?

 

[Dan26]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Calthorpe: I should never have left

Originally posted by Grendel


Isnt this a public stage/forum? Its out in the open so whats the difference?

Calthorpe wasn't putting the football club in a difficult position. He wasn't even AT the club!!! The two are totally separate and incomparable. If anything Calthorpes comments make the football club look good. They make it look like Essendon is a club that players shouldn't leave.

James was effecively criticising the cub for something they had to do (i.e off-load a player) Footy is a brutal business, and James knew that before he commented. As captain, he should have used more thought and common-sense in the delivery of his words. As soon as he said what he did I thought to myself: "The club won't be happy with this. They'll want to have a word with him"

We want our club to be harmonious, not divisive. Players will always come and go - that's footy, and James should have realised it. I'm sure he realises it now.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dan26
Stop taking the high moral ground, Dave.

I'll take the moral highground whenever I feel like it rolleyes boy.

James has always been able to say what he likes on basically any issue. But when the club is suffering salary cap problems, for him to come out and deliberately politicise a situation was poor and it hurts the club.

Crap. If anything it highlighted that the club had no choice in the matter.

Why do you think the club told him off, Dave?

Because like most of us the people in charge don't like anything that could be construed as criticism of their performance.

The club must always come first. Anything that is "bad" for the gretaer good of the football club must be dealt with.

Bulldust. Doing the right thing must always come first. Talk of the "greater good" is nothing more than a feeble attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

Going by your "freedom of speech logic" I could go into work tomorrow and criticise every employee I come across, insulting them with personal remarks. I could tell them I don't think thery are doing a good job (even if they are) and cause a deliberate ruckuss.

No, going by my logic if you were in a situation that you weren't happy about at work you are free to voice your discontent with fear of reprisal. I didn't say anything about maliciously criticising co-workers.

Are you teling me my boss shouldn't grab me, take me to his office and tell me to cut it out? Or should he just continue to let freedom of speech go out of control?

You always have to take things to the extreme don't you? Hird's comments were not personal insults and were considered by many to be quite reasonable.

What about a player who gets up and talks inappropriately during a silent team meeting where the coach is explaining some tactics? Does the coach just let him disrupt the "class" under your freedom of speech moral high ground diatribe?

Is that what James did?

Freedom of speech is fine, Dave and I am all for it. But James needed to use more tact and common-sense in his approach.

No, he didn't.

You're not right about anything.

Funy, I think today is thursday, am I wrong about that too?

You think night crowds are worse than day crowds, when they arent,

Despite the figures you yourself compiled showing otherwise.

which I stated,

Ah yes, Dan hath spake and he is never wrong. All boweth down before the great Dan.

through various figures and you provided nothing substanial of your own. You think colour clashes aren't a problem, even though players coaches and officials have all said that they are a problem.

"Players, coaches and officials" have also all stated that they don't see it as a big problem.

And I do believe my opinion on the issue is that color clashes are not enough of a problem to justify forcing clubs to change their jumpers. That's not quite the same as what you're touting my opinion on the issue as.

And you think James Hird, shouldn't have been told off for publicily politicising a situation and putting the football club that he captains in a difficult position.

It didn't put them in any such position. They put themselves in that position by reacting to what he said in the maner that they did.

Quite simply, you know very little, and have not proven to me in any way, shape or form, that you deserve my respect.

Oh deary deary me, rolleyes boy doesn't respect me. However will I survive? Here's a little tip for you Dan, your respect means absolutely squat to me. You are an opinionated ****er who has shown time and again that you are incapable of recognising that somebody, anybody, who has an opposing opinion to you on any issue has any valid basis for holding that opinion. Take your "respect" and shove it up your arse.

Hahahahahahahaha. That was your response to my comment that: "the football club must come before the individual." Oh my God, what a embarrassing comment for you to make.

The only person embarrassing themselves here is the bloke who looks at you in the mirror every day rolleyes boy.

Your respnse to that is "Bulldust." So you think the individual comes before the footnball club do you? You idiot. The club comes before the individual, end of story.

The club is made up of individuals you "idiot". If the club stops worrying about looking after the individuals it's compsoed of then there'll be nothing left of it in a fairly short period of time.

You can't argue that.

Yes I can.

Sure the club is made up of individuals, but together, as an entity they ARE the football club. They work TOGETHER as a football club. Everyone must work together to ensure that the football club does everything possible to win the premiership.

So if a board member has confidential information and they were planning to leak it and the only way to stop it was to kill them that'd be ok , becuase after all, that'd be for the greater good of "the club"

 

[topdon]

Originally posted by Dave
becuase after all, that'd be for the greater good of "the club"

... rolleyes boy!

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Dave
Crap. If anything it highlighted that the club had no choice in the matter.

James didn't think before he commented. He didn't need to put the club in the position that he did. It didn't benefit anybody. You are righy when you say the club had no choice in the matter. So, why would he be stupid enough to be critical, when there was nothing anybody could do? You seem to be the only one who thinks James shouldn't have been reprimanded.

Originally posted by Dave
Because like most of us the people in charge don't like anything that could be construed as criticism of their performance.

The people in charge don't like to be criticized when they have no choice but to do what they did. And fair enough too. The trade period is an awkward time, but Essendon ended it losing only one player when it looked like it could be far worse. James must realise that football is also a business, and the club has to make difficult financial decisions. It wasn't so much "what" James said, but "when" he said it that made the club take necessary action over him.

Originally posted by Dave
Bulldust. Doing the right thing must always come first. Talk of the "greater good" is nothing more than a feeble attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

The club must come first. Making the club come first IS the right thing. Putting individuals before the club is the wrong thing. Creating a disharmonious and awkward club environemnt is the wrong thing. The "greater good", is the good of the club. What James said was not good for the club, or himself, especially when nothing he said could change the situation. There was NOTHING for him, or anybody to gain, hence his disciplining.

Originally posted by Dave
No, going by my logic if you were in a situation that you weren't happy about at work you are free to voice your discontent with fear of reprisal. I didn't say anything about maliciously criticising co-workers.

Um...Hello? Anybody there, Dave? It's an analogy. The "free speech" diatribe you spun to put yourself on the moral high ground (which was pathetic) can be applied using the same principle to any workplace environment. You said that free speech is acceptable. Generally speaking it is, but that doesn't mean people, can't cop criticism for speaking "inappropriately", which is what James did. Once again it wasn't necessarily what he said, but it was that combined with the timing and the forum which was inappropriate.

Originally posted by Dave
Hird's comments were not personal insults and were considered by many to be quite reasonable.

They were also considered by "many" to be unreasonable. He wasn't burnt at the stake for what he said, Dave. It wasn't that bad. But he and the club would have been better off if he didn't voice his opinion at the time and under the circumstances that he did.

Trading time can be a brutal business. Dozens of players get traded when they don't particularly want to. Sorry, but that's the business. Clubs are trying to strengthen their playing list and tough decisions need to be made. James therefore should understand the business side of football in this case, and accept that it's part of football. The footballing department is trying to make a team that can win a flag. That is their aim. At trade time all clubs are trying to strengthen their list. The traders, and coaching staff are trying to do what is "best for the club." James should understand this, and realise that players come and go. The club itself will always be there, and the people, in charge are always trying to do what is best for the "club."

Originally posted by Dave
No, he didn't.

Yes he did, because as I explained above footy trading is a brutal busines, and James should have realised that players come and go regularly, and that the club is always aiming to the best thing for the club, which is to build a team to win a flag. Sometimes salary cap problems need to be dealt with first, and there is nothing the club can do, but to off-load a player, so there is no point having a cry about something you can't control. A more accepting and understanding attitude to the clubs plight in trade period would have been the more appropriate stance, and I'm sure they would have told him that.

Originally posted by Dave
Despite the figures you yourself compiled showing otherwise.

The figures I showed no discernable difference. You said there was a big difference. You were wrong. There will be random variation every year, but there was no massive difference. In fact, our Colonial night games out drew Colonial day games. The AFL have released figures previously that have shown that Friday night games are the most popular crowd drawing games.

Your (and it seems only) argument was that people, prefer to go on Saturdays. I acknowledged that, but when I stated that that doesn't manifest itself in crowd figures you were a beaten man. Your lesson is that surveys don't necessarily indicate how MANY people turn up to games - it just indicates their preference.

Originally posted by Dave
"Players, coaches and officials" have also all stated that they don't see it as a big problem.

Yes they have, they most certainy have. I've heard players say so on radio interview after the game. I've also heard Eddie McGuire, Leigh Matthews and David Parkin say so. Enough people consider it a problem for it to BE a problem.

Originally posted by Dave
It didn't put them in any such position. They put themselves in that position by reacting to what he said in the maner that they did.

He put HIMSELF in that position, Dave by commenting when he did. Not only did he put himself in that position, he put the club in a position where they felt it appropriateto take action against him. Not severe action - but a whisper in the ear to use more tact, common-sesne, and understanding of the situation next time.

Originally posted by Dave
The only person embarrassing themselves here is the bloke who looks at you in the mirror every day rolleyes boy.

Funny that you seem to be getting your ass whipped as usual. You're beaten when you resort to such wimpy, lazy and "beaten" remarks such as: "No it's not" and "Yes it is." Those are your responses? Hahaha. How about backing things up, instead of lazy, three word answers that prove nothing. Makes it too easy for me.

Originally posted by Dave
The club is made up of individuals you "idiot". If the club stops worrying about looking after the individuals it's compsoed of then there'll be nothing left of it in a fairly short period of time.

That is one of the most pathetic attempts at an argument I have ever seen. Of course the club is made up of individuals (DUH!), but those individuals make up the "club" which is one single entity. All of those indviduals must work TOGETHER (i.e not as individuals but as a team) to ensure the club is successful.

Originally posted by Dave
Yes I can.

No you can't argue against the club comes before the individual, especially if you believe that all employees of the club must work together as a team to ensure the club is successful.

Originally posted by Dave
So if a board member has confidential information and they were planning to leak it and the only way to stop it was to kill them that'd be ok , becuase after all, that'd be for the greater good of "the club"

Stupid example, because you have used the words "the only way to stop it", which implies that killing somedbody is the only way to stop the leak. What a stupid example, using murder as a means to try to "win" the argument. That's pathetic. If someone was leaking information, they would be fired.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dan26
James didn't think before he commented.

Ah, Dan the soothsayer.

You seem to be the only one who thinks James shouldn't have been reprimanded.

No, I know at least one person who was actually there that agrees with me.

It wasn't so much "what" James said, but "when" he said it that made the club take necessary action over him.

If "what" he said wasn't a problem "when" he said it should not have been either. It's not like he gave away club secrets for crying out loud. All he did was voice an opinion on why he plays the game.

The club must come first. Making the club come first IS the right thing.

I'm sure that's what they thought when they refused to move the rd 9 game v Hawthorn last year too. Or when they cheated the salary cap.

Putting individuals before the club is the wrong thing. Creating a disharmonious and awkward club environemnt is the wrong thing.

The second is not a result of the first.

Um...Hello? Anybody there, Dave? It's an analogy.

Um...Hello? Anybody there, Dan? It's a piss poor analogy. Reasonable criticism of your employer is not comparable to malicious personal vilification of co-workers.

The "free speech" diatribe you spun to put yourself on the moral high ground (which was pathetic) can be applied using the same principle to any workplace environment. You said that free speech is acceptable. Generally speaking it is, but that doesn't mean people, can't cop criticism for speaking "inappropriately", which is what James did.

Eventually you might twig that I do not agree that his comments were inappropriate.

They were also considered by "many" to be unreasonable. He wasn't burnt at the stake for what he said, Dave.

I didn't say he was. All I've said is that I disagree with the action the club took.

It wasn't that bad. But he and the club would have been better off if he didn't voice his opinion at the time and under the circumstances that he did.

That's your opinion. It's one I, amoingst others, do not share.

The figures I showed no discernable difference.

On average 2K more to day games. Disproving your statement.

You said there was a big difference.

I said that over the period the figures were taken from there was a big difference for our club, which there was.

You were wrong.

I was right. I quoted our teams figures from two seasons, and they showed exactly what I said they did.

Your (and it seems only) argument was that people, prefer to go on Saturdays. I acknowledged that, but when I stated that that doesn't manifest itself in crowd figures you were a beaten man.

Nowhere have you categorically demonstrated that night crowds are significantly higher than day crowds. Nowhere. You've claimed it many times, but nowhere have you demonstrated it. Not once.

Your lesson is that surveys don't necessarily indicate how MANY people turn up to games - it just indicates their preference.

Your lesson is that stating an opinion does not make it fact. Your lesson is that attedances are not an indication of preference. Essendon have 15 night games this year and four day games in Melbourne. Somehow I don't see people who prefer day games limiting themselves to only those four games. That doesn't make their preference any less valid.

Yes they have, they most certainy have. I've heard players say so on radio interview after the game. I've also heard Eddie McGuire, Leigh Matthews and David Parkin say so.

I guess they're all idiots too eh?

Enough people consider it a problem for it to BE a problem.

No, they don't, otherwise something would have been done by now.

He put HIMSELF in that position, Dave by commenting when he did. Not only did he put himself in that position, he put the club in a position where they felt it appropriateto take action against him.

They had as much choice not to act as he did not to speak. Their action only drew attention to an inncuous comment that otherwise would have not even rated much of a mention.

Funny that you seem to be getting your ass whipped as usual.

Because YOU say so? ROFLMAO!!!!!! That's the sort of drivel Rohan et al usually trot out. Please try harder Danny boy.

You're beaten when you resort to such wimpy, lazy and "beaten" remarks such as: "No it's not" and "Yes it
is." Those are your responses? Hahaha.

You're beaten when you resort to such wimpy, lazy and "beaten" remarks such as "You can't argue that. " and "You're not right about anything. " and "You were wrong. " Those are your arguments? Hahaha. Ha.

How about backing things up, instead of lazy, three word answers that prove nothing. Makes it too easy for me.

How about backing things up, instead of lazy, four word statements that prove nothing. Makes it too easy for me.

Stupid example,

Um...Hello? Anybody there, Dan? It's an analogy.

because you have used the words "the only way to stop it", which implies that killing somedbody is the only way to stop the leak. What a stupid example, using murder as a means to try to "win" the argument. That's pathetic. If someone was leaking information, they would be fired.

If someone was in posession of information how would firing them stop them from divulging it?

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Dave
If "what" he said wasn't a problem "when" he said it should not have been either.

Well, it was a problem, because it put the club in a difficult position. Why would James be openly critical, when there was nothing the club could do to avoid the situation? What did he have to gain? Who wins out of the situation? No one. Absolutely no one, which is a good exmaple of why the club was right to "tell him off."

The club has to make tough deciosions. They don't need the captain coming out and whingeing that he doesn't like those tough decisions. It's a football club These things happen, and they need to be accepted especially when the club has no choice, and James' comments do nothing, to benefit anybody.

Originally posted by Dave
All he did was voice an opinion on why he plays the game.

And he made it at the worst possibe time under the worst circumstances. Even if he was going to make it in public (and he didn't need to), it would have been better saved for another time. We all appreciate his honesty, but it would have been so much better for all concerend if he just didn't say anything. I could just imagine McMahon and Jackson cringing as their best player said what he did, when he did.

Originally posted by Dave
I'm sure that's what they thought when they refused to move the rd 9 game v Hawthorn last year too. Or when they cheated the salary cap.

What in the hell have those things got to do with "telling off" Jame Hird??? I've already explaiend to you that I don't agree with everything the club does, but on this occasion they were correct.

Originally posted by Dave
The second is not a result of the first.

In many cases, the second is very much a result of the first. A disharmonious and awkward club environemnt is often created when individual needs are put before the club. The club always comes first, but no doubt you disagree with that, being the individual that you are.

Originally posted by Dave
Eventually you might twig that I do not agree that his comments were inappropriate.

Well, McMahon and Jackson disagree with you. The club has made mistakes before IMHO with the Salary Cap issue several years ago, and the failure to move the Hawthorn game this year. But those decisons were made, presumably with "greed" as the motivator. More money. "Telling off" James is a personal issue between employer-employee, and they handled it beautifully. They didn't burn him at the stake. They just gave him a gentle reminder that the club doesn't have much choice to make the decison they did re: Hardwick. That was all the sitaution called for.

Originally posted by Dave
On average 2K more to day games. Disproving your statement.

You were trying to prove to me that day games attract bigger crowds than night games. Our Colonial night gajmes were more than our day games. While our MCG day games were marginally more than our night games.

The night game average for Colonial was about 2,000 more than the day game average, and the day game average for the MCG was about 2,000 more than the night game average. We played more games at the MCG over the seveal years I quoted, so the day games were marginally higher overall. Thise figures really prove nothing, as one always expects random variation. The figures will not be identical from year to year. There was no discernable, or large difference which could prove one way or the other other when Essendon's best drawing time is. I have access to the last 16 years of AFL crowds, and I can tell you there is no major differecne between Saturday night-arvo. However Friday night games, have been the biggest drawing time (for MCG games) for a few years now. No doubt you will respond to this by asking me to prove it. I am not going to sit here and manually calculate 13 years worth of crowd figures to prove something I already know. I am not lying or making things up. I love crowds, and I have an interest in compiling them. I have no intrest in claiming something that I don't know. The AFL have also publicly stated and provided figures in the AFL record (Round 19 1998, was one such occasion, if you want to grab that record) where they listed the figures.

Originally posted by Dave
I said that over the period the figures were taken from there was a big difference for our club, which there was.

Why only take them from two years? Why not do what I did, and create a more relevant sample over a longer period of time, splitting up the crowds for each venue, so we get a reaistic idea, instead of being selective with a meaningless two year sample?

Originally posted by Dave
Your lesson is that stating an opinion does not make it fact.

I agree, but that doesn't mean I'm going to change my opinion. When I state my opinion, you usually respond with stuff like: "No, it's not", or some equally meaningless remark. Such a comment by you means you are saying that my opinions on topic-X are wrong, so for you to criticise me is hypocritical. I am a very open-minded to new ideas, as you would have noticed with many of the issues I discuss. However, that doesn't mean I am going to agree with you. If I have an opinion, I will stick to it, unless I can be convinced. But if I state my opinion, and you respond with: "No, it's not", then not only are you guilty of what you are accusing me of, but you don't even make an attempt to justify it either, because of the shortness of the response.

Originally posted by Dave
No, they don't, otherwise something would have been done by now.

Yes they do. Enough people DO consider it a problem, for it to be a problem, because it is an issue that is continually brought up hence it is a problem (DUH!). Something will be done about it soon, because the AFL have openly asked clubs to do something. Just because something hasn't been done yet doesn't mean it isn't a problem. It just means it's a problem that hasn't been fixed yet. Going by your logic no problems exist at all, because if they did exist, they would be fixed. Um.... it doesn't work that way Dave.

Originally posted by Dave
They had as much choice not to act as he did not to speak. Their action only drew attention to an inncuous comment that otherwise would have not even rated much of a mention.

Wrong. What drew attention was James Hird's comments. James "telling off" by the club didn't rate much of a mention because it was done in private. What made the attention was James' PUBLIC comments in the first place. A lot of people may not even be aware that he was told off, nor would you expect them to, because it was done in private.

Originally posted by Dave
Because YOU say so? ROFLMAO!!!!!!

Read through the thread and make up your own mind. When you put little or no effort into your responses (which makes sense for you as you are on the back foot) it is not hard for me to whip you.

Originally posted by Dave
You're beaten when you resort to such wimpy, lazy and "beaten" remarks such as "You can't argue that. " and "You're not right about anything. " and "You were wrong. " Those are your arguments? Hahaha. Ha.

I back my arguments up with more than three words statements, Dave, Time you gave up this one methinks. I stated that : "You can't argue that" to say that you can't argue that the club comes before the individual. If you would like to mount your argument (hehe) of how the individual comes before the club, I'd like to hear how you articulate it. Would be interesting reading.

Originally posted by Dave
If someone was in posession of information how would firing them stop them from divulging it?

It wouldn't. Although murdering them would send the offender to jail, and be the worst thing that the football club could be accused of. We are talking about murder, here Dave. Be realistic, and stop going off on tangents, for God's sake. If you think I brought up a bad analogy, then you have gone way over the top with that one.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dan26
Well, it was a problem, because it put the club in a difficult position.

Why? Because he said he played for his mates and it was dissapointing to see one of them have to leave? What a crock!

Why would James be openly critical, when there was nothing the club could do to avoid the situation?

His coments had to do with why he plays footy, nothing more. If the club wanted to interprate that as criticism of them then they were stupid.

What did he have to gain? Who wins out of the situation? No one. Absolutely no one,

Why does someone have to win out of the situation?

which is a good exmaple of why the club was right to "tell him off."

No it isn't. They should have realised that in the aftermath of the GF and all the draft horsetrading that the players were probably feeling a tad unhappy and been savvy enough to let sleeping dogs lie.

The club has to make tough deciosions. They don't need the captain coming out and whingeing that he doesn't like those tough decisions.

Then they need to grow a thicker skin.

What in the hell have those things got to do with "telling off" Jame Hird???

They have to do with your argument that the greater good of the club or making the club come first are the most important thing in any decision making process taken by the club. Quite obviously that isn't the case.

In many cases, the second is very much a result of the first. A disharmonious and awkward club environemnt is often created when individual needs are put before the club.

In this case I do not believe that occured. Hirds comments were not those of an individual seeking to place himself above the club as a whole.

The club always comes first, but no doubt you disagree with that, being the individual that you are.

Depends on the situation rolleyes boy. Not everything is black and red.

Well, McMahon and Jackson disagree with you.

Bully for them, that doesn't make them right. They disagreed with you last year re Rd 9 too and I don't seem to recall you conceding that you were wrong then.

You were trying to prove to me that day games attract bigger crowds than night games.

Which they did for the period shown for our team.

I have access to the last 16 years of AFL crowds, and I can tell you there is no major differecne between Saturday night-arvo. However Friday night games, have been the biggest drawing time (for MCG games) for a few years now. No doubt you will respond to this by asking me to prove it.

You're learning.

I am not going to sit here and manually calculate 13 years worth of crowd figures to prove something I already know.

Then don't expect anyone to believe you.

I am not lying or making things up.I love crowds, and I have an interest in compiling them. I have no intrest in claiming something that I don't know.

I didn't say you were, simply that until you take the time to sit there and manually calculate 13 years worth of crowd figures your claims have little credibility.

The AFL have also publicly stated and provided figures in the AFL record (Round 19 1998, was one such occasion, if you want to grab that record) where they listed the figures.

Got a spare copy?

Why only take them from two years?

For one it's all I had time for. For another I quoted crowds to show the preference of bombers supporters for night or day footy as that was the subject under discussion at the time. Figures from 15 years ago don't seem particularly relevant to what people's preferences today might be. In any case crowd figures are not a measure of preference.

Why not do what I did, and create a more relevant sample over a longer period of time, splitting up the crowds for each venue, so we get a reaistic idea, instead of being selective with a meaningless two year sample?

That's what I'm in the process of doing, though the stats package I have only goes back to 1993. Still given that they were only playing 25 odd nights games a year back then, and even less before that, it should be a pretty good indication.

I agree,

Whoaah! Did the sky just fall?

but that doesn't mean I'm going to change my opinion. When I state my opinion, you usually respond with stuff like: "No, it's not", or some equally meaningless remark.

Because ou state your opinions as fact and then add comments like "You can't argue that". Any opinion CAN be argued.

Such a comment by you means you are saying that my opinions on topic-X are wrong,

No it doesn't. It means that when you say something it's your opinion, not the unarguable facts you often make them out to be. I have no problem with you holding an opinion, even if it's one I disagree with. It's when you state that no-one can argue a point that you cross the line.

so for you to criticise me is hypocritical.

No, it isn't

I am a very open-minded to new ideas, as you would have noticed with many of the issues I discuss.

As long as they are your ideas. I've never seen you once concede that someone else's viewpoint on an issue was correct.

However, that doesn't mean I am going to agree with you. If I have an opinion, I will stick to it, unless I can be convinced. But if I state my opinion, and you respond with: "No, it's not", then not only are you guilty of what you are accusing me of, but you don't even make an attempt to justify it either, because of the shortness of the response.

There's no need to justify it as it's obvious. Any opinion can be argued.

I don't expect you to change your mind Dan. Just acknowleding that other people's viewpoint have some validity from time to time would be nice.

Yes they do. Enough people DO consider it a problem, for it to be a problem, because it is an issue that is continually brought up hence it is a problem (DUH!).

You've missed the point (Duh! - do you really feel the need to continually denigrate those you discuss issues with like that btw?) I'm sure many people do consider it a problem. The point was that if enough people thought it was a problem something would have been done already instead of it still being an issue under discussion. It's not like the issue only arose last season.

Something will be done about it soon, because the AFL have openly asked clubs to do something.

Asked them to come up with alternate desings. If it was the burning issue you make it out to be they'd have had them implemented already.

Just because something hasn't been done yet doesn't mean it isn't a problem. It just means it's a problem that hasn't been fixed yet.

Quite so rolleyes boy. Problems that are of the magnitude you make this one out to be generally get fixed in less time than this one has, particularly when the fix is as simple as in this case.

Going by your logic no problems exist at all, because if they did exist, they would be fixed. Um.... it doesn't work that way Dave.

There you go, taking matters to the extreme again.

Wrong. What drew attention was James Hird's comments. James "telling off" by the club didn't rate much of a mention because it was done in private.

Yes, so private it was more of a talking point in the media than the original comments.

What made the attention was James' PUBLIC comments in the first place. A lot of people may not even be aware that he was told off, nor would you expect them to, because it was done in private.

Not if they had eyes and ears they weren't.

Read through the thread and make up your own mind.
When you put little or no effort into your responses (which makes sense for you as you are on the back foot) it is not hard for me to whip you.

Meanwhile, back in the real world.....wake up and smell the roses Danny boy. Regurgitating the same statements time and again does not constitute effort.

I back my arguments up with more than three words statements, Dave,

So have I rolleyes boy, so have I. That you choose to ignore that which does not suit you does not alter that one iota.

Time you gave up this one methinks. I stated that : "You can't argue that" to say that you can't argue that the club comes before the individual. If you would like to mount your argument (hehe) of how the individual comes before the club, I'd like to hear how you articulate it. Would be interesting reading.

It's pretty simple Dan. People are human, and sometimes their personal needs come before those of the club. In the week leading up to the preliminary final in the 2000 season James Hird's daughter had a seizure. Understandably Hird spent quite some time at the hospital with her and then also at home when she was released. It was not clear whether he would even play in the prelim until the morning of the game and when he did play his performance was clearly below that of his efforts in both the Qualifying final and Grand Final. In short, he let his personal life interfere with his preperation for the game and in doing so had a negative effect on the clubs chances of progressing to the Grand Final. He put his individual needs before those of the club.

And he had every right to do so.

Be realistic, and stop going off on tangents, for God's sake.

If you are going to do that you should expect that others will as well.

If you think I brought up a bad analogy, then you have gone way over the top with that one.

That was my intention.

 

[Dan26]

Dave your commets re: Hird's daughter are inappropriate. We are talking about a human life here. Whilst the club come before the individual, the obvious excpetion is when someone's life may be at risk. It is not appropriate for you to use that as an example.

As for the crowd figures, you will just have to trust me. You can be deliberately denigrating, or insulting if you wish, but crowds are one of my specialties (they are not one of yours, though I acknowledge you have an interest in them) and if you would like me to e-mail you a copy of VFL-AFL attendances since 1987, I would be happy to do so. Then you can work them out for yourself.

I also found most of you responses in your last post, very weak. For example, in response to my statement that "A lot of people may not even be aware that he was told off, nor would you expect them to, because it was done in private."

You then replied: "Not if they had eyes and ears they wont."

That is a weak response. My whole point was that James "telling off" was done in private, and it wasn't "big news", like his initial comments were. The average person mght not even be aware. For you to pedantically claim that: "Not if they had eyes and ears they wont." is as weak as water. There is no substances of depth to any of it.

Your responses are littered with similar types of comments. Short comments, with no depth or substance, that take a general (rather than a specific) view of everything. The only way you can mount any sort of argument is to take the general view. You take the high moral ground, for instance, you take a wide general view of "freedom of speech" applying it to every example you can think of. You take a wide, general view in relation to my posting style etc etc. Nothing is specific. Nearly everything is vague. Even if I state that McMahon was in the right, you use an irrelevant example of a previous wrong decision they made, which has no relevance to THIS decision. Most of your comments reek of vagueness, and are an obvious attempt to write "something" in a an argument that you are losing badly.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dan26
Dave your commets re: Hird's daughter are inappropriate.

No they are not. I did not criticise him for what he did, indeed I said he had every right to act as he did. They are appropriate as they are an example of where an individuals needs are more important than those of the club.

We are talking about a human life here. Whilst the club come before the individual, the obvious excpetion is when someone's life may be at risk.

Then the club does not always come before the individual. Thank you for admitting you were wrong.

It is not appropriate for you to use that as an example.

Why not? Because it shoots your claim down in flames? This isn't the only situation where an individuals personal needs come before the clubs.

As for the crowd figures, you will just have to trust me. You can be deliberately denigrating, or insulting if you wish,

You mean take a leaf out of your book?

but crowds are one of my specialties (they are not one of yours, though I acknowledge you have an interest in them) and if you would like me to e-mail you a copy of VFL-AFL attendances since 1987, I would be happy to do so. Then you can work them out for yourself.

On the figures that I have since 1993 on average days games at the MCG have attracted more people than night games. Between 1993 and 2001 on average ~47, 800 have attended day games and ~47,650 have attended night games. The difference is not large, however it still appears that your initial claim that more people attend night games is false.

Waverley, the WACA and Football Park also have higher average day attendances with Subicao, Gabba and SCG and Colonial having higher night attendances.

I also found most of you responses in your last post, very weak.

I'm crushed. I suppose I should simply claim that your examples are "inappropriate" eh?

For example, in response to my statement that "A lot of people may not even be aware that he was told off, nor would you expect them to, because it was done in private."

You then replied: "Not if they had eyes and ears they wont."

That is a weak response.

Sublety is obviously not your forte eh Dan?

My whole point was that James "telling off" was done in private, and it wasn't "big news", like his initial comments were. The average person mght not even be aware. For you to pedantically claim that: "Not if they had eyes and ears they wont." is as weak as water. There is no substances of depth to any of it.

My whole point was that Hird getting told off attracted the same sort of media attention as his initial comments and as such anyone with eyes and ears would have been as aware of the clubs reaction as they would have been of Hirds initial comments.

Your responses are littered with similar types of comments. Short comments, with no depth or substance, that take a general (rather than a specific) view of everything.

That you choose to post five pages of fluff does not make your arguments nor your claims any more valid than those that choose quality over quantity.

Even if I state that McMahon was in the right, you use an irrelevant example of a previous wrong decision they made, which has no relevance to THIS decision.

You use the fact that McMahon agreed with you as some sort of "proof" that you are correct. Examples of where the club has made decisions you do not agree with are valid rebuttal of this "proof".

 

[PowderedToastMa]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Calthorpe: I should never have left

Originally posted by Dan26


If anything Calthorpes comments make the football club look good.

HA. Calthorpe couldn't make ANY club look good....he was about as useful as a one-legged man in an arse kicking competition.

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Dave


Why? Because he said he played for his mates and it was dissapointing to see one of them have to leave? What a crock!

Dave your post starting with ^^^ that up above.....its the longest bloody post ive ever seen on bigfooty. Congratulations