Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion Cameron Flog

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tulip
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

raven echo said:
If he is involved with it then he has to go. Contract or no contract. Can take Connolly with him. Flogs.
Click to expand...

If he is involved then his contract can be terminated. Cheating is proving incompetence is it not?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

It disgusts me to think I was defending him on the main board a couple of days ago. And this is a guy who claimed that you couldn't put a price on the integrity of our club. Well you certainly did, didn't you. Went at the high price of picks 1 and 2.
 
Given that he wasn't even at Caro's famous meeting I'll hold off on burning an effigy until something concrete is proven.

Then I'll go back and delete all the posts defending him and stfu.
 
I have a feeling that this will get quite dirty though. IF schwab was involved, then one wonders whether or not the reason why he was sacked was due to the tank not being successful, or did the board find out about it and not agree? Were there any catches to him being re-instated? Was Garry Lyon involved? :)
 
SuburbanMe said:
I have a feeling that this will get quite dirty though. IF schwab was involved, then one wonders whether or not the reason why he was sacked was due to the tank not being successful, or did the board find out about it and not agree? Were there any catches to him being re-instated? Was Garry Lyon involved? :)
Click to expand...

Apparently Jimmy spoke to Garry in the days after 186 (before Bailey got the arse) and Garry told Jim that they couldn't sack both the coach and the CEO at the same time as it would destabilise the club. So Schwab was kept and Bailey shown the door.

Almost 100% sure I read that in Jim's recent book.
 
raven echo said:
Apparently Jimmy spoke to Garry in the days after 186 (before Bailey got the arse) and Garry told Jim that they couldn't sack both the coach and the CEO at the same time as it would destabilise the club. So Schwab was kept and Bailey shown the door.

Almost 100% sure I read that in Jim's recent book.
Click to expand...

I have that book - yet to read it - The Mrs got to it first. :(
 
raven echo said:
Apparently Jimmy spoke to Garry in the days after 186 (before Bailey got the arse) and Garry told Jim that they couldn't sack both the coach and the CEO at the same time as it would destabilise the club. So Schwab was kept and Bailey shown the door.
Click to expand...

It was in Jim's book. As I said, it would look like it would destabilise the club but looking back it could have been the best decision in terms of where we are now (or perhaps the worst - would Schwab have come out and said we tanked? Maybe this is Garry Lyon's reasoning for sacking both leading to destabilisation of the club - loss of draft picks - which would have meant no Mitch Clark, an even poorer season and none of these new arrivals - which would mean we'd be down the drain as a football club)

As I said, a fool makes the same mistake twice, which is exactly what has happened to Melbourne here. In his first tenure with the club we discovered that we broke the salary cap, and now we are going through this and it looks like we'll be losing picks again.
 
tasmanlvr said:
It was in Jim's book. As I said, it would look like it would destabilise the club but looking back it could have been the best decision in terms of where we are now (or perhaps the worst - would Schwab have come out and said we tanked? Maybe this is Garry Lyon's reasoning for sacking both leading to destabilisation of the club - loss of draft picks - which would have meant no Mitch Clark, an even poorer season and none of these new arrivals - which would mean we'd be down the drain as a football club)

As I said, a fool makes the same mistake twice, which is exactly what has happened to Melbourne here. In his first tenure with the club we discovered that we broke the salary cap, and now we are going through this and it looks like we'll be losing picks again. And, perhaps, Jack Viney, depending on what the AFL does with our second round pick.
Click to expand...

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

If we lose Viney I'll be shattered. The other stuff I could handle but losing Viney would be the nail in the coffin for the me, at least in regards to clubs immediate future.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

raven echo said:
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

If we lose Viney I'll be shattered. The other stuff I could handle but losing Viney would be the nail in the coffin for the me, at least in regards to clubs immediate future.
Click to expand...

Oh please, they can't take away players already on our list! If we lose anything this year it will be draft picks... even that's unlikely I reckon, IMO they will wait for next year's draft to punish us.
 
I don't think we could lose Viney. I'm fairly sure the AFL has never taken a specific player from a club after they've drafted him. And it wouldn't even be the case of taking away the pick we'd use on him as the F/S ruling states that we would get him with our next pick anyway. They would have to specifically take a player that the club already has claim to.
 
Captain Jack said:
Oh please, they can't take away players already on our list! If we lose anything this year it will be draft picks... even that's unlikely I reckon, IMO they will wait for next year's draft to punish us.
Click to expand...

It's the AFL, they like to make shit up as they go
 
raven echo said:
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

If we lose Viney I'll be shattered. The other stuff I could handle but losing Viney would be the nail in the coffin for the me, at least in regards to clubs immediate future.
Click to expand...

Will not happen. End of story

The only pick they would take would be 4

If they take 3, 13, Hogan etc. then we'd have to hold trade week again
 
raven echo said:
It's the AFL, they like to make shit up as they go
Click to expand...

The AFLPA would create a ****ing shitstorm if a player was ripped from the list of a club they are already on. Taking viney away would be opening pandora's box.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Bluelegs said:
The AFLPA would create a ******* shitstorm if a player was ripped from the list of a club they are already on. Taking viney away would be opening pandora's box.
Click to expand...

Absolutely

Not only that but it would also have an effect on Dawes, Hogan, Barry etc which would in turn effect the MD, Collingwood, GWS etc
 
Viney and Barry are already part of our first list lodgement - as are all our other trades, cannot be reversed.
 
Even if it was Schwab's idea what's he got to do with what happens on the field? If he went and ordered Bailey to start throwing games then fine, let's sack him and anyone else involved then cop our beating from the league (all while being massive hypocrites on here pretending everyone didn't love it at the time) but he doesn't make selections or positional moves during games, so unless Bailey agreed and went along with the plan nothing would have happened.

I hope DB's not thinking about rolling over on us, because the "I was just following orders" defence hasn't had a great strike rate throughout history.
 
Supermercado said:
Even if it was Schwab's idea what's he got to do with what happens on the field? If he went and ordered Bailey to start throwing games then fine, let's sack him and anyone else involved then cop our beating from the league (all while being massive hypocrites on here pretending everyone didn't love it at the time) but he doesn't make selections or positional moves during games, so unless Bailey agreed and went along with the plan nothing would have happened.

I hope DB's not thinking about rolling over on us, because the "I was just following orders" defence hasn't had a great strike rate throughout history.
Click to expand...
Like I said in the others thread... Just ask the members of the third reich.

Bailey and the others are all finished if we are found guilty.
 
Supermercado said:
Even if it was Schwab's idea what's he got to do with what happens on the field? If he went and ordered Bailey to start throwing games then fine, let's sack him and anyone else involved then cop our beating from the league (all while being massive hypocrites on here pretending everyone didn't love it at the time) but he doesn't make selections or positional moves during games, so unless Bailey agreed and went along with the plan nothing would have happened.

I hope DB's not thinking about rolling over on us, because the "I was just following orders" defence hasn't had a great strike rate throughout history.
Click to expand...

Precisely. The admin didn't hold a gun to his head. They paid him hundreds of thousands of dollars. If he was against the idea he could have walked out of the club and outed us to the AFL then and there. But he didn't because he wanted to build his young list with top picks, he had no problem with tanking.
 
Most off you on here wanted us to tank (I was always opposed). Now it looks like we are caught, you are calling for the same administrators heads you were vigorously supporting three years ago.

Pot, kettle, black?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Proper Gander
    • Wow
    • Like
Video Highlights Should the Melbourne Football Club be interested in Jeremy Cameron??
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Bluelegs
Bluelegs
A11dAtP0w3R
    • Wow
    • Love
  • Poll Poll
News & Events Should the Melbourne Football Club be interested in Jeremy Cameron??
2
Replies
35
Views
653
A11dAtP0w3R
A11dAtP0w3R

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom