No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

[The Prosecutor]

It's definitely not PR 101 when you do not have any knowledge for what you are accepting responsibility. Hird believed he was doing the best for the club with the best advice, why have a media communications expert if you ignore their advice?

Well s**t, if he didn't know what he was accepting responsibility for, why the hell should we believe he has supposedly learned his lesson and will come back being all awesome and enlightened? He sought out this program, hired people to implement it and at the end of the day, couldn't tell the players what this program had potentially exposed them to. Of course he should accept responsibility.

And if Hird had to be advised to do that and wouldn't do it otherwise, then that says a hell of a lot about Hird.

Hird damn well was right to say he will accept responsibility, whether the club has responded adequately to that responsibility is debatable.

Read again what I said. From my understanding it was her suggestion to put all findings and a version of the report in the public arena. This has been used against the club ad nauseum.

Well s**t, we as a club ****ed up. What, do you want us to ignore it and pretend it didn't happen and hope that members would just get over not being told anything?

Simple solution to that one, don't continuously heck up like we did in the first place and no report would be necessary. Besides, how did this even come back to being Lukin's 'fault'? Or is this just picking her from obscurity to blame?

The whole point of a media communications expert is to pick and choose what to tell the media to portray the best image of the subject (in this case EFC) to the public. Most decent media communications experts will advise being proactive to maintain control of the media agenda. The advice to remain silent allowed the AFL and the media to run with their agendas for months. Crisis situations require clear thought, not to remain silent and bunker down. In fact remaining silent and bunkering down gives the impression that the club believes it's in crisis too, which only further perpetrates poor public image.

The whole point being that when she chose to release something it was in total contradiction to her supposed brief for a media communications/public relations expert. She could have 'won' by not being either (a) totally incompetent; or even worse (b) working on behalf of another entity against the interests of her employer. She could have 'won' by not suggesting the club remain silent, by not suggesting her employers release potential self-incriminating reports to the public, whether there was actually much grounds for incrimination or not.

Well quite frankly, you're demonstrating your ignorance in the field here. How exactly do you be proactive in this story? Accept responsibility for your failings and any adverse findings? Obviously can't do that because of your first point... So again, please elaborate on how one has any sort of efficient pro activeness in a dynamic crisis framework, because believe me, you would be an innovator amongst the industry and the most sought after PR consultant in the world if you have a working solution.

As for not responding exaggerating the crisis, I dare say shutting up and focusing on the thing that your organisation is there to do dispels crisis talks more than featuring on 6 o'clock news every evening trying to shoot down more and more arguments as more and more are made in response to your comments.

As for the rest of your allegations in this quoted text, either put up or shut up. She is very much competent and made very little mistakes that could be attributed to her.

Like Hird?

The man who got a two-year contract extensions while many others involved in this are no longer at the club?

Oh, but poor Hirdy.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

That was by a very considerable margin the thing that most damaged our public standing early in the piece.

You could make the argument initially that it was a prudent course of action. When it transpired immediately (seriously, we stuck with it for 3-4 months after it was obviously damaging) that it wasn't working and instead encouraging an environment of slander and libel, it had to be changed immediately. It wasn't, and that has hurt our club's perception more than anything else in this whole saga.

She is a campaigner of the highest order.

 

[The Prosecutor]

Jesus, please don't try and defend her.

You can justify an anti-Hird position. You can even justify a pro-Evans position, although it's very difficult.

You cannot possibly justify a pro-Lukin position, to the extent that it's less justifiable than a pro-Dank or pro-Robinson position.

I'm not pro-Lukin or whatever you want to call it, I'm merely defending some of the decisions she made which were perfectly reasonable decisions yet some here would just like to pin everything on her without having any understanding on the issues.

 

[kfc1]

There's probably no better way to make me believe sections of the board don't want Hird to return than for the board to release a statement saying they unanimously support him

The only alternative was to say (a) say nothing or (b) say "the Board is still discussing his future" would have been even worse, so what else were they meant to do?

 

[The Prosecutor]

No one can be that s**t at their job, so she obviously wasn't working in Essendon's best interests, and therefore remains arguably David Evans' biggest black mark out of a list 100x longer than all the positive things he did for the club.

Not this Evans crap again. I can't comprehend how you can be so stringent in your defence of Hird yet cast Evans to the wolves so easily.

 

[Doss]

You could make the argument initially that it was a prudent course of action. When it transpired immediately (seriously, we stuck with it for 3-4 months after it was obviously damaging) that it wasn't working and instead encouraging an environment of slander and libel, it had to be changed immediately. It wasn't, and that has hurt our club's perception more than anything else in this whole saga.

Can't disagree with any of that.

I had no problem with it initially, but you have to be able to tailor your approach to fit the current, and as it was, rapidly evolving circumstances. Ours wasn't, either through incompetence or through conflicting agendas.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I'm not pro-Lukin or whatever you want to call it, I'm merely defending some of the decisions she made which were perfectly reasonable decisions yet some here would just like to pin everything on her without having any understanding on the issues.

What exactly was reasonable about allowing a story as one-sided as the AFL's nuclear charge sheet to be propagated for months?

You can make the (somewhat tenuous) argument that Dank was guilty of no more than poor administrative systems.

You cannot call Lukin anything other than embarrassingly, dangerously incompetent or maliciously working against her employer's interests.

Not this Evans crap again. I can't comprehend how you can be so stringent in your defence of Hird yet cast Evans to the wolves so easily.

Hird was always acting in the best interests of the Essendon Football Club. Evans was not.

 

[Doss]

The only alternative was to say (a) say nothing or (b) say "the Board is still discussing his future" would have been even worse, so what else were they meant to do?

I don't think he's attacking or defending it, but it's a reasonable point about those sort of public statements often not being completely representative of the reality.

 

[Phone]

The only alternative was to say (a) say nothing or (b) say "the Board is still discussing his future" would have been even worse, so what else were they meant to do?

well i dont think anyone would have cared if the board ignored a Caroline Wilson article

 

[Whispering_Jack]

well i dont think anyone would have cared if the board ignored a Caroline Wilson article

Well, as this thread is discussing right now, keeping quiet was a ******* terrible move last year, so I think it was the right thing to do.

 

[The Prosecutor]

What exactly was reasonable about allowing a story as one-sided as the AFL's nuclear charge sheet to be propagated for months?

You can make the (somewhat tenuous) argument that Dank was guilty of no more than poor administrative systems.

You cannot call Lukin anything other than embarrassingly, dangerously incompetent or maliciously working against her employer's interests.

The charge sheet came out in August FFS, relevance?

As for your assertions of her, hindsight hero stuff. Really, such brave calls to make. I would love to see the position we'd be in now if some of the posters in here were calling the shots.

Hird was always acting in the best interests of the Essendon Football Club. Evans was not.

So when Hird decided to leak to the press testimony from his interview to the press that our Club's Chairman and the AFL's CEO had a differing version of events to Hird purely to try and bring down Vlad, explain to me how that was in the club's best interests and not just a selfish agenda from Hird?

Or how about leaking his pay deal to once again trying to blindside Vlad while bringing the story back to front page attention for another couple of weeks? Explain to me how there how Hird always had the 'best interests' of the club at heart?

Evans has done far more for this club over the past four years than Hird has. To be frank, I'm disgusted that you're so happy to wield out the 'club legend' schtick about Hird while at the same time casting Evans away in such an insulting way. Truly hypocritical.

 

[Beerfish]

Well, as this thread is discussing right now, keeping quiet was a ******* terrible move last year, so I think it was the right thing to do.

..or the less wrong thing to do. We're really in a no win situation until this thing is resolved.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

Yeah, fair call.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

So when Hird decided to leak to the press testimony from his interview to the press that our Club's Chairman and the AFL's CEO had a differing version of events to Hird purely to try and bring down Vlad, explain to me how that was in the club's best interests and not just a selfish agenda from Hird?

Or how about leaking his pay deal to once again trying to blindside Vlad while bringing the story back to front page attention for another couple of weeks? Explain to me how there how Hird always had the 'best interests' of the club at heart?

Evans has done far more for this club over the past four years than Hird has. To be frank, I'm disgusted that you're so happy to wield out the 'club legend' schtick about Hird while at the same time casting Evans away in such an insulting way. Truly hypocritical.

I'm still waiting for David's response to Hird's assertion that HE NOT acknowledge the phone call.

If Hird is lying, why not call him out on it?

 

[Eleven 38]

I like it when the club whacks caro...

 

[Burzum]

Elizabeth Lukin is a good Labor woman.

 

[EnolaGay]

Had someone say, unlikely to be a board member.
Likely to be someone far lower down the chain and heard some conflict, but one small bit of conflict is common in board meetings.

Caro's likely got it from down the chain somewhere and used an article to exploit the situation. See if it causes any reaction and so on.

Most likely a coterie member. Nothing worse than a coined up self important coterie campaigner

I heard it was Beverly Knight.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

The charge sheet came out in August FFS, relevance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile

Have a read of that, then try reading my post again.

As for your assertions of her, hindsight hero stuff. Really, such brave calls to make. I would love to see the position we'd be in now if some of the posters in here were calling the shots.

Is it hindsight when it was said at the time? Seriously, you can defend the initial conception of a silence policy. You cannot defend its continuation in a climate where our silence was being taken as tacit acceptance by the general public.

So when Hird decided to leak to the press testimony from his interview to the press that our Club's Chairman and the AFL's CEO had a differing version of events to Hird purely to try and bring down Vlad, explain to me how that was in the club's best interests and not just a selfish agenda from Hird?

Or how about leaking his pay deal to once again trying to blindside Vlad while bringing the story back to front page attention for another couple of weeks? Explain to me how there how Hird always had the 'best interests' of the club at heart?

You mean the actions he took after declining his right as a human being to defend his name from accusations he believed to be false in order to abide by the club's wishes, actions which were not in any way directed at or relevant to the club itself, nor anyone involved with it, other than the man who used his position at the club to try and knife Hird in favour of looking after his high rolling mates?

Spare me.

Evans has done far more for this club over the past four years than Hird has. To be frank, I'm disgusted that you're so happy to wield out the 'club legend' schtick about Hird while at the same time casting Evans away in such an insulting way. Truly hypocritical.

It's an interesting point actually. I mean, there's the logical inconsistency of you holding Hird responsible for the actions of Dank and Robinson, men he charged to do a job, yet deifying Evans for hiring the man you're crucifying. Aside from that, though, what exactly has Evans done for the club other than selling it up s**t creek in order to protect a business partner and eleven other clubs?

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I'm still waiting for David's response to Hird's assertion that HE NOT acknowledge the phone call.

If Hird is lying, why not call him out on it?

No, mate, silence is the best policy. Haven't we seen that already? Imagine how bad our public image would be if we'd actually defended ourselves.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Well s**t, if he didn't know what he was accepting responsibility for, why the hell should we believe he has supposedly learned his lesson and will come back being all awesome and enlightened? He sought out this program, hired people to implement it and at the end of the day, couldn't tell the players what this program had potentially exposed them to. Of course he should accept responsibility.

And if Hird had to be advised to do that and wouldn't do it otherwise, then that says a hell of a lot about Hird.

Hird damn well was right to say he will accept responsibility, whether the club has responded adequately to that responsibility is debatable.

Where did I say he (a) has learned his lesson; (b) has a lesson to learn other than more stringent hiring checks.

Best practice management suggests trusting your employees to perform the roles they were hired to specialise in. The only thing that Hird didn't practice under best practice for high performing teams is hiring the best people. To answer that see (b) and quite frankly if there was nothing illegal about the program then you could mount a reasonable argument to suggest he hired a good specialist. The only issue being that he had a conflict of interest with his personal business.

Finally and again, if the program was legal what has Hird done wrong exactly? Can you tell me it was wrong? At least Leigh Matthews was honest in saying that a Senior Coach would have no idea what supplements players are given.

Well s**t, we as a club ****** up. What, do you want us to ignore it and pretend it didn't happen and hope that members would just get over not being told anything?

Simple solution to that one, don't continuously **** up like we did in the first place and no report would be necessary. Besides, how did this even come back to being Lukin's 'fault'? Or is this just picking her from obscurity to blame?

Again, read what I wrote. Where did I say the club should ignore it? Sometimes the members should not know everything and a good PR person should know when this is the case. This does not mean the members never get told anything, just that the members need to understand what they get told and what they don't is for the best interests of the club. The club needs to provide strong leadership with this at risk of being voted out if the members can't handle it.

Lukin's advice to release the report is questionable at best.

Well quite frankly, you're demonstrating your ignorance in the field here. How exactly do you be proactive in this story? Accept responsibility for your failings and any adverse findings? Obviously can't do that because of your first point... So again, please elaborate on how one has any sort of efficient pro activeness in a dynamic crisis framework, because believe me, you would be an innovator amongst the industry and the most sought after PR consultant in the world if you have a working solution.

As for not responding exaggerating the crisis, I dare say shutting up and focusing on the thing that your organisation is there to do dispels crisis talks more than featuring on 6 o'clock news every evening trying to shoot down more and more arguments as more and more are made in response to your comments.

As for the rest of your allegations in this quoted text, either put up or shut up. She is very much competent and made very little mistakes that could be attributed to her.

Ignorance? Put up or shut up? Seriously? Put up what and shut up what exactly? Your personal nature with your responses is not appreciated. Moving on however....

Being proactive does not mean remaining silent, but not remaining silent does not mean accepting responsibility.

If you want PR 101 then you need to control the media agenda. How is this achieved? It's achieved by welcoming the media into a controlled environment where you can give the impression of transparency and co-operation while only answering things that best suit the agenda of (in this case) the club.

The club would have been better off if they had of provided a staff member (say J-Rod) to give a weekly press conference welcoming the media to ask any question they like with the clear understanding that due to confidentiality reasons that they could not answer everything that was asked but that they would do their best to do so. This allows the perception that the club wants to co-operate with both the media and the authorities.

In effect the club may not have provided much more substance than they did last year, but instead of pictures of staff and players ducking hordes of media outside the club and Hird's residence because the media are not getting access to the story, there are pictures of club controlled press conferences.

The man who got a two-year contract extensions while many others involved in this are no longer at the club?

Oh, but poor Hirdy.

The man who received a 12 month suspension plus large amounts of stress, harassment and public image damage for what crime exactly? I'm sorry has there been any proof of any breach of any fully clarified rule?

PS Your emotive tones does not lend weight to your argument, at least not with me.

 

[The Dustbin]

Funnily enough the same time AD made his public statement then 'clarification' a few days later re: Hird stepping down. Makes you wonder who she was working for...

Even more funnier is that the AFL website hasn't acknowledged today's statement. This is not the first time this has happened, read into it as much as you like.

Sorry, found it under this heading lol

Important Bomber Hibberd's hamstring blow

 

[JayDon]

knock knock bomb??

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Where did I say he (a) has learned his lesson; (b) has a lesson to learn other than more stringent hiring checks.

...

Again, read what I wrote. Where did I say the club should ignore it?

...

Ignorance? Put up or shut up? Seriously? Put up what and shut up what exactly? Your personal nature with your responses is not appreciated. Moving on however....

...

The man who received a 12 month suspension plus large amounts of stress, harassment and public image damage for what crime exactly? I'm sorry has there been any proof of any breach of any fully clarified rule?

...

PS Your emotive tones does not lend weight to your argument, at least not with me.

Try not to get too caught up in the strawman arguments.

 

[Mercurial89]

The charge sheet came out in August FFS, relevance?

As for your assertions of her, hindsight hero stuff. Really, such brave calls to make. I would love to see the position we'd be in now if some of the posters in here were calling the shots.



So when Hird decided to leak to the press testimony from his interview to the press that our Club's Chairman and the AFL's CEO had a differing version of events to Hird purely to try and bring down Vlad, explain to me how that was in the club's best interests and not just a selfish agenda from Hird?

Or how about leaking his pay deal to once again trying to blindside Vlad while bringing the story back to front page attention for another couple of weeks? Explain to me how there how Hird always had the 'best interests' of the club at heart?

Evans has done far more for this club over the past four years than Hird has. To be frank, I'm disgusted that you're so happy to wield out the 'club legend' schtick about Hird while at the same time casting Evans away in such an insulting way. Truly hypocritical.

Umm I get your position so this isnt me attacking it or you but are you ok with the truth being concealed? Hird was trying to get information out that something was being misreported I dont think you can hang a guy for that? It wasnt just his version it was backed up by the other members. Im not trying to change your views I know you feel strongly on the issue but your comment about hird doing it for selfish reasons is a bit much, if you are aware of something going on thats not right i would have thought you speak up?

 

[GandalfTheDon]

Ben the Gooner please stop. You're making me feel things I never thought I could for another man