Opinion Commentary & Media IV

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
 
The Y Factor said:
Tis is kinda what ive been told but other can confirm.......

In 1896, Essendon and Geelong led a breakaway of clubs to form the VFL but Essendon successfully lobbied against North Melbourne’s inclusion even though the Shinboners were 6th on the ladder at the time. Essendon’s concern was that its most successful recruiting suburbs were North Melbourne, West Melbourne and Kensington. Furthermore, Nth Melbourne’s home ground was more centrally located giving it stronger economic prospects. By excluding North, Essendon had a monopoly on the north west region.

To the North Melbourne’s credit, it responded to the VFL’s (Essendon's) rejection in an admirable manner. In the VFA, it became a powerhouse - winning premierships in 1903 and 1904. It also won a record of 59 games in a row.

North again applied to join VFL in 1908 but was rejected once again I believe through Essendon and Richmond lobbying) . To make matters worse, the VFA punished North Melbourne by excluding it from the VFA. To save the club, all committee members resigned to allow a new committee to form that was not tainted by the attempted defection. With the committee punished, the VFA allowed the club to continue. It went on to win more premierships in 1910, 1914, 1915 and 1918.

In 1922, North Melbourne and Essendon proposed a merger. For North, the merger was an opportunity to enter the VFL. Meanwhile, Essendon wanted North's centrally located home ground. With the merger agreed in principle, North disbanded and sent their players to Essendon. This was highly problematic for the VFA as North was their only inner city club thus a key asset in their battle against the VFL. To protect their asset, the VFA persuade the State Minister for Lands to veto Essendon’s move to North's home ground. With Essendon unable to move, the merger was called off. Essendon found another ground but with North Melbourne’s champions Syd Barker and Charlie Hardy now playing for it. Meanwhile, North had to reform (thank God!) and find some players. As far as failed mergers go, it was the epitome of lose win.

With Essendon having almost 25 years head start and North's best players, it no longer saw the club as a threat. The VFL subsequently gave North an invitation to join the VFL in 1925. Given the circumstances of its entry, it was understandable that the club performed poorly on the field. Nevertheless, it gained a strong following. By 1937, the club had secured a staunch membership of 2400 — then a VFL record.
Click to expand...
That all looks pretty right and is a good set of relevant events. After North's entry, you also have the 1950 GF (and 1949 finals series), us taking Barry Davis off them and winning flags, the marshmallow stuff, Sheedy inventing indigenous footballers, etc. There were also some underlying social reasons - located near each other, Catholic vs Protestant, working class vs bourgeois, and these days a bit of a general feeling that "big clubs" are a historical accident rather than any sort of earned status, etc.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Damian Barrett is a dead set waste of space in my opinion. He is writing that before he is allowed to play again, Jack Steven must be cleared by the AFL Integrity Unit. He believes that Steven has to tell the AFL what happened.

Why should he have to do that? Surely what happened was a private matter, none of anyone else's business and should only be investigated by the Integrity Unit, if the Police end up laying charges against Steven. Which seems highly unlikely given that Steven was stabbed, rather than he himself committed an offence. And then it might become a matter that the general public maybe should know about. Maybe.

As I said, Barrett is a dead set waste of space.
 
Horace said:
Damian Barrett is a dead set waste of space in my opinion. He is writing that before he is allowed to play again, Jack Steven must be cleared by the AFL Integrity Unit. He believes that Steven has to tell the AFL what happened.

Why should he have to do that? Surely what happened was a private matter, none of anyone else's business and should only be investigated by the Integrity Unit, if the Police end up laying charges against Steven. Which seems highly unlikely given that Steven was stabbed, rather than he himself committed an offence. And then it might become a matter that the general public maybe should know about. Maybe.

As I said, Barrett is a dead set waste of space.
Click to expand...
Did you read the article or just the click bait headline? He says the details can remain private. The AFL have a duty of care to other players and staff.
 
Cotchins Hair Piece said:
Did you read the article or just the click bait headline? He says the details can remain private. The AFL have a duty of care to other players and staff.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. Now piss off.
 
LuvtheKangas said:
My recollection is that we went after Harvey and offered him the captaincy. Carey was considered too young at the time, and no, there was no suggestion that it would be a trade of Carey for Harvey. I think the report is accurate, as there was talk that Harvey had accepted the offer but it fell through at then end. After that, Carey was made captain at a very young age.

I think we got Laidley around the same time.
Click to expand...
I remember we went after Mark Harvey and also Peter Dean as well
 
Cotchins Hair Piece said:
Did you read the article or just the click bait headline? He says the details can remain private. The AFL have a duty of care to other players and staff.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that if an AFLW player was violently sexually assaulted and put into hospital but she refused to talk to police because she didn't want to have to relive the episode in court and have her sexual history litigated by a defence lawyer, you would still insist she have her privacy invaded by the AFL integrity office if she ever wanted to play again?

Outstanding, now jog on back to your own board.
 
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Stevens isn't going to lag on anyone, and I would like to see McGuire's response if some television hack was haranguing him about every detail in his personal life.

BTW, I state this whilst acknowledging that McClure is about as sincere as a rock spider at a kindergarten fete.
 
Snake_Baker said:
McGuire needs a belt in the mouth.
Click to expand...



Eddie; " now l know Jordan was driving unlicensed and texting when he hit and injured that cyclist but we need to leave him alone and let him deal with this privately with his family "
" Yes, of course he will play this week against Richmond "
 
Hojuman said:
Eddie; " now l know Jordan was driving unlicensed and texting when he hit and injured that cyclist but we need to leave him alone and let him deal with this privately with his family "
" Yes, of course he will play this week against Richmond "
Click to expand...


*insert "mental health" issues*

We are all drowning in a sea of bullshit mate.
 
Snake_Baker said:
*insert "mental health" issues*

We are all drowning in a sea of bullshit mate.
Click to expand...
You are so fricking hypocritical. You do know anxiety and phobias are mental health issues?
 
Heaps of fun said:
This is all just theatre and you're a sucker if you think otherwise.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt they planned the dispute, but I also don't doubt McGuires view is sincere.
 
Heaps of fun said:
I don't care. I don't think either of them are sincere about anything but career success.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree, but I actually think McClure believes in his stance. And his stance should be respected, he's right. When JYD had the photo's published we all said how wrong it was. McClure is backing this view up.
 
If you don't want to ask hard questions, you're in the wrong job. Eddie's reply was on the money, IMO - if the answer is no comment, then that's fine, and don't badger the guy. But it's potentially a huge story so you've gotta ask it.
 
big_e said:
If you don't want to ask hard questions, you're in the wrong job. Eddie's reply was on the money, IMO - if the answer is no comment, then that's fine, and don't badger the guy. But it's potentially a huge story so you've gotta ask it.
Click to expand...
Not if Geelong asked them not to ask.
 
big_e said:
If you don't want to ask hard questions, you're in the wrong job. Eddie's reply was on the money, IMO - if the answer is no comment, then that's fine, and don't badger the guy. But it's potentially a huge story so you've gotta ask it.
Click to expand...

Why is this your business mate?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Yianni
Roast The state of modern football media...
Replies
5
Views
739
ferball
ferball

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top