News Eddie standing down at the end of next season

Remove this Banner Ad

Why would Eddie lie when he could just tell the truth, which was there in black and white in the very report he was making a public statement about?

Incredibly poor judgement. That’s why he was asked/made to walk earlier than planned.

Simple as that.
Because the board didn't want to spend 500k on a report on the basis of a drug cheat who has threatened to sue both clubs he's been apart of, but with H's media connections something had to be done so the club chose to include the entire community, it isn't hard to understand, you choose not too though IMO, and remember Chief, H wanted no part of it, until he thought it could benefit him of course.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

On what basis?
What came back to bite him was the enemies he made over the years being outspoken, they used this crap to bombard him to get him out. any sane person knows he didn't mean it was a great day for his club because he was proud of it, he mentioned he was proud of it meaning its now out and they can address it, now the findings are out.
 
What came back to bite him was the enemies he made over the years being outspoken, they used this crap to bombard him to get him out. any sane person knows he didn't mean it was a great day for his club because he was proud of it, he mentioned he was proud of it meaning its now out and they can address it, now the findings are out.

He also said they're not racist and wanted to take the heat out of the race debate.

Those aren't words of someone addressing it, they're actually words of someone NOT addressing it.

Remember on his exit speech when he had nothing more to lose and still he did not apologise? I guess he still thought he had something more to lose but that's typical behaviour of a narcissist.
 
He also said they're not racist and wanted to take the heat out of the race debate.

Those aren't words of someone addressing it, they're actually words of someone NOT addressing it.

Remember on his exit speech when he had nothing more to lose and still he did not apologise? I guess he still thought he had something more to lose but that's typical behaviour of a narcissist.
About this "ignore" function, is it possible to unread your publications? Asking for a friend.
 
He also said they're not racist and wanted to take the heat out of the race debate.

Those aren't words of someone addressing it, they're actually words of someone NOT addressing it.

Remember on his exit speech when he had nothing more to lose and still he did not apologise? I guess he still thought he had something more to lose but that's typical behaviour of a narcissist.
I Don't believe he is raciest, i think he knows its all been blown up to be something its not , but coming out and saying that, would give people like you a reason to say he is a raciest.
there are a lot of double standards with regards to racism.
 
I Don't believe he is raciest, i think he knows its all been blown up to be something its not , but coming out and saying that, would give people like you a reason to say he is a raciest.
there are a lot of double standards with regards to racism.

People like me? And who are peoole like me?

I find it interesting that the same people who complain that we shouldn't call out racism are the same people that can use throwaway lines of showing some kind bias or prejudice against a person or people.
 
I Don't believe he is raciest, i think he knows its all been blown up to be something its not , but coming out and saying that, would give people like you a reason to say he is a raciest.
there are a lot of double standards with regards to racism.
Mate some people just choose to believe the worst in people, the person they choose to believe in this case is a drug cheat who has threatened to sue both AFL he's been apart of, his word is gospel.
 
The report was called off the back of H's allegations.

He also threatened to sue the Melbourne football club too.

Also, i don't think my second point is irrelevant at all.

You are avoiding my question. So one player - who is not especially known as reliable in his version of events - causes the CFC to commission a report that goes back decades and flays the club, damaging it's brand on a national scale. The club then sits on the report until someone at the club leaks the report.

Does that sound like a well run club to you? Hence the leader had to step down.
 
What came back to bite him was the enemies he made over the years being outspoken, they used this crap to bombard him to get him out. any sane person knows he didn't mean it was a great day for his club because he was proud of it, he mentioned he was proud of it meaning its now out and they can address it, now the findings are out.

They didn't put the report out, it leaked.
 
They didn't put the report out, it leaked.
Remarkably just days before their own AGM, it's called the plan of last resort.

It's hard to put the car in gear,
If it remains in neutral for a year.

There is only two names on the list, can you guess the second one ?

Warning: Using the term "Systemic Racism" does push the comfort levels of global sponsors.

Julius Caesar without the stab wounds, biggest inside job since that big gold heist.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It hasn't.

It's certainly not detailed by the report, which doesn't really detail anything. Honestly, have you read it?

One example? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say this is the entire argument?

That aside, how far can we verify this account of events? The report certainly doesn't do that.

That aside, I accept Lumumba was treatly unfairly. The club should have handled it better. But is this systemic racism? Or an individual failure of governance/leadership?

It is systemic because it shows there were no avenues for individuals within the club to address these issues and when they were raised informally the individuals were subject to victimisation and a public smear campaign.

For something to be systemic it doesn't have to be a constantly recurring situation. One example is sufficient to identify systemic issues.
 
It is systemic because it shows there were no avenues for individuals within the club to address these issues and when they were raised informally the individuals were subject to victimisation and a public smear campaign.
Assuming that's what happened, how does that demonstrate "systemic racism" as opposed to an individual failure of governance?

For something to be systemic it doesn't have to be a constantly recurring situation. One example is sufficient to identify systemic issues.
Do you want to lower the bar any further? This isn't a balanced approach.

Systemic racism, based on a single unverified example? Good luck with that. Are we talking about a pattern here? Or is there no pattern?

Would you say you're motivated in a certain direction here already?
 
Last edited:
What came back to bite him was the enemies he made over the years being outspoken, they used this crap to bombard him to get him out. any sane person knows he didn't mean it was a great day for his club because he was proud of it, he mentioned he was proud of it meaning its now out and they can address it, now the findings are out.

No-one thought he meant he was proud of it, that was just more spin.
 
Assuming that's what happened, how does that demonstrate "systemic racism" as opposed to an individual failure of governance?

Do you want to lower the bar any further?

I don't think you understand what a systemic issue is which is where the confusion comes in;

A systemic problem is a problem due to issues inherent in the overall system, rather than due to a specific, individual, isolated factor. Contrast with pilot error, user error, or mistake.

A change to the structure, organization or policies in that system could alleviate the systemic problem.


One example is sufficient to identify a systemic problem.
 
I don't think you understand what a systemic issue is which is where the confusion comes in;
Yeah that must be it. I don't understand what words mean. Let's see how that works out for you.

"A systemic problem is a problem due to issues inherent in the overall system"

One example is sufficient to identify a systemic problem.
You keep asserting things without bothering to demonstrate anything. It's inadequate.

If racism is "inherent in the overall system", as your hand-picked definition suggests, then presumably there is more than one example? If not, how do you know it's a systemic or inherent problem, as opposed to an individual failure of governance?

Remember, according to your definition, systemic racism indicates the racism is inherent. One example seems like an unjustifiably low bar to demonstrate inherent racism. Can you demonstrate the inherent racism at Collingwood? That's what your definition demands.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top