No Oppo Supporters General AFL Discussion #11 - Carlton Posters ONLY!

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Would love to see Benny gale get the job. Would be a fresh change from Vlad & McLachlan, having someone successful and who respects the game and it's players.

I want Benny Gale to get the CEO gig with us quite frankly (met him a few years ago and he told me he was a massive Blues fan growing up)

Total class act.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Am I batshit missing something …. I just PM'd our Boss Aph ... but obviously busy ...

Is there an option when purchasing from the Carlton shop, to put numbers on the back of the new PUMA home strip?

The boy wants 23 on the back.

Can’t see why not. They used to do it on the Nike jumpers
 
Can’t see why not. They used to do it on the Nike jumpers

No option for it mate …..sitting at the checkout with a 190 dollar bill ….
 




If Campbell gets the top job the AFL can sincerely go fu** itself.

Whilst Gale would be a good choice I reckon Campbell has done an amazing job considering the train wreck that was the drugs scandal, so not sure why there’d be animosity towards him.

Personally, I’d love him to move on from Essendon as he’s clearly too good an operator for them


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)


Another case of pathetic begging entitlement from Geelong, it's shameless (much like the Swans as well) 👎👎👎

On the plus side, the AFL shut them down. Too big a can of worms, I suppose. All of a sudden you'd have interstate clubs wanting additional allowances to move Victorian draftee's families over to support them, and it'd get way out of hand. Stupid of Geelong to even ask. All they're doing now is making it known that they weren't just trying to get maximum value from Kelly, they were exploring all options (even the ridiculous ones) to make staying at their club a viable option.
 

Another case of pathetic begging entitlement from Geelong, it's shameless (much like the Swans as well) 👎👎👎
Simple solution, they could have traded out another quality player e.g. Duncan, to ease salary cap pressure. This is what clubs have had to do in the past.
 
Simple solution, they could have traded out another quality player e.g. Duncan, to ease salary cap pressure. This is what clubs have had to do in the past.
Would take Duncan in a heartbeat
 

Hmm, seems a bit petty to me by Richmond. Can understand why Captain Bloods family is ticked off
...

We don't know why they did it, or how they looked into it, or anything about it beyond the article in question. It seems to me to have been a matter of history poorly researched and then corrected when discovered.

Ask yourself, why would they decrease the standing of one of their greatest without reason, decades after the fact?
 
...

We don't know why they did it, or how they looked into it, or anything about it beyond the article in question. It seems to me to have been a matter of history poorly researched and then corrected when discovered.

Ask yourself, why would they decrease the standing of one of their greatest without reason, decades after the fact?

I don't know why they would pick at that scab to begin with. Starting an investigation like this was only ever going to result in status quo, or hurting people's feelings. There was never an upside, so why bother?
 
I don't know why they would pick at that scab to begin with. Starting an investigation like this was only ever going to result in status quo, or hurting people's feelings. There was never an upside, so why bother?
Do people not want to know what actually happened?

See, here's my issue: I majored in history. I'm well acquainted with the pursuit of accuracy, and the ways and means in which history is 'changed', to ensure that what is commonly believed to have been our past actually reflects what happened. People not associated with the practice of history just assume there are zero consequences involved in allowing a false history to be perpetuated. There might be another club legend, whose tale has gone begging in pursuit of glorifying a preexisting idol. There might be a political agenda, which the Dyer family is a component of (whether with or without their consent or knowledge).

And finally, there is conservativism combating the desire to change what is established that needs to be overcome before such a thing is done; this is not a simple process. Would they be doing this, dethroning an idol, for no reason? I wouldn't have thought so.
 

Hmm, seems a bit petty to me by Richmond. Can understand why Captain Bloods family is ticked off

Why is it petty to right a wrong? Some of the stuff in that article written by the Dyers is ridiculous, give the benefit of the doubt to Jack despite a 2 year investigation finding he didn't win the best and fairest?

Totally the opposite to you on this one Elmer.
 
...

We don't know why they did it, or how they looked into it, or anything about it beyond the article in question. It seems to me to have been a matter of history poorly researched and then corrected when discovered.

Ask yourself, why would they decrease the standing of one of their greatest without reason, decades after the fact?

A two year investigation, is pretty thorough and i don't understand the families position at all, there response in the article, just seems to believe that Jack keep the honour, because he could have won more best and fairest awards during the war, this is ridiculous.

I really respect the fact, that they have done an investigation, found errors and fixed them, the board supported and agreed with the findings.
 
Do people not want to know what actually happened?

See, here's my issue: I majored in history. I'm well acquainted with the pursuit of accuracy, and the ways and means in which history is 'changed', to ensure that what is commonly believed to have been our past actually reflects what happened. People not associated with the practice of history just assume there are zero consequences involved in allowing a false history to be perpetuated. There might be another club legend, whose tale has gone begging in pursuit of glorifying a preexisting idol. There might be a political agenda, which the Dyer family is a component of (whether with or without their consent or knowledge).

And finally, there is conservativism combating the desire to change what is established that needs to be overcome before such a thing is done; this is not a simple process. Would they be doing this, dethroning an idol, for no reason? I wouldn't have thought so.
Hey mate, you majored in history. Could you look into the history of decade between 1910 and 1920 and why the league had started off counting the flags of clubs straight from 1896 to 1897 as just another football season in Melbourne and the flags they were counting from previous decades that were the convention of history of the time then got changed in 1920's. Find it fascinating as did not even know it was the case until looked up VFL records around that time and seen they were counting flags from 1870's all way into 1920 and then changed sometime in that decade.
I would not know where to look but would be interesting to see the reasons the convention got changed.
 
I don't know why they would pick at that scab to begin with. Starting an investigation like this was only ever going to result in status quo, or hurting people's feelings. There was never an upside, so why bother?

I think you will find that removing the best and fairest award from the 1930s awarded to Dyer, is the opposite in the status quo.

The upside is having an accurate representation of history and not one fudged by reputation
 
Hey mate, you majored in history. Could you look into the history of decade between 1910 and 1920 and why the league had started off counting the flags of clubs straight from 1896 to 1897 as just another football season in Melbourne and the flags they were counting from previous decades that were the convention of history of the time then got changed in 1920's. Find it fascinating as did not even know it was the case until looked up VFL records around that time and seen they were counting flags from 1870's all way into 1920 and then changed sometime in that decade.
I would not know where to look but would be interesting to see the reasons the convention got changed.
I'll take a look, but bear in mind it's not a simple question.

Prior to the formation of the VFL (in 1897) using the stronger clubs in the VFA, footy was a bit of an oddball; I've a book in a box somewhere that has the extreme early history of the game that describes how they used to play the game in open fields with no boundaries, trees on the field, unlimited players, etc. AFL in the early days was a haphazard affair, and while it got codified pretty bloody quick the history of it is more oral than written, due to Aussies of the time being kind of lazy.

I'll see what I can do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top