Its Time For Trigg To Resign.

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I thought his comments were to do with the fact that it would soon get to the point where clubs would only pick indigenous players if they had one white parent?

But this is that unsaid bit again.

Why would clubs only pick indigenous players if they had one white parent? How is that an advantage?

This is where Rendell got into trouble for simply pointing out something that is becoming more prevalent in the AFL.

In Rendell's opinion the drop off in young indigenous draftees was partly because they had trouble adapting to the huge demands of being a young footballer in the AFL system - eg little things like being able to stick to times, concentrating in team meetings, processing the hordes of visual/written information and game plans, living away from home etc.

In Rendell's opinion players who had lived a "white" existence - eg boarded at a college or who had lived in a city their whole life found it easier to adapt.

This might all be true as a generalisation and the recent stats plus the AFL's recent actions probably bear that out. Which creates the ridiculous situation that it's racist to say it exists, but not racist to implement programs that seek to fix it.

 

[Cap]

The AFL change their tune to suit themselves. Oh and lets not forget that it was Collingwood that wanted him, so yes, sure - all is now forgiven. They put incredible pressure on us to sack him which in the end, we didn't do - he resigned, acknowledging himself that it had to happen.

did you listen to his interview?

he was forced to resign, he didn't want to, from memory his first choice was to step down and let the smoke clear.

That is when the infamous "the mud sticks" comment came to light.

and you are right Jenny, the AFL do change their tune, so why are we always the club happy to oblige the AFL moments before they change their tune?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

As has been repeatedly stated, that was not the only reason why he lost his job. It was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

It's been stated by the nuffies who got rid of him, no one else.

And his back catalogue of evil deeds was not enough to prevent the biggest club in the competition from snapping him up.

 

[Cap]

As has been repeatedly stated, that was not the only reason why he lost his job. It was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

Ok fine Vader, I am happy to believe unsubstantiated claims which no one can provide and evidence or confirmation of .

Honestly, this sort of blind faith is as concerning as opaque nature of the AFC.

 

[jenny61_99]

did you listen to his interview?

he was forced to resign, he didn't want to, from memory his first choice was to step down and let the smoke clear.

That is when the infamous "the mud sticks" comment came to light.

and you are right Jenny, the AFL do change their tune, so why are we always the club happy to oblige the AFL moments before they change their tune?

I'm not happy. I just figure they know and understand the "politics" of it all far better than I do.

 

[jenny61_99]

But this is that unsaid bit again.

Why would clubs only pick indigenous players if they had one white parent? How is that an advantage?

This is where Rendell got into trouble for simply pointing out something that is becoming more prevalent in the AFL.

In Rendell's opinion the drop off in young indigenous draftees was partly because they had trouble adapting to the huge demands of being a young footballer in the AFL system - eg little things like being able to stick to times, concentrating in team meetings, processing the hordes of visual/written information and game plans, living away from home etc.

In Rendell's opinion players who had lived a "white" existence - eg boarded at a college or who had lived in a city their whole life found it easier to adapt.

This might all be true as a generalisation and the recent stats plus the AFL's recent actions probably bear that out. Which creates the ridiculous situation that it's racist to say it exists, but not racist to implement programs that seek to fix it.

I'm 100% with you on this Carl, and Rendell. He stated what was becoming obvious to most observers and Soapsuds and Ali Barber responded outrageously. I still don't understand what the motivation for it all was in the first place.

 

[Slippery Pete]

I'm not happy. I just figure they know and understand the "politics" of it all far better than I do.

Robert Mugabe called, and welcomes you to Zimbabwe.

 

[jenny61_99]

Robert Mugabe called, and welcomes you to Zimbabwe.

WTF?

Within every organisation there exists a level of politics. The right way of dealing with the law makers, if you like. If you play your cards politically correctly, you are more likely to be smiled upon and treated well. If you are a trouble maker, you often don't get what you want. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule - particularly if you are one of the power brokers in Victoria and can pretty much do and say anything you like because you = $$$. I think though, I've seen a change in our "let's play nice" attitude - specifically over the Bailey issue, where Chapman basically said he thought the decision was "bullshit". It will be interesting to see if this approach remains. I personally hope it does.

 

[Cap]

which is the problem when you(I mean me) don't have any faith in those playing the politics, mainly S Trigg and R Chapman.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

WTF?

Within every organisation there exists a level of politics. The right way of dealing with the law makers, if you like. If you play your cards politically correctly, you are more likely to be smiled upon and treated well. If you are a trouble maker, you often don't get what you want. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule - particularly if you are one of the power brokers in Victoria and can pretty much do and say anything you like because you = $$$. I think though, I've seen a change in our "let's play nice" attitude - specifically over the Bailey issue, where Chapman basically said he thought the decision was "bullshit". It will be interesting to see if this approach remains. I personally hope it does.

You are right by saying politics plays a massive part in the decision making process in most organization. The Crows and West Coast as the 2 powerhouse non Victorian clubs need to use that political leveraging as a powerhouse club to make massive moves within the AFL Commission. The AFL Commission are supposed to be impartial and unbiased but with the Crows brokering a deal and last months, the Melbourne Football Club also brokering a deal - the AFL Commission to too close to the clubs. It's one massive 'boys clubs' and they only look out for their own.

The game has to come first, not individuals, clubs or popular personalities. The game has to be the most important aspect and that's what has to get looked after. and at the moment, it's not. Melbourne, Essendon, West Coast (a few years ago), Sydney and even us have brought the game into disrepute. Changes need to be made.

I would really like to see the AFC join up with the other non Victorian clubs (and even some of the Vic clubs who are getting a really bad deal) and start applying some political clout by making the AFL Commission more AFL friendly and much, much less VFL friendly.

If clubs stuff up, they need to be punished - not get some half arses penalty and next week it's all forgotten. The Dee's penalty was a joke, ours was a joke and Essendon will get nothing at all.

 

[Slippery Pete]

WTF?

I was just inferring that dictators love people like you.

 

[Dandy_GO]

Trigg is far too weak willed for the position he holds. Yes, there are many others we can point fingers at, but, as far as our club is concerned, the buck must stop with Trigg. Under Trigg we've been strongarmed by the AFL, and a player manager, into taking actions that are not at all in the best interest of the club. It was to the surprise of nobody that Demetriou was the first to say that Trigg deserved a second chance.

Quite frankly, I wish he was already long gone. It would have been the logical first step towards putting this bullshit behind us.

If we don't win a flag or two in the next few years, I will consider him one of the biggest villains in club history. Our draft sanctions, plus losing our star recruiter to a rival club, plus Tippett for nothing (we would have at least picked up a band 3, hopefully better, compensation pick for him, and not lost our AA CHB in the process,) puts us well and truly behind the eight-ball in the coming seasons. Zero grand final appearances in nearly 15 years is already shameful for a club with our resources. Adding another 5+ years to that would be completely unacceptable. I fear that is what we may have done, and Trigg must wear the bulk of the blame.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

We can not afford to have a shit year.

 

[craig crowing]

I enjoy BF as although support same team it is good to get different views of posters and boy are some different .
However on this issue i struggle to see two points that are regularly put forward .
1 -- TRIGG WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TIPPETT DISASTER BUT A SCAPEGOAT

Well yes there is not much doubt now the board knew at sometime of the deal and Trigg did not come out and
embarrass them.
But he and Reid engineered the deal and of course cannot happen unless CEO agrees to and surely everyone understands that. That surely means that if board cannot force resignation then he should have resigned in what has been a very costly and demeaning disaster to club.


2 -- TRIGG HAS DONE GOOD JOB FOR CLUB .

Well has he . Yes he does not ruffle the feathers of Vlad and AFL and said all right things to good old boys on board , who by the way are paid to do so and not volunteers that been mentioned.

Ok we have been financial which has been diminishing yearly and with our supporter base surely Homer Simpson could create a profit .

Our supporter base has been slowly declining and surely lack of promotion and any genuine care for supporter base has a lot to do with that.

Been praised for being part of move to Adelaide Oval and apart from pleasing Vlad and saving SACA and trying to save Power I cannot see the merits or cost of especially after spending big bucks on West Lakes base.

The logo etc branding and will say no more as Carl covered it best.

The Rendall affair and the handling and planning of ageing players along with slowness to make decision on Craigs time at club.

Even this week mentioned they are setting up advisory etc group and obvious at a cost again to analyse so we dont
make anymore errors .
Surely that is why we pay CEO the real big bucks for to ensure correct decisions are made.
I like many others will not be happy until Trigg resigns and club has a strong leader to obtain success on and off the field.

 

[jenny61_99]

I was just inferring that dictators love people like you.

I wouldn't think so. I am actually quite the anarchist.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

I wouldn't think so. I am actually quite the anarchist.

Are you sure?


1) a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.
2) a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
3 ) a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.



Sorry Jenny but none of those definitions of anarchist sound like the persona you demonstrate on Big Footy?

 

[Slippery Pete]

I wouldn't think so. I am actually quite the anarchist.

Not when it comes to the AFC!

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I wonder why our Board didn't accept Trigg's resignation but accepted Rendell's?

Very interesting question given one has caused far more damage to AFC than the other, yet appears to have survived.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I'm 100% with you on this Carl, and Rendell. He stated what was becoming obvious to most observers and Soapsuds and Ali Barber responded outrageously. I still don't understand what the motivation for it all was in the first place.

AFL protecting Misfud put pressure on AFC to sack Rendell. Any strong club administration would have told the AFL to take a running jump & offer Rendell counselling. The handling of this situation was a poor reflection on our club.

 

[Jars458]

Very interesting question given one has caused far more damage to AFC than the other, yet appears to have survived.

There's no explanation for it. I am one who thought Rendell had to resign (I know I am in the minority) but there is no way Trigg could survive under the same rules. In an interview Trigg covered this point and said the board decided that he deserved a second chance but didn't say why. It all stinks one way or another.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I wouldn't think so. I am actually quite the anarchist.

Don't you mean anti-anarchist ... or apologist?

 

[jenny61_99]

Are you sure?


1) a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.
2) a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
3 ) a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.



Sorry Jenny but none of those definitions of anarchist sound like the persona you demonstrate on Big Footy?

I actually fall into a little of category 3. In my working and personal life I have often fought the establishment when I believe injustices have occurred.

I have protested loudly against governments (of BOTH persuasions!) when I believe their policies are either inadequate or too inflexible. I have lobbied politicians in support of causes. I have fought against employers when I felt some of my fellow employees were poorly treated.

It might surprise you to know that I have questioned things our Club has done/not done in the past - but I do it privately, no fanfare. If I've not been happy with a response I will ask more questions. And I've never been scared to say what I think. I have always walked away though with an answer that I believed and was confident with.

 

[jenny61_99]

Don't you mean anti-anarchist ... or apologist?

No.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

I actually fall into a little of category 3. In my working and personal life I have often fought the establishment when I believe injustices have occurred.

So the irony of this situation isn't lost on you?

I have protested loudly against governments (of BOTH persuasions!) when I believe their policies are either inadequate or too inflexible. I have lobbied politicians in support of causes. I have fought against employers when I felt some of my fellow employees were poorly treated.

It might surprise you to know that I have questioned things our Club has done/not done in the past - but I do it privately, no fanfare. If I've not been happy with a response I will ask more questions. And I've never been scared to say what I think. I have always walked away though with an answer that I believed and was confident with.

But you would have to understand that some people fall into category 1,2 and 3 and that anarchy, disorder and revolt can encompass many different facets of a personality?

Yet you questions why others don't follow your system?

 

[jenny61_99]

So the irony of this situation isn't lost on you?



But you would have to understand that some people fall into category 1,2 and 3 and that anarchy, disorder and revolt can encompass many different facets of a personality?

Yet you questions why others don't follow your system?

I guess the difference is Alex, that often many (if not all) of you are talking the talk, but not walking the walk. Does that make sense? I see you angry and upset about things, but I see you do nothing about it. So that tells me one of two things. You aren't really all that upset, but you like to beat your chest in here to make you look/feel better. Or you do care, but don't have the inclination to take it further. Neither of those might be the case, or both might be. Or there might be a third reason.