Opinion Jeff Kennett News, Media etc.

[Strapping Young Lad]

Paywalled article, if someone can give the highlights.

 

[KermitJagger]

Paywalled article, if someone can give the highlights.

“Can I say I have never been silent for good or for worse or for better and I have been very perturbed about what has happened over the last year in terms of the loss of life, the loss of business opportunities and the loss of security for so many families,” Kennett said.

“I can understand many of you hold different views and I can appreciate that but I don’t see it as a conflict.

“I think you always want your leaders to be able to speak freely and to be able to speak openly for people to engage in debate where they see necessary but at the end of the day community is more important than money.

“For those who therefore say my comments may have cost the club support of the state government, if that is the case then so be it.

“Lives lost, jobs lost, businesses lost is a lot more important to me than necessarily a handful of silver.

"I make no apology but I don’t walk away from the letters and questions some of you asked.”

 

[Gralin]

“Can I say I have never been silent for good or for worse or for better and I have been very perturbed about what has happened over the last year in terms of the loss of life, the loss of business opportunities and the loss of security for so many families,” Kennett said.

“I can understand many of you hold different views and I can appreciate that but I don’t see it as a conflict.

“I think you always want your leaders to be able to speak freely and to be able to speak openly for people to engage in debate where they see necessary but at the end of the day community is more important than money.

“For those who therefore say my comments may have cost the club support of the state government, if that is the case then so be it.

“Lives lost, jobs lost, businesses lost is a lot more important to me than necessarily a handful of silver.

"I make no apology but I don’t walk away from the letters and questions some of you asked.”

Did he talk about pokies after that?

 

[The Kipster]

He is right regardless of the lefties salt in here.

 

[KermitJagger]

Did he talk about pokies after that?

Briefly, mentioned that it was something we'd continue with as COVID-19 ended up stopping us from being able to sell one of the venues. Talked about how we would continue to do it to maintain financial independence from the AFL, as one of the few that didn't get assistance.

Honestly, I agree with him on this. We've got the licenses, if we sold the venue or gave them up they just go somewhere else, to someone who would almost certainly be less altruistic. Come up with a plan to supplement cash flow and offset the pokies revenue, then shed them.

 

[Pessimistic]

He is right regardless of the lefties salt in here.

Hes 'asking' for money (has he even asked) while berating the govt for wasting taxpayers money? That's a clear a contradiction as you can get. Just for the record I don't see Jeff as being any more 'right (wing) than Dan Andrews

Least worst case is this seems to have dominated the AGM which is where the club admin is 'accountable' to the members not just lecturing them.
If you want to see where unaccountability can lead, see 1993-96. It doesn't matter how god like the president is, or who she/he is

 

[Pessimistic]

Briefly, mentioned that it was something we'd continue with as COVID-19 ended up stopping us from being able to sell one of the venues. Talked about how we would continue to do it to maintain financial independence from the AFL, as one of the few that didn't get assistance.

Honestly, I agree with him on this. We've got the licenses, if we sold the venue or gave them up they just go somewhere else, to someone who would almost certainly be less altruistic. Come up with a plan to supplement cash flow and offset the pokies revenue, then shed them.

Yep. Make the core business sustainable and the extras can be ditched

 

[Gralin]

Briefly, mentioned that it was something we'd continue with as COVID-19 ended up stopping us from being able to sell one of the venues. Talked about how we would continue to do it to maintain financial independence from the AFL, as one of the few that didn't get assistance.

Honestly, I agree with him on this. We've got the licenses, if we sold the venue or gave them up they just go somewhere else, to someone who would almost certainly be less altruistic. Come up with a plan to supplement cash flow and offset the pokies revenue, then shed them.

So money isn't important compared to community and lives when it's his view on the Government

But the opposite is true when it comes to his view on the pokies

not at all surprised

 

[Gralin]

He is right regardless of the lefties salt in here.

pun?

 

[Pessimistic]

HIRJAH

 

[KermitJagger]

So money isn't important compared to community and lives when it's his view on the Government

But the opposite is true when it comes to his view on the pokies

not at all surprised

I think he handled the questioning at the AGM poorly, as an aside. I don't think it was comforting to the people raising the concerns that he made it all about himself, if anything he should have made an effort to separate his commentary from his role at Hawthorn and at least acted a bit more contrite that it may have cost the club financially.

Regardless, the community will be impacted by pokies whether he has them or not. This would have been a perfect opportunity for him to address the fact that the state government could take more substantial action against poker machines, but don't because they benefit so much from gambling taxes.

 

[Gralin]

I think he handled the questioning at the AGM poorly, as an aside. I don't think it was comforting to the people raising the concerns that he made it all about himself, if anything he should have made an effort to separate his commentary from his role at Hawthorn and at least acted a bit more contrite that it may have cost the club financially.

Regardless, the community will be impacted by pokies whether he has them or not. This would have been a perfect opportunity for him to address the fact that the state government could take more substantial action against poker machines, but don't because they benefit so much from gambling taxes.

I'm just talking about the hypocrisy of saying he has a moral duty to call out the Government while he openly supports and personally profits from pokies, especially when he is the one saying the club missing out on money isn't important

Yes if we don't have the pokies someone else will, yes the Government could do more, but if Jeff wants to talk about being a moral leader for the good of the community he should probably be actively trying to get rid of the pokies at the club instead of defending having them

 

[KermitJagger]

I'm just talking about the hypocrisy of saying he has a moral duty to call out the Government while he openly supports and personally profits from pokies, especially when he is the one saying the club missing out on money isn't important

Yes if we don't have the pokies someone else will, yes the Government could do more, but if Jeff wants to talk about being a moral leader for the good of the community he should probably be actively trying to get rid of the pokies at the club instead of defending having them

I agree that it is a bit hypocritical on face value, but it's not that black or white.

Saying that the decision is either 'yes pokies' or 'no pokies' denies the shades of grey that exist in the debate. If they're not banned, they'll always exist, and is it then better to have good custodians of the machines that aim to do less evil with them?

There's a decent moral argument to be made that keeping the machines and using the revenue and influence to help people overcome the addiction is the better option, over discarding the licenses and forcing the vulnerable into areas that may be more exploitative and dangerous.

Anyway, pokies is an issue argued to death on this board. Jeff could be more consistent, I agree.

 

[Gralin]

I agree that it is a bit hypocritical on face value, but it's not that black or white.

Saying that the decision is either 'yes pokies' or 'no pokies' denies the shades of grey that exist in the debate. If they're not banned, they'll always exist, and is it then better to have good custodians of the machines that aim to do less evil with them?

There's a decent moral argument to be made that keeping the machines and using the revenue and influence to help people overcome the addiction is the better option, over discarding the licenses and forcing the vulnerable into areas that may be more exploitative and dangerous.

Anyway, pokies is an issue argued to death on this board. Jeff could be more consistent, I agree.

There is literally no such thing as less evil, the impact for the users is the same, it's just a way of rationalising that a club you like is doing something s**t

Guess what the club does lots of s**t things, all clubs do, doesn't mean I have to like it but I don't see this particular s**t thing happening while Jeff "conflict of interest" Kennett is president of the club

It's absolutely black and white. 100% hypocrite on this but that's nothing new, he's been consistent on this for decades why would he change now

 

[Gralin]

And to be clear Rogie, I'm talking about the fact that he's saying he's taking a moral stand and happy for the club to lose out over it when it comes to politics but not when it comes to a product he helped spread throughout the state and profits off via being the major shareholder in a maintenance company, when it comes to that apparently there is no moral issue

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

He is right regardless of the lefties salt in here.

I think the president of the HFC should be a president for all, not just one side of politics.

 

[MrPremiership]

He's proud of what he's done. Criticised the Govt (which isn't his role, he ain't the Opposition Leader) and cost the club lots of $$$ in missed funding.

As President of HFC, this is truly a baffling view from Jeff.

 

[derp de derp]

He's proud of what he's done. Criticised the Govt (which isn't his role, he ain't the Opposition Leader) and cost the club lots of $$$ in missed funding.

As President of HFC, this is truly a baffling view from Jeff.

I don’t see how he has cost us? We act like there are no other factors and that we are somehow entitled to funding. Regardless of his politics and cringeworthy comments JK has delivered time and time again. To see other clubs receive state funding and see us miss out can’t all be because of JK. We remove him from the equation and the same detractors will be blaming the AFL and the tassie deal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Charchi]

He's paid by the Herald Sun to write opinion pieces;
He's not paid by HFC to be President and was re-elected unopposed along with 2 other new board members;
HFC gets significantly less distribution from the AFL than other clubs, in 2019 up to $8M less than St.Kilda, NM, Bulldogs and even less than Richmond in 2019 so we need to keep the pokies to keep afloat. No pokies, no HFC.
If people don't like the way the club is run, run a ticket and state your views for us all to vote on.
The constant bitching about how the club is run when no-one puts their hand up to offer an alternative is symptomatic of today's society, everyone else must do what I say but not offer to assist or pay.
Don't think, do!
Go Hawks!

 

[Yardie]

He's paid by the Herald Sun to write opinion pieces;
He's not paid by HFC to be President and was re-elected unopposed along with 2 other new board members;
HFC gets significantly less distribution from the AFL than other clubs, in 2019 up to $8M less than St.Kilda, NM, Bulldogs and even less than Richmond in 2019 so we need to keep the pokies to keep afloat. No pokies, no HFC.
If people don't like the way the club is run, run a ticket and state your views for us all to vote on.
The constant bitching about how the club is run when no-one puts their hand up to offer an alternative is symptomatic of today's society, everyone else must do what I say but not offer to assist or pay.
Don't think, do!
Go Hawks!

Calm down Jeff.

 

[MrPremiership]

I don’t see how he has cost us? We act like there are no other factors and that we are somehow entitled to funding. Regardless of his politics and cringeworthy comments JK has delivered time and time again. To see other clubs receive state funding and see us miss out can’t all be because of JK. We remove him from the equation and the same detractors will be blaming the AFL and the tassie deal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jeff himself said his comments has cost us the funding.

 

[Linda CRS]

No

He's paid by the Herald Sun to write opinion pieces;
He's not paid by HFC to be President and was re-elected unopposed along with 2 other new board members;
HFC gets significantly less distribution from the AFL than other clubs, in 2019 up to $8M less than St.Kilda, NM, Bulldogs and even less than Richmond in 2019 so we need to keep the pokies to keep afloat. No pokies, no HFC.
If people don't like the way the club is run, run a ticket and state your views for us all to vote on.
The constant bitching about how the club is run when no-one puts their hand up to offer an alternative is symptomatic of today's society, everyone else must do what I say but not offer to assist or pay.
Don't think, do!
Go Hawks!

No pokies no hfc isn’t quite correct, club very recently had one site sold only to fall over at the 11th hour. The clubs to professional to transact that proposed sale if our sole survival was based on pokies. 100 per cent agree for a democratic nomination or application but when the current prez has knocked back 4 names as a replacement I think democracy at Hawthorn and most AFL clubs is a bygone myth.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I can’t really fathom how people cheer on the President of their club unapologetically stating that his political commentary and undermining of healthcare strategies has cost the club millions, and that he’ll continue to do so as he sees fit.

It’s quite bewildering we could have a President who puts his own personal politics ahead of the club, and that be ok.

 

[derp de derp]

Jeff himself said his comments has cost us the funding.

He did, but that involves us taking JK on his word that Dan is that vindictive. If he’s right who’s worse?

Just for context this is taken from 3AW

Their president, a former Liberal premier, told Neil Mitchell the club had its project request approved by the department, but it was knocked back further up the chain.

“I can understand that,” Mr Kennett said on 3AW.

“That is Daniel (Andrews) saying ‘Jeff Kennett has been critical of us, therefore…’

Neil Mitchell: He wouldn’t do that.

Jeff Kennett: No, he wouldn’t, but he has. We’ve been told we’re not getting it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KermitJagger]

Jeff himself said his comments has cost us the funding.

He has never said that specifically, he has either said they may have or that he believes they have. Different beasts.

Not in any way to defend Jeff, but the way he said it was more of a deflection to the Vic Labor to accept or deny that it's the reason.