Jeff Kennett

[Tulip]

Very concerning to say the least.

In any case, as far as high-profile candidates from that particular quarter go, we should be pursuing Ian Dicker, who did the real work in building Hawthorn up to where they are now.

Why would we approach Ian Dicker, why would he give two shits about us? It's an unpaid role.

 

[Spirit of 39]

My fear in all of this is that Don McLardy thinks he is still the man to lead out of the wilderness. After four years at the helm he thinks he is finally getting the knack of this gig.

 

[jhong]

My fear in all of this is that Don McLardy thinks he is still the man to lead out of the wilderness. After four years at the helm he thinks he is finally getting the knack of this gig.

Doubt it , believe he knows he is just keeping the seat warm.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Why would we approach Ian Dicker, why would he give two shits about us? It's an unpaid role.

Fair enough. The fundamental point remains though. Kennett would be the worst possible candidate.

If we want to alienate a substantial portion of our members, appointing him as President would do the trick.

If it happened, I might persuade myself to hold my nose and hope he goes away again in the not-too-distant future, but I think it's a certainty that many others would take the same action as Dez, Syl, Siv, Louis and Wowlace.

 

[stretcharmstrong]

How is it political views influencing anything?

I, like many don't want a dickhead that wanted our club to merge with Hawthorn, merge with North Melbourne and wanted us to relocate to be involved with the Melbourne Football Club.

Why should I want a f***wit in charge of my club when he's wanted nothing but to destroy the club in the past?

Because he's come out and explicitly stated that he doesn't want us to disappear.

That's what he's been saying this week.

 

[Bluelegs]

Because he's come out and explicitly stated that he doesn't want us to disappear.

That's what he's been saying this week.

That doesn't mean he wouldn't sell us out.

 

[wowlace]

"Disappear" <-- define.

This man is a politician. Don't believe anything he says.

 

[CWaffles]

"Disappear" <-- define.

This man is a politician. Don't believe anything he says.

Exactly, Melbourne Demons disappear. Melbourne Kangaroos Reappear!

I don't trust the man!

 

[Topkent]

Exactly, Melbourne Demons disappear. Melbourne Kangaroos Reappear!

I don't trust the man!

Ok James brayshaw won't let the clubs merge ..
I wonder who these influential Melbourne supporters are ? Neil Mitchell?

 

[MUYB]

You have a shithead with history of selling everything not nailed down to turn an on the books profit.

Who also has form saying we should fold, move to the gold coast, or merge with North.

And there are people honestly suggesting this is the person who should be in charge of the club. Un-****ing-believable.

 

[LBJ6]

A proven successful President who WANTS to take the role.

Yeah... let's put our political bias in the way and show him the door.


Classic Melbourne.

This club will never thrive with muppets like McLardy running the show.

GET KENNETT.

 

[Captain Jack]

A proven successful President who WANTS to take the role.

Yeah... let's put our political bias in the way and show him the door.


Classic Melbourne.

This club will never thrive with muppets like McLardy running the show.

GET KENNETT.

While I'm not strongly in the 'We must get Kennett' camp, you do make an excellent point here.

We, as a club, are an absolute rabble who seemingly stand for nothing at all.

Why, then, do we think we have the luxury of taking a moral stand against a President who, despite his strange opinions and loud mouth, has been in charge of a successful club during a period of success.

We do not have that option at this stage. We are on our knees as a club, and the only thing keeping us in the league at the moment is our name, which carries significant gravitas historically. Take that away and we would be a bee's dick away from folding for good.

This is why we're at the behest of the AFL in regards to appointments this year: the CEO already, and the President and Coach to come, not to mention the rest of the Footy Department.

Beggars can't be choosers.

Put your bullshit political views aside. The number of schools he closed while Premier, while very much lamentable, is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to this discussion.

Now I'm not saying he is necessarily the best candidate for the role. There are plenty of legitimate reasons not to get him, and there would be several other candidates probably more qualified, so if we don't need to get him I'd rather we went down another part. But FFS, you are not going to microwave your membership if he gets the gig. Get realistic, and consider Kennett on his merits as the President of a much better club than our own.

 

[Tulip]

Aye Aye, Captain (Jack)

 

[CWaffles]

I wont turn my back on the club or microwave my membership if he gets in, although I will be wary! He may prove us wrong and do a fantastic job but I along with others would love a guarantee he wont sell out the club.

I guess we will see how serious this all is in the coming weeks.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

A proven successful President who WANTS to take the role. Yeah... let's put our political bias in the way...

That kind of logic would see us welcoming John Elliott if he wanted to be Melbourne President.

And as many of us have made very clear on numerous occasions throughout this thread now, of course, this is way beyond politics, it's about character and the values this person represents. Not to mention the obvious dangers otherwise, given his continued anti-social push over the years to see Melbourne clubs other than Hawthorn forced to merge/relocate.

The point is pretty hard to miss. To miss the point by such a wide margin seems more difficult still.

I don't think we need to besmirch the soul of our club in order to advance ourselves, and I doubt it would actually help the club in any way if we did, since as I say, a large proportion of us just won't cop it.

 

[Tulip]

John Elliott cheated and set Carlton back 10 years, Kennett oversaw a Premiership and a Grand Final loss.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

The credit for said outcome rightfully belonging to Ian Dicker, of course. Not Kennett.

And as we know, if Kennett had got his way back in 1996, Hawthorn wouldn't even exist as a club in their own right now.

They'd have been taken over by us.

I don't countenance risking the possibility of that happening to us in the future.

 

[LBJ6]

That kind of logic would see us welcoming John Elliott if he wanted to be Melbourne President.

And as many of us have made very clear on numerous occasions throughout this thread now, of course, this is way beyond politics, it's about character and the values represented.

The point is pretty hard to miss. To miss the point by such a wide margin seems more difficult still.

I don't think we need to besmirch the soul of our club in order to advance ourselves, and I doubt it would actually help the club in any way if we did, since as I say, a large proportion of us just won't cop it.

Firstly, your obvious political bias is what clouds your view of Kennett's character and values. I've seen too many pro-Gillard and anti-Abbott rants on this site to ever take your political views seriously.


Besmirching the soul of the club? Whatever tiny piece of soul this club has left i'd sell to the Devil if it meant we were successful again.

Kennett is a proven successful President. GET HIM IN THE flipping CLUB.

To all the people saying 'oh he will merge us blah blah blah' - you need 75% of supporter vote to merge and which other club would want to merge with us anyway??

 

[LBJ6]

The credit for said outcome rightfully belonging to Ian Dicker, of course. Not Kennett.

Please.

If this were true, every President who followed a successful President before them would be successful themselves.

Ask Don McLardy how that turned out for him?

 

[Tulip]

Everyone knows what went down at Dallas Brooks that night. We voted for a takeover, they voted against it. Right now, we're a chance at being taken over.

 

[LBJ6]

Everyone knows what went down at Dallas Brooks that night. We voted for a takeover, they voted against it. Right now, we're a chance at being taken over.

Back then only 50% of a vote was needed for a merger. 75% is needed now. Will never happen.

 

[Bluelegs]

For those of you advocating Kennett, would you hire Sheedy next year because he's seen a successful period at a club? Malcolm blight? Tom Hafey? Robert Walls? Please. Kennett did a lot of good for Hawthorn but it doesn't change the fact that he has announced himself as a big advocate of merging and moving victorian clubs. If you want Melbourne to follow in those footsteps then by all means get Kennett.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

I've seen too many pro-Gillard and anti-Abbott rants on this site to ever take your political views seriously.

Well, perhaps you'd be better served looking at the facts posted in the messages you label as "pro-Gillard" and "anti-Abbott rants", and not misrepresenting the content in such amazing fashion.

Posts where, amongst other things, I've pointed out that not only have I not given my primary vote to the ALP in nearly two decades, in fact not ever, but that I thoroughly resent the fact I have to indicate a preference for either major party to have a say about the makeup of our government.

Moreover, the fact I oppose an Abbott govt going on a scorched-earth tilt against public services in this country, destroying the National Broadband Network, ending federal taxation on mining, terminating action on global warming, whiteanting Medicare (and public health care in general), along with tertiary & secondary education, further damaging working conditions & wages, and our infrastructure, including Australia Post, which they're talking about selling off if elected, along with further mooted damage of our superannuation system, not to mention R&D, and scientific research in Australia otherwise, and watering down regulation of corporate malfeasance, wouldn't forfeit my right to be taken seriously in a discussion about such matters, I'd reckon.

Nor would the fact I value the integrity of the democratic process in general, vis-a-vis decent standards of journalism and balanced reportage in general within our media, and oppose anyone who thinks media outlets should be unaccountable, who would scrap remaining regulation against the monopolisation of same, and further deregulate private 'donations' (aka bribes) to poltical parties. Or the fact I oppose voluntary voting in favour of a voting system guaranteeing everyone a say.

Nor would the fact I support the continued operation of the ABC and SBS as public broadcasters, and oppose the abolition of what little regulation we have over dishonest and slanderous statements under the guise of 'journalism' by the likes of Bolt, Jones and the rest of that cabal.

I wouldn't have thought my opposition to a dramatic increase in and broadening of the GST, and the further whiteanting of our progressive taxation system otherwise to increase income inequality, my support for the right to privacy, opposition to unfettered free trade and a consequential race to the bottom as far as our living standards are concerned, and my support for restrictions on the use of nuclear power and regulation of the tobacco industry, would mean I couldn't be taken seriously either.

What this Liberal Party - more like an Australian transplant of the Tea Party now - intends to do in government scares me immensely, and anyone else who sees said plans as put together by their primary "thinktank", the IPA, would be scared too.

It's exactly what the Newman govt has been trying to do here in Queensland, of course, with that pre-fabricated audit of theirs which they hoped would give them plausible justification.

http://ipa.org.au/publications/2080/be-like-gough-75-radical-ideas-to-transform-australia
http://ipa.org.au/publications/2110/25-more-ideas-for-tony-abbott

Sorry for going so clearly off into that tangent about Federal politics, but yeah, I don't like being misrepresented in such a way, and I figure I definitely had a right to reply there.

 

[Tulip]

Didn't Julia close the climate change commission last month?

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Didn't Julia close the climate change commission last month?

I have little respect for Gillard and the ALP either. They broke the promise about eliminating all of WorkChoices as well, some substantial elements remain. They broke their promise about refugee policy at the 07 election when they claimed they'd abandon the Howard agenda there. They follow it more emphatically now than even Howard did.

Aside from their having squibbed it originally on the ETS in 2009, pursuing some bizarre strategy to wedge the Libs on the issue - driving them straight into the arms of Abbott and the denialist crazies, then refusing to call a double dissolution. Followed by their squib on the mining tax the following year, the way they've squibbed it on media reform over the last couple of years (the only actual media legislation they passed this year further entrenches monopolisation of our mainstream media), and squibbed on superannuation this year.

Going further back, it was a Labor govt, for instance, which first re-introduced fees for higher education, back in 1985, and the same govt who removed certain restrictions on media ownership the following year, directly facilitating Murdoch's Herald & Weekly Times takeover, helping him gain the power he has now.

Labor is now organically incapable of seriously advocating a progressive policy vision. Over 50% of the floor at any National Conference is always owned by the same corrupted right wing faction. The AWU, the SDA, the TWU and the NUW- they control the ALP, have for many years now. That control of course being firmly entrenched now by the structure of the ALP, the voting rules and the power of the Federal & State executives. The nation is starved of any real choice.

While I think nothing could be worse than Abbott, there are many reasons why I'll never vote Labor either.