Hawk Dork said:
It wasnt my spin it was from Population watcher Professor Martin Bell
an expert on the subject quoted on the ABC.
Which is his spin on the actual figures according to the goverment stats. Or more to the point, exactly the same as what I was saying that in 1999, migration increased.
So when you say people leave when anyone is in power do you expect people not to take up memberships because Kennett becomes President??
Who's making any correlation between population migration and football club support here? Cause it isn't me. People come and go all the time in any walk of life. Ian D saw rise and falls in our membership (it aint 35,000 no more, sadly). Why that should be any different regardless of who's in the job.. well, from my pov, it wont be.
or are you makeing a factually incorect statement regarding politics because people came back when Kennett was gone.
Actually, I asked you to provide the figures of an increase both post and pre-Kennett gov. You didn't/haven't done so. All I did was post the gov stats that showed there was an increase in migration in his final two years of office.
Nothing incorrect about it.
Feel free to have your spin but allow others to have theres aswell and when you post that people are wrong, please back it up with all the figures(not 10%) or an apology and a retraction, when you find you are wrong.I will gladly do the same if I am wrong.
Fine, what figures would that be, you haven't posted them. One link that said Victoria had "net increase from
last year (i.e, when Kennett's gov was in control in 1999). The same figures I would believe to be (as said) the ones I quoted in the first place.
The other mention of figures and migration out of the state were "And they in fact were responsible in part for that big surge in the early 1990's". Now from what I remember, the early 90's were the Cain/Kirner years (Labor gov until Oct 92).
I am just as passionate a supporter as you are and we agree on most things.
Never said you weren't, quite a bit I agree with you as well. What I don't agree with is that the mans politics, especially his past politics have any relevance to his becoming the HFC President.
Except that I believe Kennett will be bad for HFC (for numerous reasons that I have gone into great detail over manny posts)
Mainly his dictatorial, abrassive, leadership style
and his ability to repel people in great numbers,
his head kicking, my way or the highway style,is not condusive to creating succesors to the throne,merely surrounding you with yes men.
Sounds a lot like McMahon to me fwiw, he did alright for his lot.
I also feel he is doing the job to get something for himself not to give something back to HFC.
I think you've made that clear.
You on the other hand belive he will be good for HFC.
No, I've said he should be given a chance to show what he's capable of bringing. He may be a great choice, he might prove to be a poor one. We wont know until his leadership takes place. All I'm willing to do is offer him the chance.
I hope you are right and I am wrong.Unfortunately history suggests I might be right.
He's never been President of the HFC before so from my pov, history hasn't happened.
Most people are not as one-dimensional as portrayed HD. There's more to a person than just what there politics might be. Kennett is probably just as passionate about the HFC in his way as either you or I or anyone that follows the club.
I just believe he deserves a chance of showing what he's capable of bringing to us before condemning as being a failure or worse before he's started.
Besides, as far as I'm aware, we still get the chance to vote for him yea or nay come Nov when the ballot goes up. If there's enough members that feel the same way that you do this discussion will prove to have meant nothing as he wont be made president. Whoever takes the role in his place? Now that's something else to think about altogether.