Kennett set to become new Hawks' president

Grendel

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
8,083
Likes
56
Location
Spanish Announcers table
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#51
Then show the figures.

Either way, you were wrong on your first 'facts' of declining population during Kennett's tenure.

Not that any of it holds any relevance to what he is now about to be, the president of the HFC.

So can we please keep it at that? Because this type of argument is exactly what I was hoping to avoid.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jumpin' Jimmy

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 1, 2004
Posts
8,470
Likes
176
Location
Up Upwey way
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Dragons,Spurs, Boston C's
#52
Hawk Dork said:
Any how my original argument was he isnt the mesiah and draw 40000 to 4500 supporters and win us a flag.

Apparently he cant play Fullback ,Centre Half Forward or Full Forward neither is he a Pacy Midfielder.
No, but he does have enormous energy and is prepared to put his body on the line..... something the Hawks have lacked in more recent seasons:-

 

Hawk Dork

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Posts
26,575
Likes
21,592
Location
on the road to nowhere
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawks
#54
Grendel said:
Then show the figures.

Either way, you were wrong on your first 'facts' of declining population during Kennett's tenure.

You accuse me of being wrong when you have no figures yourself to prove it and you did say tenure not 1 year.



So can we please keep it at that? Because this type of argument is exactly what I was hoping to avoid.
You seemed to propel it by allowing it to become political through your quoting of Gov websites and allowing the other guy to do a diatribe of his socio economic beliefs.
My original comment was light hearted, humourous with no political reference.Just a comment on not believing the rubbish that Kennett would deliver 40000-50000 supporters and win a grand final


It proves how devisive a man like Kennett can be.He has supporters arguing amongst them selves before he is even elected
 

Hawk Dork

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Posts
26,575
Likes
21,592
Location
on the road to nowhere
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawks
#56
http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s225504.htm



half thousand interstate migrants last year, but that's a far cry from the 50,000 people it gained in one year in the early nineties. That's because many of the Victorians who fled north during the Kennett years seem to be going home, according to population watcher Professor Martin Bell.





Suprise! Suprise! yes people do leave when Kennett is in Power

As reported ABC Under Ian Townsend
 

Hawk Dork

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Posts
26,575
Likes
21,592
Location
on the road to nowhere
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawks
#57
Jumpin' Jimmy said:
No, but he does have enormous energy and is prepared to put his body on the line..... something the Hawks have lacked in more recent seasons:-

He seems to be wearing the Melbourne Hawks jumper?

He didnt put his body on the line when they needed him then he supported the death of his club.
He didnt put his body on the line when he was premier and the AFl was getting rid of Waverly.
He put his body on the line of Presidency when Hawthorn is on the verge of Success.
 

Grendel

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
8,083
Likes
56
Location
Spanish Announcers table
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#58
HD, people leave when anyone is in power. The figures that you're quoting are the same figures I quoted. A net increase "year previous" (i.e, 1999, Kennett goverment) in population growth.

Just you have your own spin on the reasons why, fair enough. I'll have my own thoughts on it as well.
 

Jumpin' Jimmy

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 1, 2004
Posts
8,470
Likes
176
Location
Up Upwey way
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Dragons,Spurs, Boston C's
#59
Hawk Dork said:
He seems to be wearing the Melbourne Hawks jumper?

He didnt put his body on the line when they needed him then he supported the death of his club.
He didnt put his body on the line when he was premier and the AFl was getting rid of Waverly.
He put his body on the line of Presidency when Hawthorn is on the verge of Success.
That's a kiss-of-death if ever I've seen one.
If the Hawks succeed it was all handed to him...... but if they fail then bloody Jeff stuffed up again :D

As for wearing that Blue jumper...... he's well Beyond that now. ;)
 

Hawk Dork

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Posts
26,575
Likes
21,592
Location
on the road to nowhere
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawks
#60
Grendel said:
HD, people leave when anyone is in power. The figures that you're quoting are the same figures I quoted. A net increase "year previous" (i.e, 1999, Kennett goverment) in population growth.

Just you have your own spin on the reasons why, fair enough. I'll have my own thoughts on it as well.
It wasnt my spin it was from Population watcher Professor Martin Bell
an expert on the subject quoted on the ABC.

So when you say people leave when anyone is in power do you expect people not to take up memberships because Kennett becomes President??
(Because if you are you are agreeing with the guist of my original statement)

or are you makeing a factually incorect statement regarding politics
( because people came back when Kennett was gone meaning you are wrong).

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.
I am just as passionate a supporter as you are and we agree on most things.
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.
I also feel he is doing the job to get something for himself not to give something back to HFC.
You on the other hand belive he will be good for HFC.
I hope you are right and I am wrong.Unfortunately history suggest I might be right.
 

Grendel

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
8,083
Likes
56
Location
Spanish Announcers table
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#61
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.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

arupist

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Posts
5,679
Likes
7,842
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#62
Hawk Dork said:
It wasnt my spin it was from Population watcher Professor Martin Bellan expert on the subject quoted on the ABC.

So when you say people leave when anyone is in power do you expect people not to take up memberships because Kennett becomes President??
(Because if you are you are agreeing with the guist of my original statement)

or are you makeing a factually incorect statement regarding politics
( because people came back when Kennett was gone meaning you are wrong).

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.
I am just as passionate a supporter as you are and we agree on most things.
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.
I also feel he is doing the job to get something for himself not to give something back to HFC.
You on the other hand belive he will be good for HFC.
I hope you are right and I am wrong.Unfortunately history suggest I might be right.
It most certainly is your own spin, dork. Martin Bell never said that people left because of Kennett and came back because he was gone. There is nothing in history to suggest you may be right. Not even Bell supports your argument. He was merely commenting on the population movement, not hypothesising on the cause. You are doing that all on your own, and quite fallaciously, I might add.

As I said earlier, drawing conclusions is not your strong point. You argue like a teenager who has formed an opinion of Kennett because his father was a lifetime Labour voter.

Lesson no 1. To win an argument, produce facts that support your own hypothesis, not that of your opponent.
 

Hawk Dork

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Posts
26,575
Likes
21,592
Location
on the road to nowhere
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawks
#63
[
QUOTE=arupist]It most certainly is your own spin, dork. Martin Bell never said that people left because of Kennett and came back because he was gone. There is nothing in history to suggest you may be right. Not even Bell supports your argument. He was merely commenting on the population movement, not hypothesising on the cause. You are doing that all on your own, and quite fallaciously, I might add.)
".........many of the Victorians who fled north during the Kennett years seem to be going home," Professor Martin Bell.
this sounds like they where there, before Kennett ,left when he was in power and returned when he was out of power to me.



(As I said earlier, drawing conclusions is not your strong point. You argue like a teenager who has formed an opinion of Kennett because his father was a lifetime Labour voter. )
This sounds like a badly drawn conclusion on your part?
I am a tertiary educated small business owner/manager in my 40'2 who lives in the eastern suburbs,not far from Jeff.
My father was swinging voter for the record.
Kennett garnered a lot of his support from uneducated , unempowered males(whos fathers probably voted Labour).
I have 4 friends/associates who have worked shoulder to shoulder with Kennett over prelonged periods in the fields of Legal Advice,Media Advice,Advertising and Political campaigning all are Liberal voters/members all share the same reservations on his abilities as I do.

(Lesson no 1. To win an argument, produce facts that support your own hypothesis, not that of your opponent.
)[/QUOTE]Thanks for the lesson make sure you heed your own advice.
The facts arent necessarily in a Geoffery Blainy novel or a Andrew Bolte article.
P.S. I am sure John Howard,Michael Kroger and Peter Costellos fathers were not Labour voters and they arent big fans of Kennett either.
and quite fallaciously, I might add
I will leave the filatio to you as the bald guy from Midnight Oil sang " its better to type at my seat, than dine on my knees."
 

Hawk Dork

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Posts
26,575
Likes
21,592
Location
on the road to nowhere
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawks
#64
Grendel said:
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.

You still argue that they increased in 1 year 1999 the article suggests 50,000 people left in the era of Kennett and returned when he left.



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.
As to wether people are attracted or repelled by personality can directly affect migration of supporters or populations.Other factors come into account ie. ladder position and potential to improve.But you POV is it wont effect mine is it would.


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.
The validity can not be cross referenced with out the full figures of before,durring and after.The fact that 50000 people fled durring Kennetts reign and returned after suggests that they where there before left durring and retuned after.


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.
How naive look who is in there,Phil Gude a Kennnett yes man, and the Sausage software guy a staunch Kennett supporter and Liberal Party Treasurer wannabe ther just trying to recreate there circles from private school with HFC as the Biscuit.

Vizard was excluded due to share trading but Quandong and Yates obviously dont count. http://www.abc.net.au/news/features/four_corners/

Sounds a lot like McMahon to me fwiw, he did alright for his lot.
If he was McMahon I wouldnt be typing I would just sit here smilling.
I am thinking more like John Elliot his mate.


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.
refer again to the 4 corners report to see what he is capable of.


He's never been President of the HFC before so from my pov, history hasn't happened.
I was refereing to his history,Military,Political and Business

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.
You and I didnt vote for a merger,if you or I where premier at the time we would no have suppported the closure of Waverly.
We would not have gone to every Geelong game in our final year of Premier for political reasons.

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.
I wish there was a better alternative so we really had a choice.

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.
Please let someone else stand up and give us an alternative.
 
Top Bottom