Member Online Forum 9th Dec 2019

[AlecDuncan]

I dunno. Maybe the same thing that makes me think I can vote politicians in or out. Or board members.

 

[slashin_velvet]

I dunno. Maybe the same thing that makes me think I can vote politicians in or out. Or board members.

Big fan of democracy?

 

[mediumsizered]

Because they’ve proven to be right.

They called it a long time before last Wednesday night when that press release was put on the Club website. The question is, why would you believe the Club’s spin over so many varied sources?

Tom Morris predicted in June that SOS would be gone. Long before Ellis, Papley, Betts. What do you think Morris was basing his prediction on back then?

Caro was onto SOS last year & we are even doing this now because of SOS. This might be hard to swallow, but SOS brought this on himself.

Thanks SOS, but it was time to go.

 

[mediumsizered]

Because what's coming from the club is 100% false. Good odds for even a journalist to beat.

So you have a role at the club & know exactly what went down? Seriously some people look for every reason to hate on our club. These people are not worth wasting my valuable time on.

 

[Stamos]

Tom Morris predicted in June that SOS would be gone. Long before Ellis, Papley, Betts. What do you think Morris was basing his prediction on back then?

Caro was onto SOS last year & we are even doing this now because of SOS. This might be hard to swallow, but SOS brought this on himself.

Thanks SOS, but it was time to go.

This is my point exactly. It was a power struggle.

Except for SOS bringing it on himself, lol

 

[HARKER]

This is my point exactly. It was a power struggle.

Except for SOS bringing it on himself, lol

Stamos It was a power struggle but that struggle did have a start point.
It wasn't a case of simply; 'Let's nail a Silvagni' and not everyone was in awe of Silvagni's' work the way many of us here were.

It probably doesn't take much to work out that Silvagni did things his way, but we allowed him the scope to do so.
It's hard to reel the beast back into the cage once you've let him out.

I knew he was gone mid year and it seems to me that so did plenty of others, as I didn't see this club capable of turning around the situation.

We are where we are now and my feeling is that the spectre of SOS may still linger at PP, via his friends.
This is the worry to me, more so than SOS having left the building.

 

[Windhover]

Oh my ... so on the night, we thought he was a genius for doing what he did. Now to prove a COI, you're suggesting he was hoping to avoid Kemp but took him at #17 anyway ... why, to avoid scrutiny? You did note that no other team selected Kemp in the first 16 picks right?

Ffs I am NOT suggesting that is what SOS thought.
I am using Kemp as an example of the way COI work to insidiously infect every conflicted decision of the decision maker.
Because SoS has a conflicted loyalty - to the Club on the one hand and to his sons on the other, his decision to trade down for Kemp can be argued to be one done to try to restrict the competition for spots in the team his sons might take.
It is the perception that this might have been SOS’s motivation (ie capable of being reasonably argued) - not the reality - that matters. A list manager’s decisions must be beyond suspicion of bias because suspicion is a malignant cancer which, once it takes hold, will kill.

 

[Coona Blues]

Ffs I am NOT suggesting that is what SOS thought.
I am using Kemp as an example of the way COI work to insidiously infect every conflicted decision of the decision maker.
Because SoS has a conflicted loyalty - to the Club on the one hand and to his sons on the other, his decision to trade down for Kemp can be argued to be one done to try to restrict the competition for spots in the team his sons might take.
It is the perception that this might have been SOS’s motivation (ie capable of being reasonably argued) - not the reality - that matters. A list manager’s decisions must be beyond suspicion of bias because suspicion is a malignant cancer which, once it takes hold, will kill.

Fair sentiments, but for a "wordsmith" I have trouble with the bolded in your post. Possible conflict, perceived conflict maybe, but not "SoS has a conflicted loyalty". In fairness, it is difficult to suggest a reluctance to draft various types, when Jack is a "jack of all trades" and Ben is a swingman with an undefined strength/preference of position.

I cannot refute claims that SOS is/was a difficult so and so to deal with, but not for one second do I question his resolve at the job on hand, or his loyalty to the club first when carrying out his job functions.

 

[Windhover]

You define COI in very narrow terms - parroting Liddle speak champ.

I didn't define COI at all, still less in very narrow terms -whatever that is meant to mean. It is clear you do not actually understand COI, for reasons that will appear later. With that in mind let me define it.

A COI exists when a person has a conflicted loyalty, that is the person has a duty of good faith (loyalty) in two or more directions. SOS as List Manager had a duty of good faith to Carlton - to manage the list in the best interests of the Club.

Likewise, as the father of two players at the Club, SOS has a duty of good faith (loyalty) to his sons.

This was known to the Club and apparently dealt with by SOS avoiding meetings that involved decisions as to the recruitment and retention of the 2: the Chinese Wall approach.

The problems with the Chinese Wall as a long-term solution are (a) that footy clubs are too small to really make them work; and (b) that being a human construct, it is very porous.

For example on the size issue, any decision that SOS made whether to recruit talented players that could compete with positions his sons might want to play, although not directly relating to SOJ or BSOS, can raise a suspicion that SOS decided too favourably to his sons by not recruiting the player or, alternatively, decided too negatively against his sons to avoid the perception of bias, to recruit the player who was not needed because we had SOJ and BSOS.

Secondly, people talk. Does a coach that lets it be known he thinks BSOS will never make it risk his position at the Club by speaking out? Does a coach that lets it be known he thinks BSOS is the next Sticks really think that or is he unconsciously biased in favour of BSOS in order to curry favour with the List Manager?

You go on, (to humour my perspective? -wtf):

Still, lets look at numbers in order to humour your perspective:

2 out of 46 players on a list is massive conflict - is it? Ok - lets play ....

1. Liddle was trying to catch SOS's conflict count in recruiting Ellis - a spud he has known for years at Richmond to quote his own words - no conflict there.....
2. DeLuca an ex Fremantle player - what part did Lloyd have in that whole episode - since we have been told SOS didn't want him in the first place and why has been terminated by the list management sub committee for designing camels...is that on SOS too?

There you go - two decisions adding up to the same level of BS conflict you hang your hat on in six months by these two interloping clowns...

The above demonstrates you have NFI what a COI is. You are not alone. Many pollies share your lack of insight. Joh Bjelke P once famously said he did not have a COI, but rather a "convergence of interest". It would have been funny if he weren't serious.

First, numbers do NOT matter for a COI to exist (though less is better and might be more easily dealt with by Chinese Walls).

Secondly, unless you know something about Liddle's relationship with Ellis or Lloyd's relationship with De Luca that you are not sharing, no COI arises from the 2 Ls knowing these players from a former life. Knowing of players and their abilities and utilising that knowledge for the benefit of the Club is an act of undivided loyalty to the Club. There is no basis for asserting Liddle or Lloyd have any duty of good faith to Ellis or De Luca.

It isn't the COI issue that bugs me anyway as I've stated many times - it is the nassty and ill considered manner in which Liddle and co have gone about challenging SOS's integrity.

I do not have the faintest idea what it is you allege constitute "the nasty and ill-considered manner". Nor for that matter am I aware of any suggestion from anyone at the club, still less "Liddle and co" (whoever constitutes "co") that has cast any nasturtiums upon SOS's integrity.

For the record, accusing someone of having a conflict of interest is NOT an attack upon a person's integrity. It is a statement (purportedly of fact) that the person has a conflicted loyalty. A person who has a COI may act with the utmost probity, or not. There is no suggestion SOS acted otherwise than in recognition he should not be involved in relation to direct decisions in respect of his sons. That seems a very fair and decent approach.

Either SOS thought that there was a COI that couldn't be managed or he didn't. If he didn't think it could be managed then he should have been allowed to make his own statement and been a willing and happy participant in his own exit. Clearly that hasn't happened - so what did?

If he did think it could be managed - he should still be there, but he isn't - why is that?

As usual you have it arse about tit. It is for SOS to identify and expose any COI he has to the Club. In this instance everyone knew SOJ and BSOS were, eponymously, his sons so no disclosure was necessary.

It is NOT for SOS to determine how the COI should be managed - for the simple reason that he is conflicted. It is for the Club to determine how the COI should be managed and then advise SOS accordingly. That is the only sensible way to go about it.

And I am just repeating myself by saying that IMO the Club had no choice but to resolve the COI by terminating SOS. This is very sad IMO because I am as enthusiastic about our List as anyone and I think we owe it to SOS for his strategic brilliance for the very strong position we are in, one I can see challenging for flags as early as 2021. But it is very happy that the Club obviously see SOJ and/or BSOS as potentially having long-term futures at the Club based on their ability, futures that should not be shrouded by doubt because of who their daddy is.

 

[Windhover]

Fair sentiments, but for a "wordsmith" I have trouble with the bolded in your post. Possible conflict, perceived conflict maybe, but not "SoS has a conflicted loyalty". In fairness, it is difficult to suggest a reluctance to draft various types, when Jack is a "jack of all trades" and Ben is a swingman with an undefined strength/preference of position.

I cannot refute claims that SOS is/was a difficult so and so to deal with, but not for one second do I question his resolve at the job on hand, or his loyalty to the club first when carrying out his job functions.

SOS had a loyalty to the Club and has a loyalty to his sons. The loyalty to the Club as List Manager was to determine which players are best for the Club and at what level of remuneration for what number of years they should be engaged.

His loyalty to his sons would have seen him wanting them to have the best possible chance of achieving footy success at their club of choice.

It is obvious that what is best for the footy success of the boys is not necessarily (though it may be) in the best interests of the Club.

If SOS did not have the above expressed loyalty to the Club then he would have been useless as List Manager. If SOS did not have the above expressed loyalty to his sons then it does not say much for him as a dad.

I have the highest regard for SOS's work as List Manager. I have absolutely no reason to doubt he is a fantastic father.

He therefore had a conflicted loyalty.

Having a conflicted loyalty does not necessarily mean any of SOS's decisions (or those of the List committee) were objectively wrong. That is not the problem. The problem with conflicted loyalty is that there is a risk that decisions will not be made in the best interests of one or other of the beneficiaries of that loyalty. Good risk management avoids that risk.

 

[Coona Blues]

I didn't define COI at all, still less in very narrow terms -whatever that is meant to mean. It is clear you do not actually understand COI, for reasons that will appear later. With that in mind let me define it.

A COI exists when a person has a conflicted loyalty, that is the person has a duty of good faith (loyalty) in two or more directions. SOS as List Manager had a duty of good faith to Carlton - to manage the list in the best interests of the Club.

Likewise, as the father of two players at the Club, SOS has a duty of good faith (loyalty) to his sons.

This was known to the Club and apparently dealt with by SOS avoiding meetings that involved decisions as to the recruitment and retention of the 2: the Chinese Wall approach.

The problems with the Chinese Wall as a long-term solution are (a) that footy clubs are too small to really make them work; and (b) that being a human construct, it is very porous.

For example on the size issue, any decision that SOS made whether to recruit talented players that could compete with positions his sons might want to play, although not directly relating to SOJ or BSOS, can raise a suspicion that SOS decided too favourably to his sons by not recruiting the player or, alternatively, decided too negatively against his sons to avoid the perception of bias, to recruit the player who was not needed because we had SOJ and BSOS.

Secondly, people talk. Does a coach that lets it be known he thinks BSOS will never make it risk his position at the Club by speaking out? Does a coach that lets it be known he thinks BSOS is the next Sticks really think that or is he unconsciously biased in favour of BSOS in order to curry favour with the List Manager?

You go on, (to humour my perspective? -wtf):



The above demonstrates you have NFI what a COI is. You are not alone. Many pollies share your lack of insight. Joh Bjelke P once famously said he did not have a COI, but rather a "convergence of interest". It would have been funny if he weren't serious.

First, numbers do NOT matter for a COI to exist (though less is better and might be more easily dealt with by Chinese Walls).

Secondly, unless you know something about Liddle's relationship with Ellis or Lloyd's relationship with De Luca that you are not sharing, no COI arises from the 2 Ls knowing these players from a former life. Knowing of players and their abilities and utilising that knowledge for the benefit of the Club is an act of undivided loyalty to the Club. There is no basis for asserting Liddle or Lloyd have any duty of good faith to Ellis or De Luca.



I do not have the faintest idea what it is you allege constitute "the nasty and ill-considered manner". Nor for that matter am I aware of any suggestion from anyone at the club, still less "Liddle and co" (whoever constitutes "co") that has cast any nasturtiums upon SOS's integrity.

For the record, accusing someone of having a conflict of interest is NOT an attack upon a person's integrity. It is a statement (purportedly of fact) that the person has a conflicted loyalty. A person who has a COI may act with the utmost probity, or not. There is no suggestion SOS acted otherwise than in recognition he should not be involved in relation to direct decisions in respect of his sons. That seems a very fair and decent approach.



As usual you have it arse about tit. It is for SOS to identify and expose any COI he has to the Club. In this instance everyone knew SOJ and BSOS were, eponymously, his sons so no disclosure was necessary.

It is NOT for SOS to determine how the COI should be managed - for the simple reason that he is conflicted. It is for the Club to determine how the COI should be managed and then advise SOS accordingly. That is the only sensible way to go about it.

And I am just repeating myself by saying that IMO the Club had no choice but to resolve the COI by terminating SOS. This is very sad IMO because I as enthusiastic about our List as anyone and I think we owe it to SOS for his strategic brilliance for the very strong position we are in, one I can see challenging for flags as early as 2021. But it is very happy that the Club obviously see SOJ and/or BSOS as potentially having long-term futures at the Club based on their ability, futures that should not be shrouded by doubt over who their daddy is.

The overwhelming issue I have with all of this relates to loyalty and respect. Not, as many allude, to in regard to a club great, but to a man who has taken on an extremely onerous task on behalf of his employer. When engaged for that task, the employer was aware of a probable, if not certain perception of COI. The employer was happy to engage under such circumstance, happy that they had found the best man for the job.

Our management was committed to a rebuild, but somewhat unsure how to go about it, therefore SOS was given freedom and power to take full ownership of the rebuild. Few would argue against the fact that SOS was committed, focussed, willing to make hard calls and wear the feedback. Rightly or wrongly. SOS reportedly had flagged the end of 2020 as the completion for his "project". Given the job he has done, he was entitled to the respect and loyalty of one more year. (Naturally under the assumption that the information was correct).

During the process, the club has employed some senior staff, notably Liddle and Lloyd. The nature of their roles and experience means they are more inclined to buy in to the process previously only reported by SOS to senior management. The nature of the beast is that they want input and/or control.

I am old fashioned, unless SOS was wanting more than the reported one year, I believe he should have been able to "finish" the project on his terms. The conflict of interest was no more of an issue than when he and shortly after, Jack started. Simply the "players" had changed, the new boys wanted to "take over" before the completion.

 

[HARKER]

SOS had a loyalty to the Club and has a loyalty to his sons. The loyalty to the Club as List Manager was to determine which players are best for the Club and at what level of remuneration for what number of years they should be engaged.

His loyalty to his sons would have seen him wanting them to have the best possible chance of achieving footy success at their club of choice.

It is obvious that what is best for the footy success of the boys is not necessarily (though it may be) in the best interests of the Club.

If SOS did not have the above expressed loyalty to the Club then he would have been useless as List Manager. If SOS did not have the above expressed loyalty to his sons then it does not say much for him as a dad.

I have the highest regard for SOS's work as List Manager. I have absolutely no reason to doubt he is a fantastic father.

He therefore had a conflicted loyalty.

Having a conflicted loyalty does not necessarily mean any of SOS's decisions (or those of the List committee) were objectively wrong. That is not the problem. The problem with conflicted loyalty is that there is a risk that decisions will not be made in the best interests of one or other of the beneficiaries of that loyalty. Good risk management avoids that risk.

Are you buying the clubs line where the Silvagni boys were 'central' to SOS getting pushed?
There may well have been issues to some degree, but nothing players' performance couldn't speak for itself.
There were many factors involved and some before BSilvagni was even drafted.

So the solution to having the Silvagni boys at the club, was to squeeze out the individual that brokers deals like no other?

 

[Windhover]

The overwhelming issue I have with all of this relates to loyalty and respect. Not, as many allude, to in regard to a club great, but to a man who has taken on an extremely onerous task on behalf of his employer. When engaged for that task, the employer was aware of a probable, if not certain perception of COI. The employer was happy to engage under such circumstance, happy that they had found the best man for the job.


I am old fashioned, unless SOS was wanting more than the reported one year, I believe he should have been able to "finish" the project on his terms. The conflict of interest was no more of an issue than when he and shortly after, Jack started. Simply the "players" had changed, the new boys wanted to "take over" before the completion.

To have not employed SOS as List Manager because he had 3 sons would have been silly since he had demonstrated ability from his GWS days.

Of course there was a possibility/probability of COI. Better to cross that bridge when it arrived, as it did almost immediately with the recruitment of SOJ. At that time it was felt that the COI could be managed by SOS stepping away from any decisions re SOJ.

Now, with 2 boys at the Club and with both seeming to tick boxes in terms of development into long term footballers the COI becomes real and utterly unmanageable. Had SOJ shown as little as David Walls going back, the COI would have been small and short-lived. Fortunately for us SOJ and BSOS are looking better than that if not yet certainties.

You are not old-fashioned. You are wrong. Giving SOS another year and pretending the COI could just be swept under the carpet would have sent the message throughout the Club that best practice doesn't need to be followed.

 

[Windhover]

Are you buying the clubs line where the Silvagni boys were 'central' to SOS getting pushed?
There may well have been issues to some degree, but nothing players' performance couldn't speak for itself.
There were many factors involved and some before BSilvagni was even drafted.

So the solution to having the Silvagni boys at the club, was to squeeze out the individual that brokers deals like no other?

I am buying the line that the COI was a sufficient reason for SOS being terminated. The consequence of taking SOJ and BSOS is that their dad had to go.

There may have been all sorts of other issues (Ellis, Betts, personality style, etc) or not. I neither know nor care. Since the COI was a sufficient reason any other issue is (or should have been) irrelevant.

 

[HARKER]

I am buying the line that the COI was a sufficient reason for SOS being terminated. The consequence of taking SOJ and BSOS is that their dad had to go.

There may have been all sorts of other issues (Ellis, Betts, personality style, etc) or not. I neither know nor care. Since the COI was a sufficient reason any other issue is (or should have been) irrelevant.

Irrelevant? How is what happens and is allowed to happen at our club irrelevant?
So a murky, at-best-excuse makes everything OK? It doesn't to me.

We can't rid ourselves of the stench of bodies we exit in unceremonious manners and if you think that everything will now change because SOS is gone -
Not buying that for a minute, nor any more blue sky songs we want to sing just because they sound nice.

 

[AlecDuncan]

So you have a role at the club & know exactly what went down? Seriously some people look for every reason to hate on our club. These people are not worth wasting my valuable time on.

Be sure to send me an invoice.

 

[JustaBattler]

I didn't define COI at all, still less in very narrow terms -whatever that is meant to mean. It is clear you do not actually understand COI, for reasons that will appear later. With that in mind let me define it.

A COI exists when a person has a conflicted loyalty, that is the person has a duty of good faith (loyalty) in two or more directions. SOS as List Manager had a duty of good faith to Carlton - to manage the list in the best interests of the Club.

Likewise, as the father of two players at the Club, SOS has a duty of good faith (loyalty) to his sons.

This was known to the Club and apparently dealt with by SOS avoiding meetings that involved decisions as to the recruitment and retention of the 2: the Chinese Wall approach.

The problems with the Chinese Wall as a long-term solution are (a) that footy clubs are too small to really make them work; and (b) that being a human construct, it is very porous.

For example on the size issue, any decision that SOS made whether to recruit talented players that could compete with positions his sons might want to play, although not directly relating to SOJ or BSOS, can raise a suspicion that SOS decided too favourably to his sons by not recruiting the player or, alternatively, decided too negatively against his sons to avoid the perception of bias, to recruit the player who was not needed because we had SOJ and BSOS.

Secondly, people talk. Does a coach that lets it be known he thinks BSOS will never make it risk his position at the Club by speaking out? Does a coach that lets it be known he thinks BSOS is the next Sticks really think that or is he unconsciously biased in favour of BSOS in order to curry favour with the List Manager?

You go on, (to humour my perspective? -wtf):



The above demonstrates you have NFI what a COI is. You are not alone. Many pollies share your lack of insight. Joh Bjelke P once famously said he did not have a COI, but rather a "convergence of interest". It would have been funny if he weren't serious.

First, numbers do NOT matter for a COI to exist (though less is better and might be more easily dealt with by Chinese Walls).

Secondly, unless you know something about Liddle's relationship with Ellis or Lloyd's relationship with De Luca that you are not sharing, no COI arises from the 2 Ls knowing these players from a former life. Knowing of players and their abilities and utilising that knowledge for the benefit of the Club is an act of undivided loyalty to the Club. There is no basis for asserting Liddle or Lloyd have any duty of good faith to Ellis or De Luca.



I do not have the faintest idea what it is you allege constitute "the nasty and ill-considered manner". Nor for that matter am I aware of any suggestion from anyone at the club, still less "Liddle and co" (whoever constitutes "co") that has cast any nasturtiums upon SOS's integrity.

For the record, accusing someone of having a conflict of interest is NOT an attack upon a person's integrity. It is a statement (purportedly of fact) that the person has a conflicted loyalty. A person who has a COI may act with the utmost probity, or not. There is no suggestion SOS acted otherwise than in recognition he should not be involved in relation to direct decisions in respect of his sons. That seems a very fair and decent approach.



As usual you have it arse about tit. It is for SOS to identify and expose any COI he has to the Club. In this instance everyone knew SOJ and BSOS were, eponymously, his sons so no disclosure was necessary.

It is NOT for SOS to determine how the COI should be managed - for the simple reason that he is conflicted. It is for the Club to determine how the COI should be managed and then advise SOS accordingly. That is the only sensible way to go about it.

And I am just repeating myself by saying that IMO the Club had no choice but to resolve the COI by terminating SOS. This is very sad IMO because I am as enthusiastic about our List as anyone and I think we owe it to SOS for his strategic brilliance for the very strong position we are in, one I can see challenging for flags as early as 2021. But it is very happy that the Club obviously see SOJ and/or BSOS as potentially having long-term futures at the Club based on their ability, futures that should not be shrouded by doubt because of who their daddy is.

The Club can defend any COI it chooses to in lots of ways. The Club decided to make a story to explain the dismissal referencing COI. Simple as that.
Decision is made - we live with it. Scumbags get a win - Carlton gets a huge loss.

That where my loyalty stands with the CLub's best interests in mind - not the political spin idjots like you love to parrot.

 

[Blue__Balls]

The overwhelming issue I have with all of this relates to loyalty and respect. Not, as many allude, to in regard to a club great, but to a man who has taken on an extremely onerous task on behalf of his employer. When engaged for that task, the employer was aware of a probable, if not certain perception of COI. The employer was happy to engage under such circumstance, happy that they had found the best man for the job.

Our management was committed to a rebuild, but somewhat unsure how to go about it, therefore SOS was given freedom and power to take full ownership of the rebuild. Few would argue against the fact that SOS was committed, focussed, willing to make hard calls and wear the feedback. Rightly or wrongly. SOS reportedly had flagged the end of 2020 as the completion for his "project". Given the job he has done, he was entitled to the respect and loyalty of one more year. (Naturally under the assumption that the information was correct).

During the process, the club has employed some senior staff, notably Liddle and Lloyd. The nature of their roles and experience means they are more inclined to buy in to the process previously only reported by SOS to senior management. The nature of the beast is that they want input and/or control.

I am old fashioned, unless SOS was wanting more than the reported one year, I believe he should have been able to "finish" the project on his terms. The conflict of interest was no more of an issue than when he and shortly after, Jack started. Simply the "players" had changed, the new boys wanted to "take over" before the completion.

One has to wonder - at what stage did he flag the end of next year as the "completion of his project", given he wasn't contracted past this year. If we'd landed Papley and/or Coniglio, would he have deemed the project completed now? What's to say we wouldn't miss targets next year and the "completion date" gets pushed back again.

The reality is that SOS's contract expired this year, and the club elected not to renew/extend it.

 

[Windhover]

Irrelevant? How is what happens and is allowed to happen at our club irrelevant?

I have answered your question in the post to which you reply. If you do not agree with me that COI was a sufficient reason to terminate SOS I am happy to hear why you think that.

Asking pointless questions already answered is, well, pointless.

So a murky, at-best-excuse makes everything OK? It doesn't to me.

Again, if you have a basis for your claim that COI is not a sufficient reason to terminate SOS, state your case. Simply calling it a murky at-best-excuse without explanation for your opinion is just elaborate fluff.

We can't rid ourselves of the stench of bodies we exit in unceremonious manners and if you think that everything will now change because SOS is gone -
Not buying that for a minute, nor any more blue sky songs we want to sing just because they sound nice.

Just reread your dribble and ask yourself why you did not take up writing historical fiction in the Medici era.

 

[HARKER]

I have answered your question in the post to which you reply. If you do not agree with me that COI was a sufficient reason to terminate SOS I am happy to hear why you think that.

Asking pointless questions already answered is, well, pointless.

Again, if you have a basis for your claim that COI is not a sufficient reason to terminate SOS, state your case. Simply calling it a murky at-best-excuse without explanation for your opinion is just elaborate fluff.

Just reread your dribble and ask yourself why you did not take up writing historical fiction in the Medici era.

We disagree and I see your point of view being somewhat narrow and shallow.

At least my dribble is short and to the point and you can consume all the spin this club provides you...but again...that's it's a little shallow to do so.

 

[Windhover]

We disagree and I see your point of view being somewhat narrow and shallow.

True, your melodramatic historical fiction could be applied to other periods of history.

At least my dribble is short and to the point and you can consume all the spin this club provides you...but again...that's it's a little shallow to do so.

If you do not wish to explain why you believe COI was not a sufficient basis for terminating SOS, why bother posting a reply?

PS I am a big fan of your training reports, where your penchant for melodrama takes a breather.

 

[HARKER]

True, your melodramatic historical fiction could be applied to other periods of history.

If you do not wish to explain why you believe COI was not a sufficient basis for terminating SOS, why bother posting a reply?

Because that wasn't the real, nor the only reason SOS was forced to walk. You can choose to be a smart-arse but your not adding anything other than trying to convince some that you 'really' know what a COI is. As if that alone is important and my points elsewhere related to some things that have been posted on the board regarding how much better things will now be without SOS. - It's always the next one that's going to be better than the last

You buying that s**t. Good for you.

 

[Windhover]

Because that wasn't the real, nor the only reason SOS was forced to walk.

You may be right that the real reason SOS was forced to walk was for something other than COI.

I don't care. Why not? Because even if SOS was terminated because Liddle was a sufficient reason for termination for the reasons I have explained.

You can choose to be a smart-arse but your not adding anything other than trying to convince some that you 'really' know what a COI is.

No, I am trying to explain to JAB and others what a COI is. I couldn't care less whether anyone thinks I know what a COI is. The reason I want others to know what a COI is is because it explains why SOS's termination was the right result (whatever the reasons for it might have been).

As if that alone is important and my points elsewhere related to some things that have been posted on the board regarding how much better things will now be without SOS. - It's always the next one that's going to be better than the last

You buying that s**t. Good for you.

I don't even understand "that s**t" you seem to be writing in a stream of consciousness style that is presumably deliberate on your part.

I certainly don't intend paying for it.

 

[Aphrodite]

HARKER & Windhover take it to PM please.


Getting way too personal!

 

[HARKER]

HARKER & Windhover take it to PM please.


Getting way too personal!

We're good, but understand your point.

EDIT: Just for the sake of the discussion and if a Conflict of Interest was in play - How did it manifest?

1. The selection of O'Dwyer because he was a friend of Bens?
2. Who did we NOT select by way of draft or trade, in order to make it easier for Jack to be in the picture?
3. We did take Goddard whilst still having Macreadie on the books, so it doesn't look like we tried to run the KD posts, too skinny.
4. Did SOS have any influence upon the MC? He wouldn't have, but did he stick his nose into matters?

Of course there was scope for a COI, but was it really happening and if so, where?