Mega Thread Oh yeah ... did you know there are 17 other teams? - General AFL discussion #9 - Blues posters only

Status
Not open for further replies.

GoBlues!

Premiership Player
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Posts
3,894
Likes
5,996
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
This could quite possibly be the best article Caro has ever written - no mention of Carlton.:thumbsu:

With Collingwood becoming increasingly frustrated with Dane Swan...
Swan was suspended by Collingwood after arriving at training in an unfit state. Collingwood football boss Geoff Walsh made his thoughts regarding undisciplined and uncommitted footballers abundantly clear after the club moved Sharrod Wellingham on to West Coast. Ray McLean has been brought back to the club to improve the playing culture and address the team leaders.
Swan, the 2011 Brownlow medallist, quit the Magpies' leadership group at the start of the 2012 season and his behaviour has continued to be a matter of grave concern for the club.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/fisher-on-outer-at-saints-20121123-29yyt.html#ixzz2D2iDyv7t
Suck it up Eddie.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Azul

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Posts
12,327
Likes
10,868
Location
Vic
AFL Club
Carlton
This could quite possibly be the best article Caro has ever written - no mention of Carlton.:thumbsu:
Material wise, sure. But the content has more red herrings within than an episode of CSI NY. Is it a rant against Sam Fisher, as the title suggests, a deflection from Dusty Martin or a jibe at Collingwood. As a work of prose, I can only give it a C+. :rolleyes:
 

Dramoth

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Posts
25,618
Likes
13,072
Location
Bunbury, WA
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Manchester United
Material wise, sure. But the content has more red herrings within than an episode of CSI NY. Is it a rant against Sam Fisher, as the title suggests, a deflection from Dusty Martin or a jibe at Collingwood. As a work of prose, I can only give it a C+. :rolleyes:
I think that it is a deflection from Martin by having a rant against Fisher and Swan.

More likely it's "Look at this guys... ohh one of my boys has some issues as well, but look at these guys".

I am just surprised that she didnt bring up Gram as well.
 

BlueJet

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
4,379
Likes
3,316
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
North Ballarat
I'm not sure how it's a deflection from Martin, when in an article discussing AFL players discipline issues, she references Martins indiscretions..
Dramoth, she did mention Gram.
A lot of people need to chill out in regards to her, there are plenty of worse journos around but all of the paranoia/hatred seems to be reserved for her.
 

Dramoth

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Posts
25,618
Likes
13,072
Location
Bunbury, WA
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Manchester United
I'm not sure how it's a deflection from Martin, when in an article discussing AFL players discipline issues, she references Martins indiscretions..
Dramoth, she did mention Gram.
A lot of people need to chill out in regards to her, there are plenty of worse journos around but all of the paranoia/hatred seems to be reserved for her.
Thats because she never stints in her hatred of anything Navy Blue. Unfortunately in her efforts to slant things against Carlton, she often resorts to half-truths and gossip to get a story out that denigrates our club.

When she can be arsed to write a decent story about us, it usually contains some sort of slight... bringing up something from the past that casts us as reformed villains.
 

BlueJet

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
4,379
Likes
3,316
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
North Ballarat
Thats because she never stints in her hatred of anything Navy Blue. Unfortunately in her efforts to slant things against Carlton, she often resorts to half-truths and gossip to get a story out that denigrates our club.

When she can be arsed to write a decent story about us, it usually contains some sort of slight... bringing up something from the past that casts us as reformed villains.
What are these half truths mate? Not disputing that they've happened, I've just obviously missed them.
Whether we like it or not our club is a poster boy for flaunting the rules, of course it's going to irk people.
The Carlton Football Club has made mistakes which are justifiably condemned, whilst people seek to do the same to her for simply doing her job, it's quite unfair imo.
From what I've seen we get a mention in tanking/salary cap breach/player behaviour stories, all of which is justified.
If we don't want to be tied to negative headlines, the club as a whole must become more professional.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2000
Posts
74,150
Likes
53,121
Location
Ask me tomorrow
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Cronulla, Dallas Cowboys, Forest
Moderator #2,883
What are these half truths mate? Not disputing that they've happened, I've just obviously missed them.
Whether we like it or not our club is a poster boy for flaunting the rules, of course it's going to irk people.
The Carlton Football Club has made mistakes which are justifiably condemned, whilst people seek to do the same to her for simply doing her job, it's quite unfair imo.
From what I've seen we get a mention in tanking/salary cap breach/player behaviour stories, all of which is justified.
If we don't want to be tied to negative headlines, the club as a whole must become more professional.
What Dram is saying is that Caro can barely mention us in any context without bringing up an indiscretion from the past whether it is relevant or not. No amount of professionalism will stop people bringing up the past and you can not rewrite history. On your logic, every article about us, regardless of topic is fair game to include references to salary cap cheating, alleged tanking, alleged paying off of sexual assault victims, the booze cruise, from now until the end of time because they are true or in the public domain.
 

BlueJet

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
4,379
Likes
3,316
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
North Ballarat
What Dram is saying is that Caro can barely mention us in any context without bringing up an indiscretion from the past whether it is relevant or not. No amount of professionalism will stop people bringing up the past and you can not rewrite history. On your logic, every article about us, regardless of topic is fair game to include references to salary cap cheating, alleged tanking, alleged paying off of sexual assault victims, the booze cruise, from now until the end of time because they are true or in the public domain.
That's not what I said at all, I was merely pointing out that the idea that a one person vendetta against our club is just odd especially when she goes for the throat in regards to other clubs too (North Melbourne/Melbourne etc), it's just her style of journalism. When it's not your club under the microscope it's often good reading, some of her stuff about the Melbourne saga has been first rate.
The people above potting her had clearly not read the article (not realising Martin/Gram were mentioned) but certainly didn't let that get in the way of critiquing her. It's this mindset that I don't get, but to each their own I suppose. :thumbsu:
For the most part, when I see her (or anyone) mention our indiscretions it'll be while discussing Adelaide's salary cap cheating or Melbourne's tanking or going back a year or two in regards to poor player behaviour. It is fair game to mention Carlton under those circumstances as we were the last club to punished for or atleast linked to some of these acts.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2000
Posts
74,150
Likes
53,121
Location
Ask me tomorrow
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Cronulla, Dallas Cowboys, Forest
Moderator #2,885
The half truths are where journos mention that Libba accused us of tanking, but they don't mention that he had no evidence, heard nothing, all his contentions were easily explained and that he recanted a week later. All that matters is that we have previously been implicated as it suits the story.

I don't get Football Confidential in Qld anymore but seeing the nasty way she spits out lines about Judd being a poor captain and perceived problems at Carlton, tells me she takes great joy in being controversial and forming opinions based on a sniff of fact.

Sure Carlton have been in the news for a decade and that makes it seems like we are under siege and some people have a vendetta. She doesn't have a vendetta against us but she goes for the cheap story at almost every opportunity knowing that potting Carlton is money for jam as every other supporter loves to dine out on it.
 

Dramoth

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Posts
25,618
Likes
13,072
Location
Bunbury, WA
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Manchester United
What are these half truths mate? Not disputing that they've happened, I've just obviously missed them.
Whether we like it or not our club is a poster boy for flaunting the rules, of course it's going to irk people.
The Carlton Football Club has made mistakes which are justifiably condemned, whilst people seek to do the same to her for simply doing her job, it's quite unfair imo.
From what I've seen we get a mention in tanking/salary cap breach/player behaviour stories, all of which is justified.
If we don't want to be tied to negative headlines, the club as a whole must become more professional.
The past is the past... we did the crime and we did the time.

What we dont need is some slag reporter bringing up our indiscretions in every article she writes about us regardless of what the actual body of the article is about. Then there is also the fact that she papers over the cracks of the shit that happens at her favourite club like the drug scandal with Conners and Martin. If it had been a couple of Carlton players, she would have been screaming about our crap culture from the rooftops.

If she could write objectively, she would be a damned good reporter... but seeing as she has a major tendency to slate Carlton every chance she gets... she is nothing but a hack.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

BlueJet

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
4,379
Likes
3,316
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
North Ballarat
The half truths are where journos mention that Libba accused us of tanking, but they don't mention that he had no evidence, heard nothing, all his contentions were easily explained and that he recanted a week later. All that matters is that we have previously been implicated as it suits the story.

I don't get Football Confidential in Qld anymore but seeing the nasty way she spits out lines about Judd being a poor captain and perceived problems at Carlton, tells me she takes great joy in being controversial and forming opinions based on a sniff of fact.

Sure Carlton have been in the news for a decade and that makes it seems like we are under siege and some people have a vendetta. She doesn't have a vendetta against us but she goes for the cheap story at almost every opportunity knowing that potting Carlton is money for jam as every other supporter loves to dine out on it.
ODN, I get what you're saying but the accusations against us were explained away by watching a game of footy, there was no large scale investigation into it at the time largely because the AFL wanted to pretend that it wasn't an issue.
The relevance Libba has to current proceedings is that, a lot like Brock, he was a bitter former employee, as is Fev who has made similar comments. If Carlton were to be investigated as thoroughly as the Dees who knows what would come out?
I hate the idea of our club not doing everything in their power to win each week but I can certainly see why outsiders are suspicious of us.
You're right though Carlton is news, any mention of us and people will read it. It's sadly that's the way things work.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2000
Posts
74,150
Likes
53,121
Location
Ask me tomorrow
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Cronulla, Dallas Cowboys, Forest
Moderator #2,888
ODN, I get what you're saying but the accusations against us were explained away by watching a game of footy, there was no large scale investigation into it at the time largely because the AFL wanted to pretend that it wasn't an issue.
So you are suggesting there was reason to have a large scale investigation but the AFL were in denial? The AFL watched the game with Ratten, and asked him about certain coaching decisions and he was happy with his answer. The interviewed Libba and he retracted. Sometimes you just have to go with what you know, and not what everybody else suspects, including an absolute tidal wave of suspicion from people who do not, and never will, have any affinity for Carlton.

The relevance Libba has to current proceedings is that, a lot like Brock, he was a bitter former employee, as is Fev who has made similar comments. If Carlton were to be investigated as thoroughly as the Dees who knows what would come out?
I hate the idea of our club not doing everything in their power to win each week but I can certainly see why outsiders are suspicious of us.
I'm not talking about relevance, I am talking about half truths. Did you watch and dissect what Libba said at the time? Do you understand how weak that contention was? Yet all people re-raise is the fact that he made the claim as though it was credible.

McLean's statements were the first where someone had directly accused the Dees and it was a player to boot. That alone would have passed if everybody else said he was full of shit as the specifics were weak. Instead others have apparently backed him up. Every time an article talks about Melbourne now, and raised Libba and Carlton, they are in effect saying, Melbourne are tankers just like Carlton. No context is ever added because it doesn't sell papers.

Stop being concerned about outsiders being suspicious of us. I used to be concerned about our image but especially because of the internet and BigFooty, I have seen the outlandish leaps of logic people take, and instead of thinking that we deserve every woeful judgment because we have done wrong in the past, I see more that we can not win and we don't need to ingratiate ourselves with the haters in order to appear like we are that rare breed of objective Carlton supporters.

You see it all the time. A Carlton supporter agrees with the mob when they are potting Carlton and they are held up as being enlightened. If you debate points and add context, you are in denial. On the logic of everyone else, every negative emotion somebody has about Carlton or its players is valid, simply because more people agree with it.

As crass and unprofessional as it was, I do see where Sticks was coming from.

We are true blue Carlton supporters. We don't need to feel ashamed and cop crap for that. It's okay to fight back.
 

BlueJet

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
4,379
Likes
3,316
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
North Ballarat
So you are suggesting there was reason to have a large scale investigation but the AFL were in denial? The AFL watched the game with Ratten, and asked him about certain coaching decisions and he was happy with his answer. The interviewed Libba and he retracted. Sometimes you just have to go with what you know, and not what everybody else suspects, including an absolute tidal wave of suspicion from people who do not, and never will, have any affinity for Carlton.



I'm not talking about relevance, I am talking about half truths. Did you watch and dissect what Libba said at the time? Do you understand how weak that contention was? Yet all people re-raise is the fact that he made the claim as though it was credible.

McLean's statements were the first where someone had directly accused the Dees and it was a player to boot. That alone would have passed if everybody else said he was full of shit as he specifics were weak. Instead others have apparently backed him up. Every time an article talks about Melbourne now, and raised Libba and Carlton, they are in effect saying, Melbourne are tankers just like Carlton. No context is ever added because it doesn't sell papers.

Stop being concerned about outsiders being suspicious of us. I used to be concerned about our image but especially because of the internet and BigFooty, I have seen the outlandish leaps of logic people take, and instead of thinking that we deserve every woeful judgment because we have done wrong in the past, I see more that we can not win and we don't need to ingratiate ourselves with the haters in order to appear like we are that rare breed of objective Carlton supporters.

You see it all the time. A Carlton supporter agrees with the mob when they are potting Carlton and they are held up as being enlightened. If you debate points and add context, you are in denial. On the logic of everyone else, every negative emotion somebody has about Carlton or its players is valid, simply because more people agree with it.

As crass and unprofessional as it was, I do see where Sticks was coming from.

We are true blue Carlton supporters. We don't need to feel ashamed and cop crap for that. It's okay to fight back.
Anyone can see that the investigation is a hell of a lot more thorough than the one into us. Without an in-depth investigation and threats of penalties would people really lag themselves in? doubtful, which is why Melbourne is dirty with the way the AFL has gone about investigating the issue.
In my opinion it's just simplistic to think that because the AFL had a quick look at our club that tanking didn't occur, if you disagree though that's fine too. Fevola has come out and commented that things were a bit off at that time for example, so despite how weak the premise from Libba was there are now multiple people who could claim to have intimate knowledge than you or I, who have made claims along lines of us tanking. You are right though as it stand we're innocent and should be treated as such.
I'm not concerned what outsiders think of us, we have a tarnished image, that doesn't change my love our club one iota. I just mean that I can see another perspective other than that of a one eyed Blues supporter. The reality is Bigfooty isn't the place to go if you seek enlightened footy discussion as a decent percentage of posters have an agenda or have no life and wish to troll. Of course there are some posters who really contribute but unfortunately they seem few and far between (thankfully there are quite a few good ones on this board), one look at the main board and you can see that it's become the Bay Lite. Any mention of Judd generally sets people off into a delusional tirade..
Anyway agree to disagree on this.:thumbsu:
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2000
Posts
74,150
Likes
53,121
Location
Ask me tomorrow
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Cronulla, Dallas Cowboys, Forest
Moderator #2,891
Anyone can see that the investigation is a hell of a lot more thorough than the one into us. Without an in-depth investigation and threats of penalties would people really lag themselves in? doubtful, which is why Melbourne is dirty with the way the AFL has gone about investigating the issue.
In my opinion it's just simplistic to think that because the AFL had a quick look at our club that tanking didn't occur, if you disagree though that's fine too. Fevola has come out and commented that things were a bit off at that time for example, so despite how weak the premise from Libba was there are now multiple people who could claim to have intimate knowledge than you or I, who have made claims along lines of us tanking. You are right though as it stand we're innocent and should be treated as such.
Melbourne had numerous baffling positional changes that raised eyebrows.

Carlton had Johnstone vs Scotland in round 22 and Fev off the ground for 2 minutes a few weeks before. There was very little that was glaring in Carlton's situation, aside from what we had to gain from it. Therefore there was nothing to really investigate.

As for multiple people, Fevola vehemently denied any thought of tanking in 2007, and then make a 'felt like we didn't want to win' statement in time for his book promotion. Fev's main point was that players were joking out on the ground about tanking. That's an entirely different scenario, if he is suggesting that players did not want to win.

Point to our positional anomalies. Tell me who shouldn't have played or who shouldn't have had surgery?

Melbourne are being investigated more because they have had more specific queries raised and apparently by more people.

Yes, I can be objective enough to acknowledge that tanking of some sort could have occurred at Carlton. However, I only make decisions based on knowns, not cynicism.
 

BlueJet

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
4,379
Likes
3,316
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
North Ballarat
Melbourne had numerous baffling positional changes that raised eyebrows.

Carlton had Johnstone vs Scotland in round 22 and Fev off the ground for 2 minutes a few weeks before. There was very little that was glaring in Carlton's situation, aside from what we had to gain from it. Therefore there was nothing to really investigate.

As for multiple people, Fevola vehemently denied any thought of tanking in 2007, and then make a 'felt like we didn't want to win' statement in time for his book promotion. Fev's main point was that players were joking out on the ground about tanking. That's an entirely different scenario, if he is suggesting that players did not want to win.

Point to our positional anomalies. Tell me who shouldn't have played or who shouldn't have had surgery?

Melbourne are being investigated more because they have had more specific queries raised and apparently by more people.

Yes, I can be objective enough to acknowledge that tanking of some sort could have occurred at Carlton. However, I only make decisions based on knowns, not cynicism.
You being quick to explain away Fevs claims as being due to promoting a book is cynical at best, it's equally likely that he denied it in 2007 due to being on the clubs payroll at the time. Basing things on knowns would be acknowledging the claim rather than trying to discredit it.
Point out where I said that I believe we tanked? I don't think we did, we were a poor side.
I said I can understand others suspicions, not once did I say that I believe we actually did, there's a big difference.
The other people came forward after being leant on by the AFL investigators, which when reported was discussed as a first and somewhat controversial. If we were investigated in the same way would anything come up? Neither you nor I know the answer to that.
This is all going around in circles now so I'll leave it at that.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2000
Posts
74,150
Likes
53,121
Location
Ask me tomorrow
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Cronulla, Dallas Cowboys, Forest
Moderator #2,893
You being quick to explain away Fevs claims as being due to promoting a book is cynical at best, it's equally likely that he denied it in 2007 due to being on the clubs payroll at the time. Basing things on knowns would be acknowledging the claim rather than trying to discredit it.
Did you actually read what Fev claimed? He basically paraphrased what Libba said ... years after the fact. In 2007, he went to pains to talk about his injury concern against Collingwood but objectivity means we have to entertain the idea that he was saying so because he was on the payroll?

His later claims talk about how we always tag Johnstone but we didn't on this occasion and he talks about how he believes we may have tried to lose that game, while at the same time admitting he left at quarter time and went home. Seriously? Are we 50/50 on Fev's credibility there?

Point out where I said that I believe we tanked? I don't think we did, we were a poor side.
I said I can understand others suspicions, not once did I say that I believe we actually did, there's a big difference.
I never said you said we tanked. You are extrapolating. What you are doing is saying you can see why people think we might have, while saying we probably didn't, while trying to dismiss any contention that the evidence against us was not as compelling as what the Dees are facing. Having said that I have not labelled the Dees, preferring to let them have their process and defend themselves.

The other people came forward after being leant on by the AFL investigators, which when reported was discussed as a first and somewhat controversial. If we were investigated in the same way would anything come up? Neither you nor I know the answer to that.
This is all going around in circles now so I'll leave it at that.
How do you know who the AFL talked to in relation to Carlton at the time? Ratten is the only once that has volunteered that he was talked to and he only volunteered that this year. I just don't get the assumption that Carlton's investigation was a disingenuous one by the AFL and because Melbourne is now under investigation, that Carlton should not be privy to a 'proper' investigation. The circumstances are different, and the words used by witnesses are different. The implication that investigators acted all heavy to get Melbourne people to talk, whilst not even bothering to ask hard questions of Carlton is an assumption, and the more people say it, the more it grows legs and become fact.

Considering we have hundreds of opposition supporters repeating their mantras enough so that anybody new to the issues takes it as gospel, we'd do well to allow people to see our side from time to time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom