News Pyke Gone

[feenix67]

No he didn’t. Listen again. He said the standard clauses in the contract don’t require a termination payment. He gave a politicians answer that could have two meanings. The wool being pulled over everyone’s eyes again by the AFC.

Exactly right. Both he and Fagan made a point of saying the exact words "it wasn't a termination". Watch the AFL integrity unit swarm all over us next year.

 

[Samcro24]

Exactly right. Both he and Fagan made a point of saying the exact words "it wasn't a termination". Watch the AFL integrity unit swarm all over us next year.

It sounded dodgy as in the presser.

From memory, they asked Don, who ummed and shot a look to Chappy.

“It’s a resignation! No payout” says Chappy

#loopholes

Then said something like the payout terms were still being discussed with Don. FMD

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Here’s the original quote.

[quote ]
So can someone please reconcile for me the following two things that have been reported today:
1. Pyke stepping down is not related to the review that is in progress
2. Chapman saying on 5AA that now that Pyke has stepped down they expect the review to be completed earlier quote

Heres my follow up, correcting the wrong time. Feel free to listen for yourself.

[quote ]
So at 9.16 Chapman talks the review.
He hoped it would take 5-6 weeks, he's hopeful it can be concluded earlier particularly because of Dons decision so the club can move on. [/quote]

The initial post was clearly designed to incite certain posters who choose not to listen these interviews but react to their own agendas.

Point 2 is clearly and demonstrably wrong, Chapman doesn’t expect it to, he hopes it does so the club can move on. Chapman doesn’t control the review so his hope is just that.

More to the point, a review on the football department would include a review of the head coach and more than likely that would cover a number of days. Given there now is no coach, that part of the review is clearly going to be less.

Furthermore, Dons capacity to walk away from football has been commented on previously and in the context of why he might walk away.

In summary, my posting may have been clumsy, but I'm right and there is no need to reconcile those two points as they can happily co-exist. Oh and point 2 was wrong anyway.
[/QUOTE]
Nope. You are rewriting history. You denied Chapman said that the review might wrap up earlier because Don has resigned. I pointed you to that exact quote in the interview yet you still denied it.

You are a truth denier. Welcome to ignore.

 

[Big Crow]

Every time I listen to Chapman he sounds more and more like Donald Trump - i.e. spinning BS so unconvincingly it’s hard to think he believes himself.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

In the overall scheme of things... does it really ******* matter?

It does matter when people are outright lying Jen. Cap denied a point I made. I pointed them to the exact quote in the interview and they still denied it.

I don’t think it’s reasonable for people to feel they can lie and if they say it enough times expect others to believe it.

To me that sort of crap is ban worthy.

 

[MRB37]

No he didn’t. Listen again. He said the standard clauses in the contract don’t require a termination payment. He gave a politicians answer that could have two meanings. The wool being pulled over everyone’s eyes again by the AFC.

He said on 5AA "This is as a resignation and as such there is no payment that is required under the guidelines"

That's pretty clear.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

He said on 5AA "This is as a resignation and as such there is no payment that is required under the guidelines"

That's pretty clear.

Exactly. “There is no payment required under the guidelines”. Why use that terminology? Because perhaps they’re not going by the guidelines? Because they’ve agreed with Don that if he resigns they will provide some form of payout.

The language being used is politician speak. It is loose and leaves open the possibility that there actually is a payment.

There are no unequivocal statements being made by the club. I will be satisfied when I hear a response along the lines:

“There has been and will be no termination or similar payment made to Don following his resignation.”

The AFC doesn’t deserve our trust at this point and needs to be unequivocal from here on. No more politician speak.

 

[marty36]

He said on 5AA "This is as a resignation and as such there is no payment that is required under the guidelines"

That's pretty clear.

Not sure he can make it any clearer

 

[marty36]

Exactly. “There is no payment required under the guidelines”. Why use that terminology? Because perhaps they’re not going by the guidelines? Because they’ve agreed with Don that if he resigns they will provide some form of payout.

The language being used is politician speak. It is loose and leaves open the possibility that there actually is a payment.

There are no unequivocal statements being made by the club. I will be satisfied when I hear a response along the lines:

“There has been and will be no termination or similar payment made to Don following his resignation.”

The AFC doesn’t deserve our trust at this point and needs to be unequivocal from here on. No more politician speak.

This isn't the JFK assisination

Its not a conspiracy theory

He made it clear

"This is as a resignation and as such there is no payment that is required under the guidelines"

 

[jackster83]

Exactly. “There is no payment required under the guidelines”. Why use that terminology? Because perhaps they’re not going by the guidelines? Because they’ve agreed with Don that if he resigns they will provide some form of payout.

The language being used is politician speak. It is loose and leaves open the possibility that there actually is a payment.

There are no unequivocal statements being made by the club. I will be satisfied when I hear a response along the lines:

“There has been and will be no termination or similar payment made to Don following his resignation.”

The AFC doesn’t deserve our trust at this point and needs to be unequivocal from here on. No more politician speak.

There are no lingering issues from Don Pyke getting sacked.

 

[Cap]

It does matter when people are outright lying Jen. Cap denied a point I made. I pointed them to the exact quote in the interview and they still denied it.

I don’t think it’s reasonable for people to feel they can lie and if they say it enough times expect others to believe it.

To me that sort of crap is ban worthy.

Lol.

Not only did you misquote Chapman, you got the time of his comments wrong. You've been wrong the entire time.

Put me on ignore, that would be outstanding.

 

[jenny61_99]

First off, this board is about posters discussing and debating topics. In this instance Rory made a point and Cap said it was crap. I merely pointed out to Cap that he was wrong and he doubled down, hence the debate continues, that’s how it goes, if you don’t like how the board operates then you have options available to you.

On to your point about you picking up people so they “are half decent human beings”, can you see anything wrong with that? What if what you judge people as poor says more about you than us? Why is it your role to be this moral crusader? None of us asked to have a Nanny. There’s also the fact that quite often you’ve exposed yourself as a hypocrite, so really why would we listen to you anyway?

As I said, you’ve got options, but you don’t take them. You prefer instead to post in topics and threads where you know exactly the type of posts that are going to be posted, but you can’t help yourself.

That's funny. You justifying your obnoxious behaviour while cutting me down a peg or two for trying to raise standards. You weren't merely pointing out anything, you were bashing the crap [verbally] out of him until he submitted (props to him for not submitting). You see me as the very thing you actually are. I know I piss people off for picking them up for things. I make no apologies for that. You on the other hand, are oblivious to how much of a bully you can be.

 

[Betts are off]

No he didn’t. Listen again. He said the standard clauses in the contract don’t require a termination payment. He gave a politicians answer that could have two meanings. The wool being pulled over everyone’s eyes again by the AFC.

Correct. The thing you need to do with Chapman, is listen to the loophole's he keeps open with his comments.

For example "No there is no termination payment" to some people sounds like "There is no payment". But in reality he hasn't commented on any type of payment outside of "termination payment's", so later he can still say that he answered the question honestly.

Its like me and my mates drinking cocktail's all afternoon, and then my wife comes home and says "OMG, how many beers have you had, you're hammered" and then me responding with "I can honestly say i've had zero beers babe"..

Technically i'm not telling lies about the question she asked me, but its not exactly honest either!

 

[MRB37]

Exactly. “There is no payment required under the guidelines”. Why use that terminology? Because perhaps they’re not going by the guidelines? Because they’ve agreed with Don that if he resigns they will provide some form of payout.

The language being used is politician speak. It is loose and leaves open the possibility that there actually is a payment.

There are no unequivocal statements being made by the club. I will be satisfied when I hear a response along the lines:

“There has been and will be no termination or similar payment made to Don following his resignation.”

The AFC doesn’t deserve our trust at this point and needs to be unequivocal from here on. No more politician speak.

Because the guidelines dictate if a payment is required or not?

 

[DJ75]

This isn't the JFK assisination

Its not a conspiracy theory

He made it clear

"This is as a resignation and as such there is no payment that is required under the guidelines"

Chapman has a history of bending the truth. He says "there is no payment required under the guidelines".

He does not say "there will be no payment". There is a clear difference. Just because he 'resigned', something I'm sure we helped him with, means that technically we don't have to pay him. That doesn't mean we haven't come to an agreement though.

Why the ambiguity in everyone of his answers around this? Because he knows that if it comes out that we are paying him out in a deal of some kind, the decision of the management to re-contract Pyke (and Sanderson) before then having to pay them out, will cause more questions about the management of the club. It's a deliberate mistruth.

 

[jenny61_99]

Chapman has a history of bending the truth. He says "there is no payment required under the guidelines".

He does not say "there will be no payment". There is a clear difference. Just because he 'resigned', something I'm sure we helped him with, means that technically we don't have to pay him. That doesn't mean we haven't come to an agreement though.

Why the ambiguity in everyone of his answers around this? Because he knows that if it comes out that we are paying him out in a deal of some kind, the decision of the management to re-contract Pyke (and Sanderson) before then having to pay them out, will cause more questions about the management of the club. It's a deliberate mistruth.

It could also mean the difference between being included in the soft cap spend and not.

 

[Jarman3]

Has the AFC got a perennial problem of the tail wagging the dog as far as coaches are concerned ?

Excluding PHIL Walsh, the only one to emerge unscathed (not counting Pykey at this stage) from the list is Blight, And he kicked arse when he started so as to ram home who was the boss!

Not in order Cornes
Shaw
Ayers
Bickley
Craig
Campo
Blight
Sanderson
Walsh
Pyke

How many of these were sacked ? Cos almost none have gone on to bigger and better things. The AFC graveyard.

How many coaches from ANY club leave any way other than being sacked, or getting in a pre-emptive resignation to beat the sack once the writing is on the wall? Very few, I'd suggest. And what are the "bigger and better things" for an AFL coach to go on to afterwards? When you're senior coach of an AFL club, there is no "bigger and better thing". That is the top of the mountain. After that the only direction you CAN go is down, either to the media, a senior assistant or football manager / admin role, or senior coach of a team at a lower level ie SANFL / VFL / WAFL.

 

[marty36]

Chapman has a history of bending the truth. He says "there is no payment required under the guidelines".

He does not say "there will be no payment". There is a clear difference. Just because he 'resigned', something I'm sure we helped him with, means that technically we don't have to pay him. That doesn't mean we haven't come to an agreement though.

Why the ambiguity in everyone of his answers around this? Because he knows that if it comes out that we are paying him out in a deal of some kind, the decision of the management to re-contract Pyke (and Sanderson) before then having to pay them out, will cause more questions about the management of the club. It's a deliberate mistruth.

Not into conspiracy theories

You must enjoy that show the black list

 

[feenix67]

Chapman has a history of bending the truth. He says "there is no payment required under the guidelines".

He does not say "there will be no payment". There is a clear difference. Just because he 'resigned', something I'm sure we helped him with, means that technically we don't have to pay him. That doesn't mean we haven't come to an agreement though.

Why the ambiguity in everyone of his answers around this? Because he knows that if it comes out that we are paying him out in a deal of some kind, the decision of the management to re-contract Pyke (and Sanderson) before then having to pay them out, will cause more questions about the management of the club. It's a deliberate mistruth.

Not only that, it will cause soft cap issues

 

[Elite Crow]

That's funny. You justifying your obnoxious behaviour while cutting me down a peg or two for trying to raise standards. You weren't merely pointing out anything, you were bashing the crap [verbally] out of him until he submitted (props to him for not submitting). You see me as the very thing you actually are. I know I piss people off for picking them up for things. I make no apologies for that. You on the other hand, are oblivious to how much of a bully you can be.

You do know Cap called another posters comments crap don’t you? Even though he was wrong he doubled down. Interesting you support that type of posting.

I’m a Nanny? Haha, that’s funny. I don’t try and act as some moral crusader, I have differences of opinion and debate them. You on the other hand by your own words try to get posters to fit into what you classify as a “decent human being”. You tell us off and you even admit you know it pisses people off but you continue. You are exactly what you accuse me of, a bully, but you’re just a hypocritical nagging one.

 

[arrowman]

Exactly. “There is no payment required under the guidelines”. Why use that terminology? Because perhaps they’re not going by the guidelines? Because they’ve agreed with Don that if he resigns they will provide some form of payout.

I think it's just a case of someone using more words than necessary, not that they're being deceptive or dodgy. A problem that I can recognise because I've done it myself.

"It's a resignation, there is no payout required." "The guidelines", whatever they are, may well be relevant internally but they're not relevant to the statement.

I think they (esp Chapman) have initially fumbled this, but they're being very clear now. My god, if there's any kind of payout after this they would be in very deep schtum with the media and the fans.

Heck, I'd have no problem with a small payout, it wouldn't be a big deal to say that. But if you're going to say unequivocally "no payout" that'd better damn well be true.

 

[Scorpus]

The AFL will be all over our "not a termination payment" either way. There is zero chance we can get away with it

 

[jenny61_99]

You do know Cap called another posters comments crap don’t you? Even though he was wrong he doubled down. Interesting you support that type of posting.

I’m a Nanny? Haha, that’s funny. I don’t try and act as some moral crusader, I have differences of opinion and debate them. You on the other hand by your own words try to get posters to fit into what you classify as a “decent human being”. You tell us off and you even admit you know it pisses people off but you continue. You are exactly what you accuse me of, a bully, but you’re just a hypocritical nagging one.

None so blind as those that refuse to see. That argument had nothing to do with you. But by god you were going to get in the last word. You are the biggest hypocrite of them all.

 

[Deaneus!]

The AFL will be all over our "not a termination payment" either way. There is zero chance we can get away with it

Penalty - surrender this and next year's first round draft picks

 

[Deaneus!]

Which just makes me think, how the **** did Trigg survive costing us 6 first and second round draft picks?

There's our premiership. That's where it went.