Random Random thoughts and discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

kulak said:
We need our own Eddie Maguire, who fights rhetoric with rhetoric. Responding "well actually Eddie there are numerous factual errors in your statement" will have zero impact.
Click to expand...
We had that with Sheeds. The perfect first coach and ambassador.

We can still count on him to stand up for us in Victoria.
 
The problem is that Eddie has one of the biggest microphones in the AFL heartland - where the commission lives and meets, where the media are based. Even if we had someone who fights rhetoric with rhetoric, Eddie can get out there every day and spout his BS.
 
I'm not convinced trying to match him is the answer. It would always be catch up. To state the obvious we are a wholly owned subsidiary of the AFL and have influence where it counts.May also mean we have to do what we're told in some instances. Collingwoods position is the opposite and Eddie is forced to fight in public, I dont beleive with his record he will be popular within the system.
Maybe we have to let it happen, if the alternative is to compromise the club's integrity.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Bokonon said:
I'm not convinced trying to match him is the answer. It would always be catch up. To state the obvious we are a wholly owned subsidiary of the AFL and have influence where it counts.May also mean we have to do what we're told in some instances. Collingwoods position is the opposite and Eddie is forced to fight in public, I dont beleive with his record he will be popular within the system.
Maybe we have to let it happen, if the alternative is to compromise the club's integrity.
Click to expand...
Kind of like patting him on the head while smiling condescendingly and saying, "Yes, Eddie. Another great idea. Don't you have to tape a game show now?"
 
Bokonon said:
I'm not convinced trying to match him is the answer. It would always be catch up.
Click to expand...

I'm with you so far.

Bokonon said:
To state the obvious we are a wholly owned subsidiary of the AFL and have influence where it counts.
Click to expand...

Not nearly so convinced right about here. Until Gabrielle Trainor's appointment to the Commission this year we had no voice at all. We were largely approached as a puppet to do what they're told, which is why Tony Shepherd and David Matthews were frequently pushing our case in the media when some stupidity was unfolding.

The current AFL commission and their teams:

Mike Fitzpatrick - Carlton.
Gillon McLachlan - Carlton.
Richard Goyder - Fremantle.
Paul Bassat - St Kilda.
Kim Williams - ???
Simone Wilkie - ???
Jason Ball - Sydney.
Andrew Newbold - Hawthorn.
Gabrielle Trainor - GWS/North Melbourne.

Bokonon said:
May also mean we have to do what we're told in some instances.
Collingwoods position is the opposite and Eddie is forced to fight in public, I dont beleive with his record he will be popular within the system.
Maybe we have to let it happen, if the alternative is to compromise the club's integrity.
Click to expand...

Eddie might not be popular, but his positions are pure populism within the Victorian echo chamber. Knock down Brisbane because they were too successful. Knock down Sydney because they were and are too successful. Knock down GWS because they are too successful. I can't think of any time he went up against Hawthorn, even though they've been as or more successful than any of the above because he knows his audience.

His Melbourne-based audience want their teams to win, not some "foreign" team. That audience, unfortunately, also tends to be who the AFL media - based out of Melbourne - want to pander to, and hence they're the audience that can exert pressure on the AFL most readily.

Want proof?

"The AFL has launched an investigation into the recent failure of Victorian clubs to win a grand final.

It has been seven years since a Victorian-based club won a premiership, when the Bombers triumphed in 2000."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-05-27/interstate-afl-dominance-leads-to-investigation/2560448

That was in 2007.

It's now 2016.

I must have missed the announcement of the investigation into the failure of non-Victorian clubs, despite winning only one premiership in the subsequent ten years.
 
dlanod said:
I'm with you so far.



Not nearly so convinced right about here. Until Gabrielle Trainor's appointment to the Commission this year we had no voice at all. We were largely approached as a puppet to do what they're told, which is why Tony Shepherd and David Matthews were frequently pushing our case in the media when some stupidity was unfolding.

The current AFL commission and their teams:

Mike Fitzpatrick - Carlton.
Gillon McLachlan - Carlton.
Richard Goyder - Fremantle.
Paul Bassat - St Kilda.
Kim Williams - ???
Simone Wilkie - ???
Jason Ball - Sydney.
Andrew Newbold - Hawthorn.
Gabrielle Trainor - GWS/North Melbourne.



Eddie might not be popular, but his positions are pure populism within the Victorian echo chamber. Knock down Brisbane because they were too successful. Knock down Sydney because they were and are too successful. Knock down GWS because they are too successful. I can't think of any time he went up against Hawthorn, even though they've been as or more successful than any of the above because he knows his audience.

His Melbourne-based audience want their teams to win, not some "foreign" team. That audience, unfortunately, also tends to be who the AFL media - based out of Melbourne - want to pander to, and hence they're the audience that can exert pressure on the AFL most readily.

Want proof?

"The AFL has launched an investigation into the recent failure of Victorian clubs to win a grand final.

It has been seven years since a Victorian-based club won a premiership, when the Bombers triumphed in 2000."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-05-27/interstate-afl-dominance-leads-to-investigation/2560448

That was in 2007.

It's now 2016.

I must have missed the announcement of the investigation into the failure of non-Victorian clubs, despite winning only one premiership in the subsequent ten years.
Click to expand...
I actually beleive we do have infuence, because there is some truth in the VFL argument the AFL is committed to our long term success. This leads to a confuence of interests. I do get as I said sometimes we have to do what we're told in return.
I don't believe in general the moving of a board member from us to the AFL is significant.. The reality of these situations and human nature is often the individual is too keen to show no bias from previous perspectives. Without specific data I will go with my experience in setting my expectations of what will happen.
I agree totally the club needs to put it's point of view out there. I was responding to a suggestion we shoukd try and match Eddies populist tactics, and I do think that's a mistake.
I dont disagree it's potentially damaging just that it may be best to accept it will happen and fight it in the system.
It's my opinion as to the best tactic, that's all. I share the outrage at the rubbish he says.
 
If Eddie held any actual sway, I'd be worried. Does he? Being the President of the AFL's biggest club is by no means a small thing, but does any of his chest-thumping make a lick of difference in the grand scheme of things?

I've heard before that he's campaigned against Brisbane and recently against Sydney because they were successful. Was his campain, in and of itself, the reason for why certain results he was after came to fruition? Or were they simply considered and adopted by the AFL independently and on their own merits?

If we win the flag next year, Eddie will probably be joined by half a dozen other Victorian presidents having a massive sook about our succesess. As a result, the AFL will probably cave in and try to appease them.

Surely they won't remove our zones because that would be counter-productive when we've been tasked to grow these zones by our presence. But, as Eddie has suggested, if we become too successful I have a bad feeling that we may get hamstrung somehow. :(
 
Giant Heart said:
If Eddie held any actual sway, I'd be worried. Does he? Being the President of the AFL's biggest club is by no means a small thing, but does any of his chest-thumping make a lick of difference in the grand scheme of things?

I've heard before that he's campaigned against Brisbane and recently against Sydney because they were successful. Was his campain, in and of itself, the reason for why certain results he was after came to fruition? Or were they simply considered and adopted by the AFL independently and on their own merits?
Click to expand...

The AFL won't and doesn't make changes until there is external pressure to do so. Eddie can help kickstart that pressure and keep it in the media. It's not like he's a huge mastermind, but he has a big mouth and a big microphone and like guys like Alan Jones and John Laws used to in Sydney, he helps frame and push issues - in his case, specifically regarding the AFL and even more specifically to remove equitable measures that his club is unable to take advantage of.

Giant Heart said:
If we win the flag next year, Eddie will probably be joined by half a dozen other Victorian presidents having a massive sook about our succesess. As a result, the AFL will probably cave in and try to appease them.

Surely they won't remove our zones because that would be counter-productive when we've been tasked to grow these zones by our presence. But, as Eddie has suggested, if we become too successful I have a bad feeling that we may get hamstrung somehow. :(
Click to expand...

Yep. Which is exactly what happened with retention allowances, zone selections, COLA and more.
 
McGuire's unhinged rant re the draft is a sign that his position at the Pies is a lot weaker than it appears in the media.

Like a petty dictator in the final days of his regime, his comments are designed to distract increasingly angry Pie's sponsors and members that may well force his humiliating resignation during the 2017 season.

Eddie is already on 'two strikes' with his track record of disgraceful attacks on women (Channel 9 staff or Caro, take your pick) and Aborigines (Goodes), respectively.

The reality is that the Dog's flag has shone a spotlight of harsh truth on the catastrophic failure of McGuire and Bucks and brought their 'third strike and out' into play.

If the Dogs can win a premiership against us, the Pies should have and be winning plenty. McGuire conveniently doesn't mention in his diatribe that we've NEVER beaten the Pies.

If McGuire wants to find the real problem at the Pies, look no further than a mirror. However, he's playing Pies members for fools....
 
Ichabod Noodle said:
Anyone else find it.... ironic... the Sam Frost went back to Melbourne to be closer to his family and now his brother is buggering off to Brisbane?
Click to expand...

Jack's less fond of Sam than vice versa. :D
 
dlanod said:
The AFL won't and doesn't make changes until there is external pressure to do so. Eddie can help kickstart that pressure and keep it in the media. It's not like he's a huge mastermind, but he has a big mouth and a big microphone and like guys like Alan Jones and John Laws used to in Sydney, he helps frame and push issues - in his case, specifically regarding the AFL and even more specifically to remove equitable measures that his club is unable to take advantage of.



Yep. Which is exactly what happened with retention allowances, zone selections, COLA and more.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I'm not really up with this stuff like you guys are. So basically in the AFL landscape "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"? If you're a loud buffoon with a lot of moronic supporters to manipulate and get on board with your agenda, the AFL will find you too irresistible to ignore?

As for Sydney, my rudimentary understanding of the situation was that it was partly their success which saw them stripped of their concessions, and partly because instead of distributing COLA evenly across the playing group they just banked it and used it to lure Buddy.

This obviously cheesed off the AFL as it was the AFL's intention to see to it that Buddy would play for GWS and not Sydney. I've heard that it was out of spite that the AFL did this. Of course that's just supposition and probably unfounded, but it's nonetheless what I've been told.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I may be a bit naive here, but my understanding is Eddie wants to lock us out of 2 drafts, but we can still pick up academy players.

Isn't that effectively what we did last year? We cashed out all our high draft picks for lower ones so we could get points, just so we could pick up academy kids.

If the AFL hadn't made any changes, we would have almost certainly done the same thing this year.

That would mean 2 consecutive drafts where we only picked up academy players.

So what is Eddie whining about?
 
Drezdyn said:
I may be a bit naive here, but my understanding is Eddie wants to lock us out of 2 drafts, but we can still pick up academy players.

Isn't that effectively what we did last year? We cashed out all our high draft picks for lower ones so we could get points, just so we could pick up academy kids.

If the AFL hadn't made any changes, we would have almost certainly done the same thing this year.

That would mean 2 consecutive drafts where we only picked up academy players.

So what is Eddie whining about?
Click to expand...
He wants the academy boys open to everyone but we can only get academy boys that haven't been taken by the vics
 
Giant Strides said:
Yep, so if the academy boys are good - he wants everyone to have access. If they're not so good and we want to take a good Victorian kid, he wants us restricted to academy kids - that have been picked over. Perfect Eddie logic, actually! For Victorians.
Click to expand...
If that's true then he can go shove it! What a peanut.
 
He knows the smoke and mirrors technique. Like ClockworkOrange mentioned, throwing around the "A" word is a distractive subtext for his club's recent average performance.
What he says about Acadamies is usually borderline insulting but always meaningless.
Logically he'll know the more players the Northern Acadamies produce, the more players are available to draft. But that doesn't help his team in the short term.
 
Didnt Eddie also kick up a massive stink over Cost of Living Allowance for the Swans (and therefore, us)? Most of what he seems to say is making it an Us vs Them for those south of the border. He feels like a Donald Trump in how he speaks by saying that if we come into the competition, we'll take all the jobs and screw up the economy (among other things).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top