Sen today

[drusswaylander]

Absolutey i agree HBF. Change for the sake of change is not a good enough reason.

It's all so complicated. Change for change is not on. But then again, nor is keepign Smorgan and co just for the sake of being scared of change, if that makes sense.


Argh. I can't wait for it all to be over This has separated blues suporters like i've never seen before.


hmmm....I wonder how many goals no.4 and no.5 will kick for us this year...

I think the fact that our hopes were built up to a fever pitch that the white knights were finally going to bail us out..then to have our hopes dashed has contributed to the bitterness Also things become a bit tribal so people get personally involved with who they support and want to win at all cost. We don't want to do a Richmond with continually bitter elections that just splinter our club into more and more factions


I am only basing my vote on who I think has the most chance of getting any sort of Unity happening, plus who has more chance of tipping money into the coffers

I just can't see how Diggins or the whole DCT ticket can given their numbers unify us or have much money to tip in. The Unity ticket don't seem that United either, but I think they may have a better shot at it, even given past events More a hope than any sort of certainty. I think moneywise the Unity ticket are a far better option

Suss and Fiore leave me cold, so it will be out of Clarke and Littman to replace Diggins for me. I just can't see Diggins being able to work with a number of board members now, and if you are running a "keep the bastards honest campaign" you need to be able to come up with something better than I was too stunned to vote against something you disagree with or forget to ask for a vital document you have been chasing for the same reason There seems to be a lot of after the fact thinking with Diggins for me. Or someone more comfortable with sending emails than face to face confrontation.

A couple of months ago keeping Smorgon on board would not have been an option for me , but the alternative isn't the viable option I was led to believe we had.

Try not to confuse things with actual football AWG

 

[AndyWalkersGirl]

Originally Posted by AndyWalkersGirl
Absolutey i agree HBF. Change for the sake of change is not a good enough reason.

It's all so complicated. Change for change is not on. But then again, nor is keepign Smorgan and co just for the sake of being scared of change, if that makes sense.


Argh. I can't wait for it all to be over This has separated blues suporters like i've never seen before.


hmmm....I wonder how many goals no.4 and no.5 will kick for us this year...

Originally posted by drusswaylander
I think the fact that our hopes were built up to a fever pitch that the white knights were finally going to bail us out..then to have our hopes dashed has contributed to the bitternessAlso things become a bit tribal so people get personally involved with who they support and want to win at all cost. We don't want to do a Richmond with continually bitter elections that just splinter our club into more and more factions


I am only basing my vote on who I think has the most chance of getting any sort of Unity happening, plus who has more chance of tipping money into the coffers

I just can't see how Diggins or the whole DCT ticket can given their numbers unify us or have much money to tip in. The Unity ticket don't seem that United either, but I think they may have a better shot at it, even given past events More a hope than any sort of certainty. I think moneywise the Unity ticket are a far better option

Suss and Fiore leave me cold, so it will be out of Clarke and Littman to replace Diggins for me. I just can't see Diggins being able to work with a number of board members now, and if you are running a "keep the bastards honest campaign" you need to be able to come up with something better than I was too stunned to vote against something you disagree with or forget to ask for a vital document you have been chasing for the same reasonThere seems to be a lot of after the fact thinking with Diggins for me. Or someone more comfortable with sending emails than face to face confrontation.

A couple of months ago keeping Smorgon on board would not have been an option for me , but the alternative isn't the viable option I was led to believe we had.

Try not to confuse things with actual football AWG

Huh??

I dont get what you're on about

I wonder how many goals no.4 and no.5 will kick for us this year.... as in Gibbs and Kennedy. It was my nice break off of political topics

So tell me, how many do you think they will kick?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Plus, I really can't see how winfieldblue and denim undies consistute a minority whereas the person above somehow consistures a majority.

I believe there was more than one, that made comments that were probably unnecessary. The manner of the aggression was more than any of the posters from either side have demonstrated in all talks thus far. I found the line of questioning inflammatory and the type of question being asked not some that should be answered by two board newbies, and the inevitable long bow conclusions were wheeled out as a result. Answers were not sort for the purpose of education, questions were formed and conclusions drawn for the express purpose of discrediting.

Surely you don't expect me to think that all parties acted impartially with each thread? Again, nowhere did I say this applied to TC as a whole, however the sheer weight of the negative posts seemed largely disproportionate and more disrespectful than those that preceeded it, regardless of how many people it was coming from.

I can dissect it all if you like?

 

[drusswaylander]

Huh??

I dont get what you're on about

I wonder how many goals no.4 and no.5 will kick for us this year.... as in Gibbs and Kennedy. It was my nice break off of political topics

So tell me, how many do you think they will kick?

It wasn't a dig mate as I understood what you were getting at It was a poor attempt at a joke

Explaining it would only highlight it's failure to be even remotely funny

No.4 between 10 and 20 No.5 between 20 and 30

 

[AndyWalkersGirl]

haha Nah, i didn't think it was a dig, i just wasn't sure what you were on about.

Cough-please-work-on-your-jokes-cough

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

But that's what got the current board into power in the first place. And now the same people want them out just for the sake of change. Chances are they'll be saying the same thing about who they want in now in a few years.

On the back of our first wooden spoon from a finals position the year before and massive salary cap rorting, more than for the sake of change.

 

[Mordan]

I believe there was more than one, that made comments that were probably unnecessary. The manner of the aggression was more than any of the posters from either side have demonstrated in all talks thus far. I found the line of questioning inflammatory and the type of question being asked not some that should be answered by two board newbies, and the inevitable long bow conclusions were wheeled out as a result. Answers were not sort for the purpose of education, questions were formed and conclusions drawn for the express purpose of discrediting.

Surely you don't expect me to think that all parties acted impartially with each thread? Again, nowhere did I say this applied to TC as a whole, however the sheer weight of the negative posts seemed largely disproportionate and more disrespectful than those that preceeded it, regardless of how many people it was coming from.

I can dissect it all if you like?

That all parties acted impartially? Certainly not. All parties have an agenda.

Maybe we're on the same page, I just wanted to make it very clear that all parties were given a fair go. They were allowed to answer as they please, and all related questions were allowed. There was no censorship, or favouratism towards any point of view as part of the process.

Any lack of respect was only on an individual level, and I can't see how you could single out the questions to Moulton and Harrison when there were unfair, personal and downright silly questions asked of all parties.

There were no checks and balances on the number of questions, or type of questions asked of any party. Surely, you're not saying that there should have been? Are you really advocating censorship of the process? It would make a farce of the whole thing to introduce it in any way.

 

[mediumsizered]

I I just can't see Diggins being able to work with a number of board members now, and if you are running a "keep the bastards honest campaign" you need to be able to come up with something better than I was too stunned to vote against something you disagree with or forget to ask for a vital document you have been chasing for the same reason There seems to be a lot of after the fact thinking with Diggins for me. Or someone more comfortable with sending emails than face to face confrontation.

Keeping the 'bastards' honest worked for Don Chipp & the Democrats because they had the balance of power in the Senate. Since the Democrats lost the balance of power they have become quite irrelevant in the scheme of things. Lauraine Diggins will not be in a position to keep the 'bastards' honest as she will not have the balance of power on the board. Therefore she would also become irrelevant in the scheme of things.

 

[verbs]

That all parties acted impartially? Certainly not. All parties have an agenda.

Maybe we're on the same page, I just wanted to make it very clear that all parties were given a fair go. They were allowed to answer as they please, and all related questions were allowed. There was no censorship, or favouratism towards any point of view as part of the process.

Any lack of respect was only on an individual level, and I can't see how you could single out the questions to Moulton and Harrison when there were unfair, personal and downright silly questions asked of all parties.

There were no checks and balances on the number of questions, or type of questions asked of any party. Surely, you're not saying that there should have been? Are you really advocating censorship of the process? It would make a farce of the whole thing to introduce it in any way.

It never ceases to amaze me how personl bias (mine included) can blind someone to things which are blatantly obvious to others.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

There were no checks and balances on the number of questions, or type of questions asked of any party. Surely, you're not saying that there should have been? Are you really advocating censorship of the process? It would make a farce of the whole thing to introduce it in any way.

No, not advocating censorship of the process. I just feel that where there was a certain sense of decorum in the earlier Q&A sessions, 'with respect' 'I want to believe you but' etc etc, some people threw that approach out the window by having unrealistic expectations override what really was a fairly open and honest response from M&H IMO. They have only been on the board one month, they didn't outright back Malouf and Pagan if they are not performing, they expressed concerns they had about Smorgon and even pointed out an area they believe he needs to improve in. They outlined plans for revenue and gave an honest assessment of where the redevelopment proposal is at. They actually answered questions. The fact that there was no feasibility study carried out as yet for a proposal in its infancy, was not a reason in itself for people to be entirely dismissive and critical of the whole session.

Again, I did not condemn the whole process or every participant. It was dominated by a select couple or few however and those select couple of few did not in my opinion, afford the same respect they did to all that preceded, including Smorgon. Personally I think some heads should have been pulled in, because there was a bit of bravado and deflection to take away from the actual content of what M&H had to say.

It quite often takes a vocal minority to upset an applecart, and then sway others who come along for the ride.

I didn't know anything about M&H before and certainly was not a supporter of theirs. as I believe they are lone wolves who could jump ship at any time. I was actually impressed by what they were saying in comparision to ALL other participants so far, and wondered if I was reading the same thread when being told how it was a complete failure.

For the record, based on content, vision, openness I rated the four sessions this way:

Moulton and Harrison
Diggins
Smorgon
DCT

I'm not entirely agenda driven but displays such as the one I perceive the other night, do tend to send me in the other direction, by nature. Bandwagons don't impress me unless they are clear and irrefutable.

Cheers

 

[blues4flag]

^^^^ He'd just need to work on his disposal/kicking at goal before we even think of him in this role.

He went from 6 goals 1 behind in 2005 to 6.6 in 2006.