Spike McVeigh Was Great

[Billy Demon]

Channel 7 panel was served well by Spike McVeigh tonight. While that clown Mark Stevens is obviously gunning for James Hird, McVeigh nicely slapped him and Luke Darcy down on more than one occasion. Add Caroline Wilson with her articles and comments over the last 6 months and James Hird has done well to contain himself. If I was Hird I would have a long memory and never forget who the snipers were through this whole episode. James, don't get angry, but one day get even.

 

[MARC_]

 

[efcboy]

I liked the way McVeigh called the weapon out on contradictions - his initial words of trusting dank to then be fuming at him for not telling the truth about unauthorised transactions.

 

[the harry]

Am I allowed to post here mods?

Just wanted to say Spike did pretty well and that I think you blokes will be able to admit that Dank was given too much freedom and that governance may have fallen short, but the only intent (of the people that matter) was to do all that was legal and able to be done to perform better.

I'm actually more confident in Hird staying on than before. If the best they can do is say Hird wanted to push limits (wanting to investigate creams ect) but not break them (email saying check everything/must all be legal) then he's pretty safe IMO.

Oh and had to laugh about Zaharakis and in turn the comments about if he has had pain killers in matches, I personally hate needles too to the point I can't give blood, but I've had to have stiches in my brow when needed and things like that. Stevens is just a clown really.

Good luck with it guys.

 

[Doss]

the harry, you're fine here, mate.

Good post, too. I don't think you'd find many, if any, who would disagree with your first paragraph.

 

[aussierulesrules]

I'm actually more confident in Hird staying on than before. If the best they can do is say Hird wanted to push limits (wanting to investigate creams ect) but not break them (email saying check everything/must all be legal) then he's pretty safe IMO.

And yet it would appear that Robinson was no different in that regard (including having apparently come from 3 very successfully years at Geelong where Ling said last night none of this sort of stuff was going on, which suggests that this was something that Essendon were pushing for, hence them apparently seeking out someone like Dank, to go with Robinson) and yet Robinson was stood down immediately when all the shit hit the fan and then later that day or whatever Hird came out in that press conference and took "full responsibility" for what was going on in his football department and yet continues to keep his job, despite seemingly being well aware of most, if not all, of what was going on, as evidenced by text messages and so on that have since come to light.

That is why so many are saying that Robinson was the "scapegoat", because he was immediately stood down, with according to him, no explanation of why, when all this came to light, while Hird, who claimed "full responsibility", receives nothing but the full support of the EFC.

I don't believe that Hird set out to do anything against the rules, but I don't believe Robinson did either and yet, as I said, one was immediately stood down (apparently without explanation) and has since been ostracised from the club, while the other receives nothing but the full support and adulation from the club and keeps his job, despite supposedly taking "full responsibility" for the situation.

Doesn't seem right at all. Every club would probably do it this way, to protect their "favourite son", but that doesn't make it right.

 

[grugsticles]

And yet it would appear that Robinson was no different in that regard (including having apparently come from 3 very successfully years at Geelong where Ling said last night none of this sort of stuff was going on, which suggests that this was something that Essendon were pushing for, hence them apparently seeking out someone like Dank, to go with Robinson) and yet Robinson was stood down immediately when all the shit hit the fan and then later that day or whatever Hird came out in that press conference and took "full responsibility" for what was going on in his football department and yet continues to keep his job, despite seemingly being well aware of most, if not all, of what was going on, as evidenced by text messages and so on that have since come to light.

That is why so many are saying that Robinson was the "scapegoat", because he was immediately stood down, with according to him, no explanation of why, when all this came to light, while Hird, who claimed "full responsibility", receives nothing but the full support of the EFC.

I don't believe that Hird set out to do anything against the rules, but I don't believe Robinson did either and yet, as I said, one was immediately stood down (apparently without explanation) and has since been ostracised from the club, while the other receives nothing but the full support and adulation from the club and keeps his job, despite supposedly taking "full responsibility" for the situation.

Doesn't seem right at all. Every club would probably do it this way, to protect their "favourite son", but that doesn't make it right.

Mark Robinson said something the other night on AFL360 that got me thinking.
Obviously he knows more about the whole situation than he is allowed to talk about until the investigations are over, as its his job to get as much factual information as possible and report on it (ahem, Caro!!!).
He said something along the lines of 'sometimes you can get many different sides to a story that just dont match up, yet at the end of the day, they do match up even if the story recollections from different individuals differ from each other'.
At the time that stuck out at me and I didnt understand it, but going from Dean Robinsons interview I think that perhaps DR's side of events isnt going to mate up 100% completely with the EFC side and yet both arnt false.
I guess its a game of Chinese Whispers in a way - you start with one series of events, and by the end you have differing opinions and recollections from different people as to what happened.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

That is why so many are saying that Robinson was the "scapegoat", because he was immediately stood down, with according to him, no explanation of why, when all this came to light, while Hird, who claimed "full responsibility", receives nothing but the full support of the EFC.

He's a "scapegoat" who was effectively shielded from the wrath of the media when they called from his head. He has come under next to no scrutiny from the media and public since this all came to light. It was initially Thompson, but it's been Hird in the gun since what, March? All this bullshit about Hird getting away scott-free is quite mad - pick up a paper any day of the week if you want to watch his name getting dragged through the mud.

 

[Despair]

I don't believe that Hird set out to do anything against the rules, but I don't believe Robinson did either and yet, as I said, one was immediately stood down (apparently without explanation) and has since been ostracised from the club, while the other receives nothing but the full support and adulation from the club and keeps his job, despite supposedly taking "full responsibility" for the situation.

The thing I can't get my head around is - most people (non-EFC supporters) are saying that James Hird is not holding himself responsible just because he won't resign. When you honestly believe you have done nothing wrong and will be cleared why would you resign? That would be an admission of guilt and would forever tarnish not only his name but also the clubs.

I'm pretty sure we are going to be okay - there would be cause for concern if James Hird actually DID resign, then you'd know we were f*^ked.

 

[lysp]

Mark Robinson said something the other night on AFL360 that got me thinking.
Obviously he knows more about the whole situation than he is allowed to talk about until the investigations are over, as its his job to get as much factual information as possible and report on it (ahem, Caro!!!).
He said something along the lines of 'sometimes you can get many different sides to a story that just dont match up, yet at the end of the day, they do match up even if the story recollections from different individuals differ from each other'.
At the time that stuck out at me and I didnt understand it, but going from Dean Robinsons interview I think that perhaps DR's side of events isnt going to mate up 100% completely with the EFC side and yet both arnt false.
I guess its a game of Chinese Whispers in a way - you start with one series of events, and by the end you have differing opinions and recollections from different people as to what happened.

It's very possible for 2 sides to tell the truth where it seems like someone is lying. Take for example the hird comments about evan's phone call with AD.

This is just a scenario (may be totally off).

Evans and AD talk about situation occuring, AD doesn't meantion ACC investigation.

Evans comes back and tells group that he just spoke to AD and they might be under investigation.

AD didn't give away details of ACC.

Hird assumed AD tipped Evan's off, also can back up that due to hindsight in knowing what followed.

But because he didn't actually hear the converstation and the context of it, he doesn't know exact details.

Both think they are telling the truth and aren't lying - it's just they don't know 100% of the details, so can't make a completely informed comment about what happened.

I don't believe that Hird set out to do anything against the rules, but I don't believe Robinson did either and yet, as I said, one was immediately stood down (apparently without explanation) and has since been ostracised from the club, while the other receives nothing but the full support and adulation from the club and keeps his job, despite supposedly taking "full responsibility" for the situation.

Doesn't seem right at all. Every club would probably do it this way, to protect their "favourite son", but that doesn't make it right.

It's possible that it may have been related to last years performance and injuries. They wanted to get rid of him and this was just the excuse to allow them to push forward with that agenda.

 

[yaco55]

And yet it would appear that Robinson was no different in that regard (including having apparently come from 3 very successfully years at Geelong where Ling said last night none of this sort of stuff was going on, which suggests that this was something that Essendon were pushing for, hence them apparently seeking out someone like Dank, to go with Robinson) and yet Robinson was stood down immediately when all the shit hit the fan and then later that day or whatever Hird came out in that press conference and took "full responsibility" for what was going on in his football department and yet continues to keep his job, despite seemingly being well aware of most, if not all, of what was going on, as evidenced by text messages and so on that have since come to light.

That is why so many are saying that Robinson was the "scapegoat", because he was immediately stood down, with according to him, no explanation of why, when all this came to light, while Hird, who claimed "full responsibility", receives nothing but the full support of the EFC.

I don't believe that Hird set out to do anything against the rules, but I don't believe Robinson did either and yet, as I said, one was immediately stood down (apparently without explanation) and has since been ostracised from the club, while the other receives nothing but the full support and adulation from the club and keeps his job, despite supposedly taking "full responsibility" for the situation.

Doesn't seem right at all. Every club would probably do it this way, to protect their "favourite son", but that doesn't make it right.

You are missing several key points

Robinson headed up a fitness/conditioning program that was a failure on several fronts

- Record number of soft tissue injuries
- Players/coach losing faith in his program
- over-spend on budget.

And Robinson was moved sideways towards the end of 2012 - Probably to a position that suited his skill set.

Robinson being stood down on full pay - This happened on the day that EFC self-reported to ASADA - The day before, Fairfax was all-ready to go to print with an article detailing EFC's supplement' program for 2012 - Note that Robinson was the only employee stood down - It could be coincidence ? But we know that Robinson had some type of relationship with Caro post his stand-down.

To be honest, Robinson was lucky to keep his job for so long.

And Robinson resigned from his job so that he could take up the paid interview with Channel 7.

 

[cheppe89]

I

And yet it would appear that Robinson was no different in that regard (including having apparently come from 3 very successfully years at Geelong where Ling said last night none of this sort of stuff was going on, which suggests that this was something that Essendon were pushing for, hence them apparently seeking out someone like Dank, to go with Robinson) and yet Robinson was stood down immediately when all the shit hit the fan and then later that day or whatever Hird came out in that press conference and took "full responsibility" for what was going on in his football department and yet continues to keep his job, despite seemingly being well aware of most, if not all, of what was going on, as evidenced by text messages and so on that have since come to light.

That is why so many are saying that Robinson was the "scapegoat", because he was immediately stood down, with according to him, no explanation of why, when all this came to light, while Hird, who claimed "full responsibility", receives nothing but the full support of the EFC.

I don't believe that Hird set out to do anything against the rules, but I don't believe Robinson did either and yet, as I said, one was immediately stood down (apparently without explanation) and has since been ostracised from the club, while the other receives nothing but the full support and adulation from the club and keeps his job, despite supposedly taking "full responsibility" for the situation.

Doesn't seem right at all. Every club would probably do it this way, to protect their "favourite son", but that doesn't make it right.

If robinson had built the reputation like hird has over 20 years i'm sure he would have got more support. Hird played for 15 years with pretty much a perfect career. Then these 2 blokes (dank and robinson) come to the club and fast forward 12 months, look where the club is!! Amazing why people still can't see why Essendon threw them out!