Opinion Voting Paul Little out

[windyhill]

How is it staggering? Z Merrett is basically a first rounder given his ability anyway. And next draft we do have a first round pick. Assuming we win the flag it would be the same pick anyway!

You assume we'll win the flag and I'll assume we'll miss a gun.

 

[The Prosecutor]

Seriously, you think that Evans didn't feel entitled to be in the box-seat for Vlad's job, given the grooming and direction he was being given? That

When asked to lie , if directly questioned, is fatally compromising. Ethically, Jimmy won't lie to protect vested interests. This is the root of all the angst.

You really think Evans was positiong himself to be CEO of the AFL?

LOL, he was never being groomed for that in the slightest.

Jimmy and ethical? Please. My angst on this is that Hird leaked this information to the media and he didn't care if it brought down our Chairman and supposedly good friend as long as he scored some points against Vlad. And you want to talk about ethics?

Your are overlooking the fact that it was David Evans in conjunction with the AFL who brought in Ziggy for the Switkowski report which has been used to punish the club. By making this move he also opened the door for the AFL to join the investigation. Evans has more to answer for than anyone currently and is making less noise than Humphrey B Bear on the saga. Weak man

Well shit, since no one in the club had any real idea what happened, these reports are damn well necessary and the members would've been baying for blood if the findings weren't released.

Weak man? He gave everything for this club until a supposed friend decided to ****ing him over on a public stage.

Is Hird also a weak man? After all, I'm still waiting to hear his promised side of the story and why we're going to be in a good place. But nope, all we get from the Hird camp is that "I signed this deal, but I was bullied! Won't mention specifics though, but I was bullied I tells ya!".

 

[cymarak]

For me, Little had a shocker of a week.

Unless there's some secret agenda that we aren't being told about - which is obviously possible, given that truth and transparency are light on the ground these days - he badly botched the Tania Hird interview issue. Poured petrol on a dying fire and then acted as if the distractions were all of the Hirds' doing.

However, until we know more about what was behind that - perhaps he's just a meek mouthpiece for the board, who all need to go ? - and until there's a viable candidate to replace him, I wouldn't be up for voting him out. He's a very poor public performer, but I don't know of too many who'd be happy to take over instead.

IMHO, on his public performance to date does he deserve to be chairman ? No. Should we replace him now ? No.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Not saying that, but he certainly set the ball rolling.

Suggesting that Watson should be culpable for any of this is the equivalent of blaming Bomber for the misdeeds of Dank because Bomber was keen on Robinson.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

You really think Evans was positiong himself to be CEO of the AFL?

LOL, he was never being groomed for that in the slightest.

Jimmy and ethical? Please. My angst on this is that Hird leaked this information to the media and he didn't care if it brought down our Chairman and supposedly good friend as long as he scored some points against Vlad. And you want to talk about ethics?

You mean the supposedly good friend who was working to scapegoat him?

 

[Doss]

Not saying that, but he certainly set the ball rolling.

I doubt Timmy would have foreseen any of this happening, just quietly.

The question of whether he actually has the necessary skills to be a chairman is a more important one to consider than whether he had any role in this mess. Because, he really didn't. He helped get Hird and Bomber in. After that, he didn't make any decisions.

 

[flintandtas]

I think you are underestimating the frustration felt by the board and the players regarding the Hird(s) comments.

Goddard yesterday was quite clear that the players see public comments from the Hird camp as an unnecessary distraction.

If the board felt the Hird rebuke needed to be aired publicly, then so be it.

The board needed to publicly diffuse the situation and handle it privately. The impact on the players would have been far less if it was handled that way. Instead they fanned the flames on the situation and made it publicly at least, a much bigger situation than it need to be.

If you are going to argue in favour of the boards decision, at least give one reason on why you think it was the best course of action. All you've stated is that the because the board decided that it must be good. Why do you think a public rebuke was a good way of handling it? What possible benefits came out of doing it publicly?

 

[Phone]

I'm not really sure how you can go through this mess, and then say hire Watson as chairman or something. Like, come on.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I'm not really sure how you can go through this mess, and then say hire Watson as chairman or something. Like, come on.

Watson would be a good chairman if and only if we had a totally divided fanbase and he was surrounded by a genuine top drawer CEO and a couple of shrewd people on the board such as Costello.

 

[efcboy]

You assume we'll win the flag and I'll assume we'll miss a gun.

Tongue in cheek re flag. We picked up a gun in Z Merrett at 26. We have a 1st round pick this year so why won't we pick up another gun?

Meanwhile Carlton can have Yarran!

The biggest penalty is the reputation of club and those in it. That's why the truth has to come out

 

[efcboy]

You really think Evans was positiong himself to be CEO of the AFL?

LOL, he was never being groomed for that in the slightest.

Jimmy and ethical? Please. My angst on this is that Hird leaked this information to the media and he didn't care if it brought down our Chairman and supposedly good friend as long as he scored some points against Vlad. And you want to talk about ethics?



Well shit, since no one in the club had any real idea what happened, these reports are damn well necessary and the members would've been baying for blood if the findings weren't released.

Weak man? He gave everything for this club until a supposed friend decided to ******* him over on a public stage.

Is Hird also a weak man? After all, I'm still waiting to hear his promised side of the story and why we're going to be in a good place. But nope, all we get from the Hird camp is that "I signed this deal, but I was bullied! Won't mention specifics though, but I was bullied I tells ya!".

You're still believing the governance agenda. How many of the other 17 teams needed a Switkowski report to assess their club? Apparently 11 other clubs have issues but they have NOT initiated an internal investigation exaggerating governance issues have they? Are those fans baying for blood? Nah they're busy persecuting EFC instead as a result of this farce that Evans created.

 

[BigJoeD_]

If you are going to argue in favour of the boards decision, at least give one reason on why you think it was the best course of action. All you've stated is that the because the board decided that it must be good. Why do you think a public rebuke was a good way of handling it? What possible benefits came out of doing it publicly?

If you read into Little's comments it appears the board has spoken to Hird previously about keeping a low profile - clearly the message went unheaded.

Hopefully it won't now.

 

[Phone]

but why wouldn't you just make Costello the chairman then.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

but why wouldn't you just make Costello the chairman then.

You need some sort of rallying point if you've got a fanbase turning on itself. Port got a complete buffoon with a bit of profile in to be the figurehead while the shrewd operators like Thomas do the real rebuilding.

 

[Phone]

I don't really think we have to worry about the fanbase continuing to turn on itself though. One way or another, the Hird issue will probably be sorted out by the time we could kneejerk into making Watson chairman anyway. If Little was to be removed, I don't really think we have to factor in lovability in the selection process.

 

[flintandtas]

If you read into Little's comments it appears the board has spoken to Hird previously about keeping a low profile - clearly the message went unheaded.

Hopefully it won't now.

Yes, clearly the board didn't allow or want Hird to speak publicly on the matter. What followed though was continuing slandering of Hird in the media, with Hird unable to have a medium where he could defend himself. The boilover effect of this was Tania coming out to defend him.

Simply put, if the board enforced that requirement on Hird, they needed to do a better show of protecting his rights. He still remains an employee of the club (though under suspension), so the board has an obligation towards him.

In my opinion, leading up to the Tania interview the board didn't hadn't the situation well, they then handled it horribly in the immediate aftermath. Hopefully they would have learned by now and will handle it better in the future.

 

[efcboy]

If you read into Little's comments it appears the board has spoken to Hird previously about keeping a low profile - clearly the message went unheaded.

Hopefully it won't now.

This is the same board that endorsed The Hanger airing an interview with him on the Tuesday night. The same board that endorsed Paul Little strongly endorsing Hird on the same program.

So in effect the board broke its own rules in keeping Hird's profile low?

Clearly they don't understand their own message as they actually started this. The Tuesday airing was a precursor to Thursday.

 

[efcboy]

but why wouldn't you just make Costello the chairman then.

You'd then have a political divide then - the labour fans don't like him whereas liberal fans love him.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I don't really think we have to worry about the fanbase continuing to turn on itself though. One way or another, the Hird issue will probably be sorted out by the time we could kneejerk into making Watson chairman anyway. If Little was to be removed, I don't really think we have to factor in lovability in the selection process.

No, I don't think it's going be a real scenario, but if Hird was sacked on Wednesday and subsequently sued the club, we may well have been in that situation.

 

[windyhill]

Suggesting that Watson should be culpable for any of this is the equivalent of blaming Bomber for the misdeeds of Dank because Bomber was keen on Robinson.

Oh yeah, he hand pricked the syringes

 

[windyhill]

I doubt Timmy would have foreseen any of this happening, just quietly.

The question of whether he actually has the necessary skills to be a chairman is a more important one to consider than whether he had any role in this mess. Because, he really didn't. He helped get Hird and Bomber in. After that, he didn't make any decisions.

He shafted knights, you'd think he would've learnt after his stkilda debacle.

 

[AlexEss]

can you guys please explain to me the dislike for paul little?
Is trying to move on not best for the club?

 

[Kong]

To his credit, he at least wrote back to me, which is more than I expected.

Pity about the actual response.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Oh yeah, he hand pricked the syringes

So Tim is blameless then?

 

[Ben the Gooner]

That is a pissweak response.

Dear Kong,

Your concerns as a member are not important to me. I have an AO.

Cheers,
P-Dog