2003 Predictions - Your Own Club

[MJ_RULES]

ESSENDON


Final Ladder Position? first or second

Best & Fairest? One of the Johnson's

Leading Goalkicker? Matty Lloyd 110

Most Improved? Joel Reynolds

Most Votes in Brownlow? James Hird

Biggest talking point as far as your club is concerned? Just how great we are doing after a well over due clean out.

Name 3 players to watch out for?
Mark Bolton, Danny Jacobs, Joel Reynolds

Biggest strength of your team? Our defence

If you were to be assured of beating ONE team, who would that be? Hawks...5 years hahaha

Most memorable win? Anzac day when we whip the Pies.

What will your team be known for the most in 2003? Our defence

In 15 words or less, describe your coach? The Master.

 

[grayham]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2003 Predictions - Your Own Club

Here we go again. There is no need to divert from the original subject which I noticed you have brought up the Swans (12 lines, depending on screen size), and personal stuff outside this thread which bears little resemblence to the truth, in the hope of muck-racking I can only assume. (8 lines).

I knew it would happen, always does with you.

Originally posted by MarkT
There you go with your unsubstantiated assertions again. I may be blinkered and maybe even as much as Rohan but frankly that means nothing to Eddie McGuire whatsoever in respect of his ambitions. Regardless, you have gone with your traditional Eddie has power, Eddie is evil paranoia.

What is it you think the ambitious Eddie McGuire is out to achieve? What is his evil agenda?

No diversion, that is your fallback position as demonstrated in this thread yet again. The Swans question was at the end in response to your point and is genuine. It has nothing to do with any of the issues discussed whatsoever. I am interested to know what exactly you have a problem with. You have mentioned the zone issue yourself in many discussions with me.

I don't have a problem with Swans at all despite what you have accussed me of in the past. I actually think it is important that the AFL has representation in Sydney. From a historical perspective, I think they were r*ped by the VFL for the predominant purpose of getting live Sunday football on the television but that is not their fault at all.

If I am more closed than yourself then I would be amazed. I have been critical of Eddie when warranted. I will admit it has been more on a Collingwood site than a general like this but it has not been confined to Collingwood places.

Grayham, the fact that I don't agree with whatever it is you actually think the problem really is is not evidence that I am closed minded. You cannot conclude that everyone who doesn't agree with you is unable to accept alternate views. I have consistantly debated the issues re Eddie, conflicts, etc. etc. In fact the lsat time I did so with you you resorted to lies in an attempt to discredit my arguments and mask the lack of anything more than generalisations in your own.

 

[grayham]

I dont actually beleive, you beleive what you are saying. Because that does sound rather brainwashed to me.

Originally posted by ramjet
you still seem convinced those at collingwood and the supporters themselves are blindly following eddie. we do actually have the ability to think for oueselves, have our own ideas, thoughts, suggestions, criticisms of the club and/or eddie. personally, i think ed should get off the salary cap issue. it may be unfair in parts and necessary in others, but its not dictated by collingwood or eddie. its the afl's job to sort it out. ed has the right to object and kick up a fuss if he wants to, but we dont all immediately take on his view point.

the suggestion that collingwood should be streets ahead of the rest of the comp because of media exposure etc, while a thought that makes my day, simply isnt realistic. at the end of the day, membership and sponsors do not come from snippets about ed on the 6 o'clock news. even the footy show itself doesnt provide much incentive for major sponsors to get involved. as with all clubs, and i personally think this is the way it should be, its the on-field success that dictates growth off- field. the number one priority of any club is to remain viable to compete in the following year's comp. to do that, they simply must perform on the paddock. the draft, 'equal' salary caps for all clubs etc even the playing field. collingwood picks its draftees from the same pool sydney or any other club does. taking the argument of higher costs of living in the harbour city etc, both clubs have the same salary cap in which to pay those players. the facilities of nearly all clubs now are comparative and therefore no side has a distinct advantage in training methods or resources.
so this leaves the players themselves and the coaching panel/footy dept personell at each respective club that makes the difference. the way it should be. quality coaches, players and teams are rewarded, although sometimes only eventually, with success. the ability to lure a quality coach such as malthouse is an advantage for us, but we're did that advantage come from? aside from mick's personal reasons in wanting to return to victoria, do you really think he chose collingwood because ed has his own footy show? or that ed is a public figure in the footy and business world? he took on a side that had finished wooden spooners...its a challenge to him and he clearly saw an opportunity to succeed with a refreshed and revitalised club, an achievement made possible by....drum roll...ed. not because of his status in the footy world but because he had begun an earnest restructuring of the club. he employed people he believed would work for the benefit of the club, not themselves as you perhaps suggest he is doing for himself. greg swann is the perfect example. you cannot beat quality people within the club. ed has earned the respect of the majority of pie followers and members through his results and to suggest this should be expected due to a tv show, well i think youre scraping the barrel a bit.
i agree that he is in fairly unique position given his roles within the media and collingwood and his perceived control of the afl. this hardly makes him an scourge on footy.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by grayham
I think you are missing the point. The point being that blindly following someone leads to trouble in the end, unless they are a saint. Eddie has built an incredibly large power base while only being answerable to a small minority. Put it this way, if something was found to be up, it would be a lot easier to get rid of Wayne Jackson than Eddie McGuire.

So this is it?

A baseless assertion about non existent blind faith and an assumption of the worst in human nature?

I have already said that I acknowledge the dangers of blind faith but really Grayham, you constantly snipe at Eddie based on the above philosophical outlook? Is Thïs why you could never answer me as to what Eddie had actually done to justify your view?

Originally posted by grayham
It actually was a bit messy to remove McAlister, as it was for any president like Elliott, etc. And McAlister was a monkey's arse of a president.

How so Grayham? I think you are missing the bloke in the middle here, one Mr. Rose. Nice bloke, genuine Collingwood legend but well and truly passed it or more importantly out of it when he took over as president. Thankfully he had the good sense and good grace to see it and participated in the bloodless coup.

Originally posted by grayham
For Collingwood, with all its supporters and money, and media access to not make a profit is an outrage. To win a spoon and stay down the bottom of the ladder is pure imcomptence.

Trust me Grayham, I know this all too well. It was extreme incompetence on the back of incomprehensible complacency that lead to a dramatic decline in of and on field stocks. See above for part of the answer. Another big issue was the land purchases. Not a bad idea but badly timed on the in and the out. Better to leave football boards to run football matters and not exceed their charter IMO. Believe me, I am fully aware of the issues involved and at stake here. The past will not be repeated without me having my say in an appropriate forum.

Originally posted by grayham
Ask yourself, with all the advantages Collingwood have over someone like St Kilda, North or even Sydney, why arent they top in sponsorship, recent flags, off-field facilities. Eddie has just done what should have been done already, and yet is regarded as a saint. What would it take for him to be disposed? How long could he put a media spin on something thats wrong? . Answer: A lot longer than McAlister and Elliot.... And therefore potentially more damaging. Imagine if Elliot has lasted another couple of years at Carlton.
See?

You are doing again Grayham. No matter how many times you say it Eddie is not Jack. Collingwood is not Carlton. Ask Carlton members about their electoral issues.

Do you really think we won’t notice if we slide down the ladder or lose money? Do you actually believe that a media spin can erase a wooden spoon or a creditors meeting? Elliot survived because of the nature of the beast. He is allegedly a corporate cowboy of dubious character. He has been at it all his professional life. What does that have to do with Eddie and Collingwood?

As for what if Elliot had lasted a couple more years, well it irrelevant. Just ask why he didn’t and you will answer your own question. The results of his actions became demonstrably evident. Media spin could not change the facts and eventually Carlton listened to outsiders because they had to. He could have been Rupert or Kerry and the obvious issues would not have been hidden. Losing draft picks and millions of dollars are not able to be spun like you suggest. If you dispute that then tell me what you think of Onetell?

 

[MarkT]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2003 Predictions - Your Own Club

Originally posted by grayham
Here we go again. There is no need to divert from the original subject which I noticed you have brought up the Swans (12 lines, depending on screen size), and personal stuff outside this thread which bears little resemblence to the truth, in the hope of muck-racking I can only assume. (8 lines).

I knew it would happen, always does with you.

Nice try.

 

[tashibatts]

Kangaroos

Final Ladder Position? 7th
Best & Fairest? Brent Harvey
Leading Goalkicker? Sav Rocca
Most Improved? Shannon Watt
Most Votes in Brownlow? Brent Harvey

Biggest talking point as far as your club is concerned?
Roos take everyone by surprise and make the finals when most people thought North were woodenspooners..

Name 3 players to watch out for?
The 3 Daniels: Harris,Motlop & Wells
(2 other players are Drew Petrie and Corey Jones)

Biggest strength of your team? Forward/Defence/Midfield
Midfield (More depth than anywhere else in our team, although alot of that depth is youth)

If you were to be assured of beating ONE team, who would that be? Once upon a time it would have been Port- but they've got to beat us sometime, I will say Carlton or Adelade, both are HUGE matches for the Roos..

Most memorable win?
The one where Daniel Wells debuts and the ball is kicked out of defence with 2 minutes to go in the last qtr, Anthony Stevens receives it and passes to Wells, Wells glides down the middle, unstoppable, runs to 40 metres out and puts hte ball right through the sticks (ok maybe I am dreaming, but everyone dreams)

What will your team be known for the most in 2003?
Our youth, after so many years of being called old and slow, our side will be full of youth and everyone will notice..

In 15 words or less, describe your coach?
Dean Laidley: New, untried. Unpredictable, controlling, Fresh, but strange feeling now he's coach. Exciting



Go Roos

 

[windyhill]

Ess. 5th/6th.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by MarkT
So this is it?

A baseless assertion about non existent blind faith and an assumption of the worst in human nature?

No.

I have already said that I acknowledge the dangers of blind faith but really Grayham, you constantly snipe at Eddie based on the above philosophical outlook? Is Thïs why you could never answer me as to what Eddie had actually done to justify your view?

You acknowlegde something, then take the opposite view?
If you acknowledge something is at least potentially dangerous, but endorce it anyway because you have faith that the party concerned is not dangerous. (??)

How so Grayham? I think you are missing the bloke in the middle here, one Mr. Rose. Nice bloke, genuine Collingwood legend but well and truly passed it or more importantly out of it when he took over as president. Thankfully he had the good sense and good grace to see it and participated in the bloodless coup.

Trust me Grayham, I know this all too well. It was extreme incompetence on the back of incomprehensible complacency that lead to a dramatic decline in of and on field stocks. See above for part of the answer. Another big issue was the land purchases. Not a bad idea but badly timed on the in and the out. Better to leave football boards to run football matters and not exceed their charter IMO. Believe me, I am fully aware of the issues involved and at stake here. The past will not be repeated without me having my say in an appropriate forum.

Great, You know how bad it can get. And how easy it is to get there. And even then, how long it takes before something is done.

You are doing again Grayham. No matter how many times you say it Eddie is not Jack. Collingwood is not Carlton. Ask Carlton members about their electoral issues.

Let history be the judge of how Eddie is seen in AFL circles. All I'm saying is giving anyone so much power with little accountability is extremely dangerous. You cant prove Eddie is better or worse than Jack yet anyway.

Do you really think we won’t notice if we slide down the ladder or lose money? Do you actually believe that a media spin can erase a wooden spoon or a creditors meeting? Elliot survived because of the nature of the beast. He is allegedly a corporate cowboy of dubious character. He has been at it all his professional life. What does that have to do with Eddie and Collingwood?

Just showing you what can go wrong when you have someone with ego and power in charge. Eddie already has media coverage unequalled by anyone. Which like it or not, equals power almost linerally.

As for what if Elliot had lasted a couple more years, well it irrelevant. Just ask why he didn’t and you will answer your own question. The results of his actions became demonstrably evident. Media spin could not change the facts and eventually Carlton listened to outsiders because they had to. He could have been Rupert or Kerry and the obvious issues would not have been hidden. Losing draft picks and millions of dollars are not able to be spun like you suggest. If you dispute that then tell me what you think of Onetell?

Bad choice there. Seems Murdoch junior and Kerry Junior are getting away squeeky clean. Who is to know what the real truth is. He was a director, and he has media control.
Hard to imagine, he knew nothing... but thats a completely different thread, which I'm sure you gave a different view on, and one thats another diversion we dont need.

 

[grayham]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2003 Predictions - Your Own Club

Originally posted by MarkT
Nice try.

Applogies if keeping the debate focussed and away from personalities is foriegn to you.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by grayham
No.

Well what then?

Originally posted by grayham
You acknowlegde something, then take the opposite view?
If you acknowledge something is at least potentially dangerous, but endorce it anyway because you have faith that the party concerned is not dangerous. (??)

On the contrary Grayham. However a theoretical and potential issue does not automatically mean one should act. George W might disagree but we could all jump at shadows all day every day and do nothing else.

What I acknowledge is a theoretical potentaility. Blind faith as a concept can be dangerous. IMO it is actually one of the fundamental problems that has plagued humanity since the adoption of organised religion, but that is a whole new bag of chips there. I do not take an opposit view to what I acknowledge could occurr. What I do is asses the actual circumstances and judge accordingly. I contend that you do not do that and that further, you don't even know why.

Originally posted by grayham
Great, You know how bad it can get. And how easy it is to get there. And even then, how long it takes before something is done.

Well so far as history is a teacher I and many Collingwood people - Eddie included - have learnt some valuable lessons. I fail to see what this has do with Eddie. You seem to think he will repeat the sins of the past. What do you base that on? Purely on the fact that he is popular with Collingwood people?

Originally posted by grayham
Let history be the judge of how Eddie is seen in AFL circles. All I'm saying is giving anyone so much power with little accountability is extremely dangerous. You cant prove Eddie is better or worse than Jack yet anyway.

As will ultimately be the case. History to date says Eddie has done an outstanding, but less than perfect, job. As a Collingwood member or just a fan, I hope there is much more history in the making. Eddie does not operate without accountability. having said that though, I am a believer that if you give a person a job you have to let them do it. Gladly from my perspective I see the appointments of Eddie at Collingwood being allowed to do that. That would belie you premise about Eddie's control. In fact one the things that has most lead to Collingwood's as yet brief revival is the people that have been appointed and the leeway they have been given in doing their jobs. Everyone is subject to performance criteria but you have to allow people to control what you measure them on.

I don't have to prove Eddie is better than Jack. I only have to be comfortable that he is the best person for the job as Collingwood president. While that is the case I hope he is motivated to remain in the job. When he is not, whether he agrees or not, I hope he is replaced by whoever is better. I have no doubt Eddie would agree with that in principle. Whether he would agree with the judgement at the time is of acedemic interest only at present.

Originally posted by grayham
Just showing you what can go wrong when you have someone with ego and power in charge. Eddie already has media coverage unequalled by anyone. Which like it or not, equals power almost linerally.

Here we go again with the underlying assumption that Eddie is fundamentally evil. It is not the ego or the power that are the problem it is the use and motivation that cause the problems. Do you not think there have also been some egocentric yet good powerful men? Lincoln perhaps? In a football context, I would say Jock McHale must have been very ego driven. He surely exerted power over Collingwood. I'd take another Jock tomorrow.

None of the examples you or I could pull from our backsides prove anything. They are just examples of different people in different circumstances. You just exhibit fear bordering on paranoa.

Originally posted by grayham
Bad choice there. Seems Murdoch junior and Kerry Junior are getting away squeeky clean. Who is to know what the real truth is. He was a director, and he has media control.
Hard to imagine, he knew nothing... but thats a completely different thread, which I'm sure you gave a different view on, and one thats another diversion we dont need.

The example you used was in relation to media spin and public perception. The example holds. What has happened to the perception of the 2 juniors? The legalities are not finalised yet. I wouldn't disagree the the law treats those with power differently on many levels. that is not relevant to Eddie. FWIW I don't recall giving a view on the Ontell matters.

 

[Squeak]

Here we go again with the underlying assumption that Eddie is fundamentally evil. It is not the ego or the power that are the problem it is the use and motivation that cause the problems. Do you not think there have also been some egocentric yet good powerful men? Lincoln perhaps? In a football context, I would say Jock McHale must have been very ego driven. He surely exerted power over Collingwood. I'd take another Jock tomorrow.

I think this is the core issue in grayham's rantings. It's a personal disliking of Edward at the bottom of it all. If that wasn't the case he wouldn't be so pasionate and wouldn't bother.

 

[Kimbo]

Re: Re: 2003 Predictions - Your Own Club

Originally posted by TheSheik
CARLTON FOOTBALL CLUB

In 15 words or less, describe your coach?
Denis Pagan - will give all fringe players the opportunity to impress.

If so, only because Carlton doesn't have any other choice. That or Pagan has a personality transplant!

 

[grayham]

Since you arent coming around, or trying to get the point yet. Which essentially is on two parts for a summary: 1) Eddie's power provides less checks and balances on his behavior, no matter what _you_ intend to do if things go pair shaped. 2) Eddie is less accountable on the big AFL issues than someone like Wayne Jackson as the only people who can dislodge him if, IF, he goes off the rails are the collingwood failful, who a sizable percentage have blind faith in him.
Pure and simple, lack of accountability, no denying those facts. Now I add my opinion, is that he also lacks reponsibility in AFL matters.

Another analogy is that republican debate. Basically we have an anomoly in our constitution where a non-Australia can dictate to some degree the government of this country in extreme circumstances. The monachists have a faith that the monarchy would never do anything to harm us, so why change whats worked for years, and the republicans feel that this anomoly should be corrected to negate the chance that an english monachy abuses that power and acts against Australias interest.
Now, no one is saying the queen or charles is "evil" as you like to say.
But I, as a republican, would say that this "faith" the monachists have is an unnessesarily risky situation to be in.

Originally posted by MarkT
Well what then?

On the contrary Grayham. However a theoretical and potential issue does not automatically mean one should act. George W might disagree but we could all jump at shadows all day every day and do nothing else.

What I acknowledge is a theoretical potentaility. Blind faith as a concept can be dangerous. IMO it is actually one of the fundamental problems that has plagued humanity since the adoption of organised religion, but that is a whole new bag of chips there. I do not take an opposit view to what I acknowledge could occurr. What I do is asses the actual circumstances and judge accordingly. I contend that you do not do that and that further, you don't even know why.

Well so far as history is a teacher I and many Collingwood people - Eddie included - have learnt some valuable lessons. I fail to see what this has do with Eddie. You seem to think he will repeat the sins of the past. What do you base that on? Purely on the fact that he is popular with Collingwood people?

As will ultimately be the case. History to date says Eddie has done an outstanding, but less than perfect, job. As a Collingwood member or just a fan, I hope there is much more history in the making. Eddie does not operate without accountability. having said that though, I am a believer that if you give a person a job you have to let them do it. Gladly from my perspective I see the appointments of Eddie at Collingwood being allowed to do that. That would belie you premise about Eddie's control. In fact one the things that has most lead to Collingwood's as yet brief revival is the people that have been appointed and the leeway they have been given in doing their jobs. Everyone is subject to performance criteria but you have to allow people to control what you measure them on.

I don't have to prove Eddie is better than Jack. I only have to be comfortable that he is the best person for the job as Collingwood president. While that is the case I hope he is motivated to remain in the job. When he is not, whether he agrees or not, I hope he is replaced by whoever is better. I have no doubt Eddie would agree with that in principle. Whether he would agree with the judgement at the time is of acedemic interest only at present.

Here we go again with the underlying assumption that Eddie is fundamentally evil. It is not the ego or the power that are the problem it is the use and motivation that cause the problems. Do you not think there have also been some egocentric yet good powerful men? Lincoln perhaps? In a football context, I would say Jock McHale must have been very ego driven. He surely exerted power over Collingwood. I'd take another Jock tomorrow.

None of the examples you or I could pull from our backsides prove anything. They are just examples of different people in different circumstances. You just exhibit fear bordering on paranoa.

The example you used was in relation to media spin and public perception. The example holds. What has happened to the perception of the 2 juniors? The legalities are not finalised yet. I wouldn't disagree the the law treats those with power differently on many levels. that is not relevant to Eddie. FWIW I don't recall giving a view on the Ontell matters.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by Squeak
I think this is the core issue in grayham's rantings. It's a personal disliking of Edward at the bottom of it all. If that wasn't the case he wouldn't be so pasionate and wouldn't bother.

Wrong. Not everything has to degrade into a "personal" preferences. This is what I am trying to explain to you collingwood folk who think he is untouchable.

 

[Squeak]

Originally posted by grayham
Wrong. Not everything has to degrade into a "personal" preferences. This is what I am trying to explain to you collingwood folk who think he is untouchable.

Hasn't Mark explained ad infinitum that he knows that Eddie is in a position of great power, and will also not blindly follow him?

 

[Kimbo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2003 Predictions - Your Own Club

Originally posted by MarkT
IMO Eddie is good for football but if you disagree then I don’t care...

Eddie is attacked for farting in public on forums such as this and accused of all sorts of things without substantiation by the likes of yourself. I often defend him ... that is the Collingwood way.

That is not blind faith. That is the Collingwood way. We don’t let our own become the targets of uninformed slander without standing up for them.

So which is it? You really do care, despite what you've said, or you just defend him because it's the Collingwood way (ie blind faith).

 

[Tio_Ray]

Originally posted by grayham
Wrong. Not everything has to degrade into a "personal" preferences. This is what I am trying to explain to you collingwood folk who think he is untouchable.

I think I know what the problem is.....No jokes....but I think grayham doesn't really understand what its like to come from a culture of success....This is why he can not accept every man and his dog at Collingwood know all about checks and balances...what is kindergarden for us is still merly a goal some must work towards.

Grayham is in denial and suffers from deep feelings of inadequacy...he is constantly refering to the Victorian big 4...not sure who or what this might be but in my day 4" was not that big...but rest assured Grayham thinks he is being persecuted and believes he is under constant "personal" attack...I can see no evidence of this.

Like many other drug addicts ....Grayham is addicted to an expencive designer drug (we shall call it 15% for now)...because Doctor Eddie McGuire has perscribed a remedy, Grayham now sees Dr McGuire as a threat to his drug supply. Irrationally he strikes out at the one he should thank the most...but as history has shown both he and his club have a history of biting the hand that feeds them.

I hope this clears it up for most of you....I appoligise to Grayham, because in his state, he will certainly claim I am attacking him and that his mind powers tell him that all Magpie supporters Blindly follow Dr McGuire.

Love,
Tio Ray.

 

[Lockyer24]

grayham you are a battler.

 

[Kimbo]

(Ed Thread within 2003 Predictions - Your Own Club Thread

Originally posted by MarkT
I see you started where you left off - nowhere. It really is that simple Grayham. It really is that simple Grayham. On the contrary it is you who I see as unable to accept anything but a predisposed viewpoint.

Yeah, and you sound just so objective. Thank goodness we have you to tell us how it really is, and it really is that simple. Thank goodness you have no predisposed views. Just a realist making a stand for good ol' Collingwood.

Originally posted by MarkT
The media exposure is a clear advantage for Eddie and Collingwood. I have never said any different. You make the leap to translate that into something detrimental whereas I say it is all dependant on how it is used. Just because Eddie is a media personality, it does not follow he will use his powers for evil instead of niceness.

Would you consider it detrimental if the host of a TV show about AFL, which, amongst other things such as slapstick buffonery, claimed to have an overaraching interest in the well-being of football at large, demonstrated bias in favour of one club in matters like amount of airtime, favourable comments, last right of reply, all the time claiming to be neutral and objective?

You seem to think that opponents of Eddie see him as some ogre with malevolent powers to strike down opposition. I don’t. Rather, it’s like the case with US media and cultural imperialism (NB this is a simile, not an direct comparison) my concern is with the pervasiveness and with undisclosed (or denied) bias and agendas. From my observation, I see Eddie using his media role and influence to give disproportionate airtime and glowing commentary regarding the club of which he also happens to be President. It’s like only hearing the US (CNN) version of the conflict between the US and Iraq.

I am not naïve enough to think Eddie is not naïve enough to know that some of his gestures towards other clubs aren’t designed to convey Collingwood as some sort of grand old benefactor. *wince*

Originally posted by MarkT
Irrespective of how it is used, though, is the bigger issue here which is your assumption that having the media exposure is inherently a bad thing.

Not for me, though I confess to being inherently suspicious, since he who controls information controls opinion. Now, whilst Eddie is not the sole voice of football media, the extent of his growing influence is disturbing.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think that's the link with Jack Elliott. Eddie may not be Jack Elliott, but he displays the same traditional, “boy’s club” style, and the same antagonistic attitude to those who disagree or get in the way of his ambitions. Couple this with a dominant, if not monopolistic, position within the (football) media then there is opportunity for largely unchecked abuse of the implied responsibility.

Originally posted by MarkT
Just like everyone else Eddie presents his side of any story more vigorously than any contrary view. There is nothing startling in that. Manipulation of facts to prove your point? Well here we are doing just that with each other on a forum where 99% of what is said does the same. Yeh it happens. Is it a capital offense? I bloody hope not..

Yes, but we don’t possess the same opportunity Eddie does to get his views across, which makes it different I believe. Eddie has the capacity to influence AFL fixturing, through his role and influence as a Channel 9 producer, and to present his views longer, and more loudly and sometimes exclusively via The Footy Show. Worse, in my mind, Eddie denies any hint or possiblity of conflict of interest whenever such matters are raised. Like Bush, he simply expects us to believe him because he says so.

Originally posted by MarkT
In the end people have to be discerning consumers, listeners, watchers and everything elsers.

Have to be? Perhaps, but there are many who aren’t. We’re talking about the average footy supporter and consumer here… not clearly intelligent folks like me and you!

Originally posted by MarkT
Eddie has little or no responsibility to you as a football supporter. He has a responsibility to Collingwood as an elected official. Being in the media has, in the eyes of some, responsibility. To whatever extent that is true he has that responsibility. He has no responsibility to act for the good of football, although I strongly disagree that he acts to the detriment of football in practice

I think I’d be happy if he said as much. I host the Footy show, and I’m president of Collingwood, and Collingwood is going to get more airtime and have it’s needs and views represented more fully and more vigorously because I host the show. If you don’t like it, **** off. But he doesn’t. He disingenuinely portrays himself as some sort of de facto AFL ambassador or statesman.

Originally posted by MarkT
All this crap about equal time for other clubs and the greater glory of the competition is just that though. No person has to devote equal time to all clubs in the media. There is an expectation of a level of unbiased coverage from the general public. This expectation is clearly not made of Eddie as an overtly Collingwood person and certainly would be unexpected based on his even greater demonstrable Collingwoodness since becoming President. In other words, you know what you get so make your choice.

I think the fact that some of us, myself included expect it of Eddie counters your assertion. I do expect a level of objectivity or disclosed subjectivity, in the media. In effect, I think Eddie contributes to this expectation because he denies the very facts you just highlighted, at least publicly. That is, he claims to be unbiased in some matters, when he clearly has an axe to grind. Call it smart not to do so, or call it disingenuine. What galls me is that I think he thinks we believe what he says. Or worse, that he actually believes it himself.

Originally posted by MarkT
FWIW I like it that Eddie is a major factor in AFL football. I mostly like it because it benefits Collingwood. I make no bones about that. What is you think Collingwood has done exactly that equates it with America? Is it because they or Eddie do not agree the Swans should have a salary cap concession AND Zone concessions? Are there other issues you mistakenly think Eddie has single handedly controlled.

And in saying this, I think you demonstrate how easy it is to go along with media views, which you note benefit Collingwood.

I wonder if you’d really see it this way if Eddie were to present a different view? If he were a strong advocate for both these concessions, arguing they were necessary for the growth of AFL nationally? Assume, for the moment, that you agreed with the AFL position that these were necessary, and without them, the growth of AFL nationally would be ******ed. Then, you’ve got the President of one club, a Victorian one, undermining the growth of the very code and league to which he belongs and ultimately owes some allegiance. A good thing? Of course not. I’m not arguing the merits of the issue either way, just highlighting how in this instance, you’ve got views expressed which are clearly biased (not “wrong”) but being put out there as being for the good of the competition. One thing to do it as President of Collingwood, another to do it as a media representative. Yet another to do it as both!

 

[Tio_Ray]

Kimbo

So what your saying is in the future Eddie will continue to put Collingwood forward...yep thats how we see it.

 

[NICK THE PIE MAN]

Re: Re: 2003 Predictions - Your Own Club

Originally posted by TheSheik
[If you were to be assured of beating ONE team, who would that be?
Essendon or Collingwood, we always lift against both of them

Are you saying you lifted for Round 18 last year?

 

[NICK THE PIE MAN]

Collingwood Football Club

Final Ladder Position? 4th
Best & Fairest? Anthony Rocca
Leading Goalkicker? Chris Tarrant- 71
Most Improved? Richard Cole
Most Votes in Brownlow? Nathan Buckley- 13
Biggest talking point as far as your club is concerned?
Focussed and determined.

Name 3 players to watch out for?
Richard Cole, Mark McGough, Bo Nixon

Biggest strength of your team? Forward/Defence/Midfield: Midfield. Bucks, Woey, Obie, Burns and Licuria

If you were to be assured of beating ONE team, who would that be?
Carlton or Port

Most memorable win?
vs Brisbane at the 'gabba. 8 point win with Bucks kicking the sealer in the 31st minute of the 4th quarter from 50 on the run.

vs Melbourne on Queens Birthday. Woey goes nuts picking up 42 disposals, kicking 3 goals and we win by 71 points.

What will your team be known for the most in 2003? Our hardness at the ball and constant pressure on opponents

In 15 words or less, describe your coach?
Mick Malthouse.- Believes in strong discipline and the character of the player. Can get the best out of the talent at his disposal.

 

[Kimbo]

Originally posted by some Collingwood git
Kimbo, So what your saying is in the future Eddie will continue to put Collingwood forward...yep thats how we see it.

Under the guise of claiming to neutral, media objectivity, all the while denying that he's putting Collingwood forward. BTW, was that "we", we the people, or we of the blind faith?

Originally posted by some Collingwood git
Eddie is the Collingwood president. In that capacity he has to be 100% Collingwood and do whatever he can to further the Collingwood cause. Make no mistake, that is his responsibilty and he does it better than anyone I can recall. Of course he pumps up COllingwood. No Collingwood supporter doesn't. That is part of the gig at Collingwood.

I have no concerns with him as Collingwood President and how he's regarded by Collingwood supporters. Actually, I don't know, don't care. In fact, lest MarkT, Squeak, yourself et al think this is a Collingwood thing, get over it. It just happens to be Eddie and Collingwood. Could just as easily be someone else. In other words, it's the essential issue of conflict of interest and potential for 'corruption', rather than the particular man or the club. If you could see it in something other than black and white terms (excuse the pun) perhaps you'd be able to hear the views of others.

Originally posted by some Collingwood git
It's a personal disliking of Edward at the bottom of it all. If that wasn't the case he wouldn't be so pasionate and wouldn't bother.

For you Pies supporters who think it all just boils down to personal dislike on my part, I'm happy to disclose that I do dislike Eddie. Edward? Oh puhlease. I didn't start out that way, however. I've grown to dislike him as time's gone on, through observation. My observation of him is as media personality. Before he became Collingwood President, I thought he did a good job, and enjoyed 'the show'. Since then, I've noticed an increasing arrogance, belligerence and disingenuity in his media role, and object to the way he has continued in, and handled the two roles.

IMO, I'm not sure that its appropriate to hold both positions. On the one hand, of course it's not illegal but neither am I enamoured of views that "it happens all the time". So does war. Doesn't make it appropriate. Doesn't make me right either. It's a question of personal values, and my values are such that I don't value those who use entertainment/media to push a political or commercial line. Exceptions for me are genuine charity causes (no jokes about poor clubs, puhlease.)

originally posted by some Collingwood git
I think grayham (and others who agree with him?)doesn't really understand what its like to come from a culture of success....This is why he can not accept every man and his dog at Collingwood know all about checks and balances...what is kindergarden for us is still merly a goal some must work towards.

Can we dismiss my views as simply those of the supporter of an embattled club with jealousy issues? I guess it's possible, but I started supporting the Roos when they were perennial Grand Finalists and Collingwood won the spoon.. I didn't realise NMFC were "battlers". I do wish my team had more supporters and more money, but quite frankly on this issue, I think I'd have just as much concern if it were the President of the Bulldogs, Saints, or Kangaroos if they handled it the way Eddie does.

originally posted by some Collingwood git
Here we go again with the underlying assumption that Eddie is fundamentally evil. It is not the ego or the power that are the problem it is the use and motivation that cause the problems. Do you not think there have also been some egocentric yet good powerful men?

What makes it particularly repugnant for me, is Eddie's façade of statesman-like concern for footy. I'm not saying he doesn't have some concern for other clubs or the capacity to see outside his own interests at times. The image I get of Eddie, however, is the greasy big spender ostentaciously stuffing bills into the beggars pocket, looking around to make sure everyone knows about it. Sure, he might have actually given the beggar some aid, but he makes sure everyone knows about it. In other words, it's ultimately about him (and his interests) not those of the others he purports to support.

Originally posted by grayham
Just showing you what can go wrong when you have someone with ego and power in charge. Eddie already has media coverage unequalled by anyone. Which like it or not, equals power almost literally.

Yep, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This isn’t a indictment of Eddie per se, more an observation about what happens when people don’t have sufficient checks and balances of those willing to say “no” or to disagree, or more to the point, equal power to express and have those views heard. You just have to see how muted or staged are the views of Sam and Trevor on The Footy Show. Dissenting views not taken seriously, or given airtime. Eddie’s views on the salary cap concessions is another. A long diatribe by him, with no counter view.

 

[Ripper]

Fremantle Football Club

Final Ladder Position? 4th
Best & Fairest? Paul Hazelby
Leading Goalkicker? Justin Longmuir-102
Most Improved? Des Headland
Most Votes in Brownlow? Des Headland-26
Biggest talking point as far as your club is concerned?
Growing a leg and winning 6 away games.

Name 3 players to watch out for?
Clive Waterhouse, Brian Shammer,Yhe orge (Sandilands)

Biggest strength of your team? Forward/Defence/Midfield: Depth / All it's a team game

If you were to be assured of beating ONE team, who would that be?
Collingwood the Lucky Pretenders.
Most memorable win?
vs
Adelaide Round 1 AAAMMMI. 16 point win gives the team Confidence away.


What will your team be known for the most in 2003? Our hardness at the ball and constant pressure and silky skills.

In 15 words or less, describe your coach?
Chris Connelly.- Believes in lateral thinking ,discipline and showsfaith in the players. Still learning the trade so premiership not likely this season.

 

[NICK THE PIE MAN]

Originally posted by RIPPER_46


In 15 words or less, describe your coach?
Chris Connelly.- Believes in lateral thinking ,discipline and showsfaith in the players. Still learning the trade so premiership not likely this season.

Or ever for that matter.