2003 Predictions - Your Own Club

[Lockyer24]

Intellect grayham? Your posts are nothing but pi$$ and wind buster.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by grayham
I like a man who can admit he's beat. Well done.

My orginal comment was totally to do with point (1). Points (2) and (3) are just the power that (1) gives him, and his ability to keep (1) going.
So no stepping, but nice diversion attempt.....again.

LOL. Another nice try. Keep at it. I admire your persistence at least.

Us republicans will need a bit of that. Looks like white anting Johnny will be here for a while. Costello is on side though. Whoeveritis from Labour aint gonna have much to say about it. Guess we can rely on Ed to get us home though.

You see grayham, that is diversion. Not this imaginary stuff you keep claiming.

Now, back to the issues you raised:

1) A large percentage of collingwood members/supporters have put him on a pedestal and have "blind" faith in him. Not all.

No doubt some members have no interest in anything beyond whether they win next week/will make the finals etc. No doubt that is the same at every club. To the extent that constitutes non questioning then fair enough. Nothing to do with Eddie, just how some people interact (or don’t) with their club. That is certainly not blind fiath any more so than a non or donkey vote at a federal election. I don’t doubt that some Collingwood members view Eddie as someone they can trust. He has given no reason for them to think otherwise and plenty of reason for them to believe it. Is that blind faith? Perhaps to you it is but it is earned respect for me. I am more skeptical than some and I will never have blind faith. Perhaps that is why I can’t buy any organized religion. Do a large % of Collingwood have blind faith such that they will let Eddie do as he pleases or will accept whatever he tells them? I think not. Do a large % of Collingwood supporters believe much of what Eddie says – I think so. Is that blind faith? No.

The reality is that most of what Eddie says is either factual or subjective pro Collingwood emotional stuff. Therefore it is believed or accepted as the case may be. That does not equate to blind faith at all. Blind faith is sect suicide al la Heavens Gate.

2) He is able to use his media exposure to spin himself into a favourable light. Whether he has done it before is not the point. Is he able?

He has the facility to represent his side of the story within the guidelines of the programming restrictions placed on him by his employers. That is not the same as what you say. Even if he could spin everything at will to achieve whatever he wanted to achieve, it means little in a practical sense. He is able to get a gun and shoot his dog. I don’t presume he will do it though. Sure you are talking behavior on a different level but fundamentally it is what he does not what he could do if…. That is important. As I have said, I will judge him on what he does not what you assume to be his motives or what he could potentially do given the correct planetary alignment.

3) Eddie is able to influence the AFL on big-picture things like vic-clubs, northern clubs, salary caps, drafts, zones, blockbusters, gate recepts, yet is not elected by all football supporters whom these decisions impact. So not accountable to them.

Eddie can exert exactly the same influence on the AFL officials as can any president of a relatively powerful club. In fact, John Elliot exerted far more influence over the AFL than Eddie has. Jack was a litigious battle freak and a hard negotiator. He got the AFL to bend over like few others. Nothing to do with his media position, just his skills.

As for being elected by football supporters, well it is simply a total irrelevance. For goodness sake grayham, the commission is not elected by football supporters. No club president is elected by football supporters of any representation other than their own club. Back when South went North the AFL made a huge decision effecting many fans. None of them, least of the South supporters, gave them any mandate to act as they did. I don’t what it is you think should happen but whatever it is it cannot and will not.

This is just another example of you listing facts and trying to say if x is true then y must be true also. I think I saw this on the Simpsons with a “Chewbacker defense” in a trial.

As a matter of fact, what exactly has Eddie influenced the AFL on?
The proposed zones? I thing he did. He was not alone but he was IMO a factor in the AFL decision making. Guess what! That is what we elected him for and it is why the AFL holds presidents/CEO’s meetings to discuss policy. It is entirely appropriate.

In a broader context, the Commission was formed by the clubs to take issues like you refer to out of the clubs hands. There was a realization the vested interests we running the agenda. This is something like what you are talking about. The independent Commission was set up to, among other things, ensure an overall context was placed on decision making. It is the Commission’s job to sort the arguments for and against out and make decisions. If you really think they respond because of Eddie’s use of the media then apart from your own delusions, you should question the men on the Commission. Personally I think they have much to answer for but pandering to Eddie or Collingwood is not one of them. I could happily debate AFL history with you and tally up the fors and againsts for Collingwood.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by MarkT
LOL. Another nice try. Keep at it. I admire your persistence at least.

And I stagger to beleive yours. Blind faith in action I guess.

Us republicans will need a bit of that. Looks like white anting Johnny will be here for a while. Costello is on side though. Whoeveritis from Labour aint gonna have much to say about it. Guess we can rely on Ed to get us home though.

You see grayham, that is diversion. Not this imaginary stuff you keep claiming.

Another, but acceptable one. At least its not personal this time.
FWIW, the republicans stuffed it up as much as J.H. They fell for the divide and conquer trick.

Now, back to the issues you raised:


No doubt some members have no interest in anything beyond whether they win next week/will make the finals etc. No doubt that is the same at every club. To the extent that constitutes non questioning then fair enough. Nothing to do with Eddie, just how some people interact (or don’t) with their club. That is certainly not blind fiath any more so than a non or donkey vote at a federal election. I don’t doubt that some Collingwood members view Eddie as someone they can trust. He has given no reason for them to think otherwise and plenty of reason for them to believe it. Is that blind faith? Perhaps to you it is but it is earned respect for me. I am more skeptical than some and I will never have blind faith. Perhaps that is why I can’t buy any organized religion. Do a large % of Collingwood have blind faith such that they will let Eddie do as he pleases or will accept whatever he tells them? I think not. Do a large % of Collingwood supporters believe much of what Eddie says – I think so. Is that blind faith? No.

Interesting differentiation. Unfortunetly flawed though. Of course there is a limit to how far the wood masses will swallow a stuff up by Eddie, but I'd wager that he would stay around a lot longer than most other presidents if things start going off the rails.

You need to remember is that Eddie hasnt really done anything that shouldnt have been there in the first place for a big club. He has basically put Collingwood off-field where Essendon has been for a while. Its made to look good because of the incompetence of the previous administrations.

The reality is that most of what Eddie says is either factual or subjective pro Collingwood emotional stuff. Therefore it is believed or accepted as the case may be. That does not equate to blind faith at all. Blind faith is sect suicide al la Heavens Gate.

No, you are exagerating there. Its soft debating to take an extremist view of a position, thereby giving yourself heaps of room to move inside it. I think you are better than that. I think.

He has the facility to represent his side of the story within the guidelines of the programming restrictions placed on him by his employers. That is not the same as what you say. Even if he could spin everything at will to achieve whatever he wanted to achieve, it means little in a practical sense. He is able to get a gun and shoot his dog. I don’t presume he will do it though.

Blind faith?

Sure you are talking behavior on a different level but fundamentally it is what he does not what he could do if…. That is important. As I have said, I will judge him on what he does not what you assume to be his motives or what he could potentially do given the correct planetary alignment.

its not you I'm primarily worried out. And please stop going off on tangents. Planetary alignment???

Eddie can exert exactly the same influence on the AFL officials as can any president of a relatively powerful club. In fact, John Elliot exerted far more influence over the AFL than Eddie has. Jack was a litigious battle freak and a hard negotiator. He got the AFL to bend over like few others. Nothing to do with his media position, just his skills.

Better than John Elliot is hardly a ringing endorcement.

Eddie can use the media as Jack used the courts. Its just another tool. If you dont believe in the power of the media why do you suppose every half arsed dictatorship controls its countries media?

As for being elected by football supporters, well it is simply a total irrelevance. For goodness sake grayham, the commission is not elected by football supporters. No club president is elected by football supporters of any representation other than their own club. Back when South went North the AFL made a huge decision effecting many fans. None of them, least of the South supporters, gave them any mandate to act as they did. I don’t what it is you think should happen but whatever it is it cannot and will not.

The commision is "elected" (loosely) from representations of each club. If a commissioner is found to be alienating a good number of clubs he can be removed. O'Conner ring a bell?
Therefore each club elects there administration, which the AFL is directly accountable too. I know I have someone looking out for Sydney's interests, with power, over the AFL commisioners.

This is just another example of you listing facts and trying to say if x is true then y must be true also. I think I saw this on the Simpsons with a “Chewbacker defense” in a trial.

Its funny but you seem to be running away from the original points. Simply because they are undeniable.

As a matter of fact, what exactly has Eddie influenced the AFL on?
The proposed zones? I thing he did. He was not alone but he was IMO a factor in the AFL decision making. Guess what! That is what we elected him for and it is why the AFL holds presidents/CEO’s meetings to discuss policy. It is entirely appropriate.

And rallied public opinion behind him through his media outlets.

In a broader context, the Commission was formed by the clubs to take issues like you refer to out of the clubs hands. There was a realization the vested interests we running the agenda. This is something like what you are talking about. The independent Commission was set up to, among other things, ensure an overall context was placed on decision making. It is the Commission’s job to sort the arguments for and against out and make decisions. If you really think they respond because of Eddie’s use of the media then apart from your own delusions, you should question the men on the Commission. Personally I think they have much to answer for but pandering to Eddie or Collingwood is not one of them. I could happily debate AFL history with you and tally up the fors and againsts for Collingwood.

All very well, but at the moment we have a skewed environment where one president has an unprecidented access to sway public opinion his way through selective reporting and general rabble rousing. He has been by far the most vocal pres in big-picture issues. I respect anyones desire to express an opinion, but he, since he is not on the AFL commision is unaccountable to the majority of football supporters. The only way he could be removed as an offical AFL voice is if the collingwood members decided to do so.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by tiger of old
Most memorable win? finally get the essendon monkey off our backs with a clean sweep in 2003.

It'll take more than that.

 

[ScouseCat]

Originally posted by The Phat Side
From this thread looks like there will be 14 teams in the 8!!

That's not too bad, there's usually 16 teams in the 8 at this stage.

 

[Kimbo]

Originally posted by The Phat Side
Youre wrong. My wife works for one of the MANY volunteer organisations he supports...and he does much more than just toss in a few bucks, but 99% of what he does for underpriveleged and sick people he makes sure no one knows about. He makes that a criteria for support in fact. He is very working class and a decent person. Nice speech kid but you have NO fuggin idea about the man.

I’m not a kid, but I assume that was an attempt to belittle me. No need my friend, I'm more than proficient at belittling myself. I didn’t consider what I had to say a “speech”, but thanks for the feedback.

I’m not sure if you’ve honoured the spirit of Eddie’s criteria for support by letting me know that he provides support for MANY volunteer organisations, but if it’s true that’s great. It doesn’t, however, change my perception of what he does on The Footy Show.

Originally posted by The Phat Side
For someone who has no respect for commercial media exploiting their own interests, you sure get sucked in easy by "media profile" thats all an act for the masses who channel 9 and others know just turn on their telly and park their brain.

I’m not quite sure how not having respect for commercial media exploiting their own interests means I should be any more or less suspectible to being “sucked in”. Besides, it isn’t that they are exploiting their own interests, but using it to push the interests of one business entity. The fact that people “park their brain” is part of what causes concern for me. (Commercial) TV, is the modern day opiate of the people. Having drugged the people with his benign entertainment act, he can then use the forum to push business interests and cases which suit him. If anyone raises an eyebrow, it doesn’t matter, it’s “just a TV show”. Sure, there’s an entertainment element (arguably), but there is also a forum for shaping public opinion. In this case the footy public.

Originally posted by Lockyer24
No spinning required, he’s genuine. Read The Phat Sides post. I also know of a few behind the scenes goodwill deeds Eddie has contributed, which unfortunately I cant disclose either. I know you'd love for Eddie to be a ogre out of the limelight - you might actually have a reasonable excuse for his continual character assasination.

No, I wouldn’t love Eddie to be an ogre out of the limelight. I’m not assasinating his whole character. Probably a great husband and father too (is he a father?) Sure, I don’t like the guy, but my comments are about the way he uses his media role, and what I perceive to be a growing opportunity to use this to advantage the interests of one club amongst 16. More than that, that he denies his conflict of interest in this regard.

Originally posted by MarkT
Do I think it is fundamentally wrong? No. Do I see that other clubs don’t have the advantage Collingwood get from having a passionate supporter who has a footy show? Yes.

Thanks for the yes; good to hear that acknowledgement. As for the no, I probably agree with you, making it a values judgement as you point out. I wonder, however, whether our values would remain the same if the clubs were reversed? Hmm. If not, then it’s possible the values are being cut to fit the passion.

Originally posted by MarkT
I have no doubt that whatever Eddie did SOME people would assume alteria motives regardless.

You could say that about anyone really. In Eddie’s case, accusations of ulterior motives are more likely given his self-generated public profile, and the many hats. In this case the source of my own accusation.

Originally posted by MarkT
I disagree with the extent you claim Eddie to be operating in an underhanded manner.

Underhanded? Disingenuine and inauthentic is how I prefer to describe him, and perhaps unethical. It cracks me up to hear Collingwood supporters say how real and genuine the guy is. For me, he may be perfectly harmless, but he strikes me as someone trying to portray an image which just isn’t real. I don’t want to argue anyone on this, it’s my perception. Rather, I’d simply ask those who think otherwise to consider how some might see him in that light, just as I’ll do the reverse from now on.

Originally posted by MarkT
I honestly don’t think anyone expects other than a Collingwood slant from The Footy Show. Like with CNN though, you can get an alternative view. So what “duty of care” is owed Joe Citizen? We are not talking about elected politicians here. Those duties apply to Eddie in his Presidential capacity but not his media role. Do you really think that it needs to be said or even if it was it make one iota of difference to anything at all? The fact you feel entitled to be told something you already know – eg; Eddie is a rabid Collingwood man who will take any opportunity to advantage his club – does not mean that entitlement actually exists. Many would agree with you. The fact is the media is plainly biased in every aspect of its operation. Does the ABC have to admit to a leftist lean like the Liberals always say it should?

Yes, it’s a good point you raise here. It’s helped crystallize my own thinking. Thanks.

If I’m honest, yes, I do expect a neutral stance from the show, particularly when it comes to off-field (business) issues. I believe it is possible to have a stated position, in this case President of Collingwood, and then be as objective as possible when it comes to performing the media role. Whether Eddie does this, or is capable of doing this is another matter. It takes someone with a clear intention and commitment to journalistic integrity to do so, which I believe Eddie compromises at times, though not necessarily wittingly. As I said, I think he actually believes he’s neutral at times, when it’s clear he is pushing an agenda.

However, the reality, as soooo many Pies supporters point out, is that it is well known that he is President of Collingwood. So, yourquestion about what ‘duty of care’ is owed is a good one. What then do I expect? I expect disclosure of interests, not just universally. That is, more than a recognition that he has that role, but disclosure of interests when it comes to opinion on specific issues, and I expect equal airtime for competing business interests and their sponsors. Naïve? Possibly.

I’m not sure what the journalists code of ethics says on this, but I do know that many a good episode of Media Watch has surveyed the territory. My view, BTW, is that The Footy Show is a hybrid entertainment/current affairs show in that Eddie often brings in newsy stuff, albeit restricted largely to the footy arena. He also brings in opinion, in the guise of it being “just personal opinion” when it often relates to a clear business interest (ie CFC).

Would it make a difference if he were to state his bias, including when taking stances. At one level, I think it would. I’ve said it on other threads, but it’s like Board members excusing themselves from certain agenda items, or politicians disclosing business interests. No, it’s not “life and death” except for potentially the odd club or two. My point on this is that it’s business, and in all business matters, I think there is a duty of care to disclose interests, even if that duty is “only” a moral one.

Originally posted by MarkT
Is it unsavory underhanded Collingwood double motives that you object to, is it more a distaste for a broader principle or is it just a personal thing?

If it means Collingwood supporters can rest feeling complacent that they don’t have to consider that my views have any substance, I’m happy to say it’s personal. Seriously though, I think there is a principle there, which I hope I’ve made clear. Not interested in arguing it any further. “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still”. “Reason’s great weakness is the belief in its capacity to convince unreason.”

Originally posted by MarkT
There is also a fundamental principle at stake here which few people are prepared to address. What controls are appropriate for AFL and/or club employees and their employment.

I’m not prepared to address it personally. It’s not an issue for me. My concern is the use/abuse of the media role and what I perceive as a lack of personal integrity by a certain individual, who happens to hold an official position with one of those businesses (which also makes it different to him just being a supporter).

Originally posted by MarkT
At the end of the day it is open to any club in this anti discriminantory democracy to get a plumber, a politician, a captain of industry, a former VFL/AFL president or a Football journalist to act as their president.

Again, this is not an issue for me. I agree with what you’ve said. My concern has never been with how he does his Collingwood job. It’s how he does his media job that I have a problem with.

Originally posted by MarkT
Of course that is merely my value judgment. You clearly have yours.

And why it’s best, from my point of view, leaving this be. It’s not like we’re going to go “yeah, you’re right, I must change my opinion.” Push begats push and when egos are involved, there’s little chance of one position prevailing. The best we can hope for is increased understanding and empathy for the others point of view.

Originally posted by Lockyer24
If I didn’t like it I wouldn’t watch it. I certainly wouldn’t complain when I did because I would know after umpteen years what I was getting.

Good point. I’ll stop complaining, at least publicly. I’ve enjoyed having a vent, but to continue would be unhealthy for me. Suffice it to say, I think the way he does things on The Footy Show is slimy and disingenuous, I don’t like him for this as it clashes with one of my values, personally and professionally. End story.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Kimbo
The best we can hope for is increased understanding and empathy for the others point of view.

I looked it up in my Collingwood dictionary but empathy wasn't there. I found empty with a picture of the Legends Stand and apathy with a picture of a Carlton 2001 election notice. Is empathy a combination of the 2? Gee I feel sory for the Carlton Legends on the new board.

 

[Catman]

Re: Re: 2003 Predictions - Your Own Club

GEELONG

Final Ladder Position - 7th

Best and Fairest - Steven King

Leading Goalkicker - Cameron Mooney or Kent Kingsley

Most Improved - Charlie Gardiner

Most Votes In Brownlow - Cameron Ling

Biggest Talking Point - The return of Gary Ablett Snr to the club as a part time forwards coach.

3 Players to watch out for - James Kelly, Charlie Gardiner, Andrew Mackie.

Biggest Strength of your team - Defence.

One team you would love to be assured of beating - Collingwood or Hawthorn.

Most Memorable Win - Brisbane at home.

What will we be known for? Our speed and improved physical strength.

Describe your coach- The man who will lead us to our first flag since 1963.

 

[Kimbo]

Originally posted by MarkT
I looked it up in my Collingwood dictionary but empathy wasn't there. I found empty with a picture of the Legends Stand and apathy with a picture of a Carlton 2001 election notice. Is empathy a combination of the 2? Gee I feel sory for the Carlton Legends on the new board.

Pay that! Only cos I'm not a Carlton supporter.. or empathiser, least not as far as this issue goes.. So, we may not have empathy, but perhaps we can understand each other on this one?!

Black and white till the end huh?

 

[Goldenblue]

WEST COAST

Final Ladder Position - 4th

Best and Fairest - Micheal Gardiner

Leading Goalkicker - Troy Wilson

Most Improved - Ashley Sampi

Most Votes In Brownlow - Ben Cousins

Biggest Talking Point - Winning away.

3 Players to watch out for - Judd, Sampi, Chick

Biggest Strength of your team - Midfield.

One team you would love to be assured of beating - Fremantle

Most Memorable Win - Brisbane at home. (again)

What will we be known for? Winning away and surprising those who wrote us off (again)

Describe your coach- Club Legend. The players play for him, not the jumper.

 

[ClintEastwood]

It's amazing how many people have listed Port as the club they are sure of beating, when Port won more games than anyone else last season, and have improved their first 22.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Pred
It's amazing how many people have listed Port as the club they are sure of beating, when Port won more games than anyone else last season, and have improved their first 22.

I think that you & many (or perhaps even most) of the people have read this backwards, Pred.

The original question asked was "If you were to be assured of beating ONE team, who would that be?".

It doesn't ask which club you are sure of beating. Instead, it asks that if you were allowed to pick a side that you could be assured that you would win against, which club would you like that to be?

Naturally, the people who read this question in the correct sense and answered it as it was asked - they picked Port as the side they could be assured of winning against, as that was the side under normal circumstances they would see their team as most likely to lose against.

 

[Grendel]

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

Originally posted by windyhill
Ess. 5th/6th.

My nomination for post of the year.

Originally posted by Porthos
Please, how could two failed AFL finals series possibly compare to Collingwood's proud and lengthy heritage of choking?

3 failed AFL finals series maybe?


Sorry, couldn't resist.

Actually this is thead is a pretty good thread (and besides which I may be able to re-ignite the MarkT *winner on points*/Grayham debate) for quite a few selections on how things would go over the season.

If you contributed (and I am really surprised that I didn't) to it, how do you reckon you faired? Good, about right or totally mis-judged your own list?

 

[garygusart]

first at end will be the afl's version of the chinese womens swim team
the Brisbane Lions
unless your club is willing to "juice your team up for a last quater charge there isn't a team that can win