Discussion 2022 General AFL Discussion

[The Punter]

apparently the Tasmanian team decision could be made today. Fingers crossed they get their team. Tasmania deserved a team before SA had their second team (Port Adelaide franchise est. 1997)

Not for nothing, but the years to bed the Tasmanian team in will have the same effect on rebuilding teams as GC and GWS did in the first half of the 2010s.

The "Port Adelaide" era (1997-2010, 16 teams, priority picks, seven double ups) was the golden age for the league IMO.

 

[flyingmagic]

Do you think that statement specifically refutes the sermon that notes homosexuality is a sin? Cause it doesn’t.

They are relevant though when they are completely opposed to the views of the club and the position is the CEO.

It’s seriously not that hard

Essendon - doesn’t think being gay is a sin or a bad thing

City on a hill - does think being gay is a sin and a bad thing

The ceo of Essendon can’t be of the opinion of City on a Hill.

Christianity says that not being a Christian is a sin.

Essendon doesn't think not being a Christian is a sin.

The ceo of Essendon can't be of the opinion of a Christian?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

apparently the Tasmanian team decision could be made today. Fingers crossed they get their team. Tasmania deserved a team before SA had their second team (Port Adelaide franchise est. 1997)

Why? The population of the entire state is less than half that of Adelaide.
Port pretty much made themselves.

Hobart has a population similar to combined Ballarat and Bendigo.
Launceston have less than Albury Wodonga.

Where will the revenue come from?
If "deservedness" was based on how much the people there like football, there probably should be a team for some small town near Wagga Wagga.

The Basketball team was not an indicator that an AFL team could be successful. Not at all.

 

[Sun Ra]

Anyone else get the feeling that Essendon are coming after the Saints v Swans Pride game ?

 

[The Punter]

Anyone else get the feeling that Essendon are coming after the Saints v Swans Pride game ?

Not particularly.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Anyone else get the feeling that Essendon are coming after the Saints v Swans Pride game ?

Now that they don't have a CEO who would apparently get in the way?

 

[Sun Ra]

Now that they don't have a CEO who would apparently get in the way?

Pretty sure they said they want to be competition leaders in this space.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Pretty sure they said they want to be competition leaders in this space.

Dani Laidly would probably love a job back with football.
Bombers are the team to do it.

 

[Sun Ra]

Dani Laidly would probably love a job back with football.
Bombers are the team to do it.

She'll get a job with the AFL. Maybe Scott's old job ?

 

[jwikked]

Anyone else get the feeling that Essendon are coming after the Saints v Swans Pride game ?

It’s inevitably going to end up as yet another themed round.

 

[StFly]

Pretty sure they said they want to be competition leaders in this space.

And I want to punch a few of them in the face, we don't all get what we want.

This isn't good friday where it was someone elses idea and we were happy to be there, this was purely us and Swans so the rest of them can kiss some tush.

It’s inevitably going to end up as yet another themed round.

Kinda unlikely, there's already too many "bit time" things that clubs do that the AFL isn't gong to be mandating such a thing for an entire round and fiddle with the fixture even more than they already do.

 

[sunny3193]

Anyone else get the feeling that Essendon are coming after the Saints v Swans Pride game ?

No.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Very very good piece from the The Age's editor on the complexities of the Essendon CEO saga.

Probably fair for everyone to keep in mind the highlighted bits.

Footy, religion and avoiding a rush to judgement​

By Michael Bachelard​

October 7, 2022 — 7.30pm

I once worked at a newspaper where the AFL page was labelled “Religion”. That’s how, in winter at least, many Melburnians regard the footy. But when footy and real religion meet, it can ignite a culture war.

From almost the moment Andrew Thorburn was appointed CEO of Essendon, social media grew outraged about his leadership of a church whose pastor had made controversial comments about abortion and homosexuality. Conveniently for the media, those sermons were searchable on the church’s own websites and YouTube.

Our initial story on the issue appeared on Monday evening as an item in our CBD column. This was a choice not to put what then appeared undue emphasis on Thorburn’s private religious affiliation, even though his church had views that were already stirring strong opposition.

The following day this became an impossible position to hold. After the words from some of his church’s sermons – on abortion and homosexuality – were reported in the Herald Sun, Premier Daniel Andrews weighed in. Speaking at a press conference, he called the views “absolutely appalling”. This prompted a strong response from Opposition Leader Matthew Guy, then from others.

The poor treatment meted out to National Australia Bank customers (including deceased former customers) when Thorburn was its CEO, added to the opprobrium. A culture war ensued.

“I think,” prominent Christian and gambling reform campaigner Reverend Tim Costello suggested on Thursday, “we’ve had a rush to judgment.”

This is the nature of much of the modern debate, and it’s hard to resist. It feels good to shout and throw stones, to join one side or other and relish your collective moral might.

It’s also worth sitting back a little and thinking. Because, as we pointed out in our editorial on Thursday, there are competing rights here – the right for people to freely practise their religion, against the right of LGBTQ people and people who have had an abortion to live free of vilification.

There are complex moral and legal issues here, and a man has lost his job over it.

I’ve had plenty of discussions in the newsroom about this, and the views cut both ways. Some of my colleagues think Essendon was right to give Thorburn what employment lawyer Paul O’Halloran called a “forced voluntary resignation”.

They say he was no ordinary parishioner of this church with offensive views (some of which pastor Guy Mason later said he regretted), he was its chairman, which makes it harder for him to disavow them. Essendon’s branding as the “diversity” club, they say, meant the club could never have tolerated such a CEO and were right to cauterise the wound quickly.

Other colleagues argue the views expressed are entirely mainstream opinions, held widely across monotheistic religions, and Thorburn – who did not himself make the comments and has distanced himself from some of them – has been grievously wronged. The rush to judgment, they’ve told me, worries them personally as people of religion who wonder if they too have a place in the public square.

There is a view, I think, among those who dislike what they call the “mainstream media” (lumping us all together despite our significant differences), that we rush thoughtlessly to judgment on complex issues. That is something we at The Age try to resist.

Our editorial, published on Thursday, was carefully thought through – to the extent I worried it was saying nothing at all except for its statement that Essendon had now performed as poorly off the field as its players did on. (Did anyone else notice how many Essendon supporters were involved in this debate: Daniel Andrews, Tim Costello, Archbishop Peter Comensoli – all Bombers fans.)

Our news coverage on this issue has attempted to be clear, timely and to feature a range of voices in a debate that is an important one for us to have. We have gamely sought differing views for our opinion section. We know, because we have discussed it with a number of potential contributors, that some are too nervous to write what they think because of a fear of culture-war backlash against them personally.

In a world where people do tend to rush to judgment, it’s an increasingly radical stance to be open to views from across the spectrum, and open-minded enough to listen and, perhaps, change our own. We’ll slip at times, and judge too quickly or too harshly. But we’re striving, at least, for something more sophisticated.

 

[phantom13]

Very very good piece from the The Age's editor on the complexities of the Essendon CEO saga.

Probably fair for everyone to keep in mind the highlighted bits.

Footy, religion and avoiding a rush to judgement​

By Michael Bachelard​

October 7, 2022 — 7.30pm

I once worked at a newspaper where the AFL page was labelled “Religion”. That’s how, in winter at least, many Melburnians regard the footy. But when footy and real religion meet, it can ignite a culture war.

From almost the moment Andrew Thorburn was appointed CEO of Essendon, social media grew outraged about his leadership of a church whose pastor had made controversial comments about abortion and homosexuality. Conveniently for the media, those sermons were searchable on the church’s own websites and YouTube.

Our initial story on the issue appeared on Monday evening as an item in our CBD column. This was a choice not to put what then appeared undue emphasis on Thorburn’s private religious affiliation, even though his church had views that were already stirring strong opposition.

The following day this became an impossible position to hold. After the words from some of his church’s sermons – on abortion and homosexuality – were reported in the Herald Sun, Premier Daniel Andrews weighed in. Speaking at a press conference, he called the views “absolutely appalling”. This prompted a strong response from Opposition Leader Matthew Guy, then from others.

The poor treatment meted out to National Australia Bank customers (including deceased former customers) when Thorburn was its CEO, added to the opprobrium. A culture war ensued.

“I think,” prominent Christian and gambling reform campaigner Reverend Tim Costello suggested on Thursday, “we’ve had a rush to judgment.”

This is the nature of much of the modern debate, and it’s hard to resist. It feels good to shout and throw stones, to join one side or other and relish your collective moral might.

It’s also worth sitting back a little and thinking. Because, as we pointed out in our editorial on Thursday, there are competing rights here – the right for people to freely practise their religion, against the right of LGBTQ people and people who have had an abortion to live free of vilification.

There are complex moral and legal issues here, and a man has lost his job over it.

I’ve had plenty of discussions in the newsroom about this, and the views cut both ways. Some of my colleagues think Essendon was right to give Thorburn what employment lawyer Paul O’Halloran called a “forced voluntary resignation”.

They say he was no ordinary parishioner of this church with offensive views (some of which pastor Guy Mason later said he regretted), he was its chairman, which makes it harder for him to disavow them. Essendon’s branding as the “diversity” club, they say, meant the club could never have tolerated such a CEO and were right to cauterise the wound quickly.

Other colleagues argue the views expressed are entirely mainstream opinions, held widely across monotheistic religions, and Thorburn – who did not himself make the comments and has distanced himself from some of them – has been grievously wronged. The rush to judgment, they’ve told me, worries them personally as people of religion who wonder if they too have a place in the public square.

There is a view, I think, among those who dislike what they call the “mainstream media” (lumping us all together despite our significant differences), that we rush thoughtlessly to judgment on complex issues. That is something we at The Age try to resist.

Our editorial, published on Thursday, was carefully thought through – to the extent I worried it was saying nothing at all except for its statement that Essendon had now performed as poorly off the field as its players did on. (Did anyone else notice how many Essendon supporters were involved in this debate: Daniel Andrews, Tim Costello, Archbishop Peter Comensoli – all Bombers fans.)

Our news coverage on this issue has attempted to be clear, timely and to feature a range of voices in a debate that is an important one for us to have. We have gamely sought differing views for our opinion section. We know, because we have discussed it with a number of potential contributors, that some are too nervous to write what they think because of a fear of culture-war backlash against them personally.

In a world where people do tend to rush to judgment, it’s an increasingly radical stance to be open to views from across the spectrum, and open-minded enough to listen and, perhaps, change our own. We’ll slip at times, and judge too quickly or too harshly. But we’re striving, at least, for something more sophisticated.

There really is no complexity to what happened with Essendon though.

Post appointment they were made aware of his affiliation with a church that made hate speech statements in sermons. Statements that are completely at odds with Essendons stated policies and goals.

He was asked to stand down for business reasons. He hasn’t pursued any form of unfair dismissal because there is nothing to pursue.

If you want to argue about whether religion can continue to spout anti gay rhetoric because of religious freedoms sure THAT might have some complexity (my personal opinion of it aside) but the Essendon case isn’t complicated unless you really want to make it complicated.

 

[pebblesofsand]

There really is no complexity to what happened with Essendon though.

Post appointment they were made aware of his affiliation with a church that made hate speech statements in sermons. Statements that are completely at odds with Essendons stated policies and goals.

He was asked to stand down for business reasons. He hasn’t pursued any form of unfair dismissal because there is nothing to pursue.

If you want to argue about whether religion can continue to spout anti gay rhetoric because of religious freedoms sure THAT might have some complexity (my personal opinion of it aside) but the Essendon case isn’t complicated unless you really want to make it complicated.

You may think there is no complexity but you only have to look at the possible implications in relation to the existing Victorian Equal Opportunity Act, the Fair Work Act and the Religious Discrimination Act that is currently before the federal parliament to understand there are complex issues at play that have much wider societal implications.

As has been pointed out by a number of legal experts anti-discrimination laws do not prioritise one protected attribute over another. To quote a specialist workplace employment lawyer

"Freedom of religion is afforded the same protection alongside gender identity, disability, lawful sexual activity, marital status, parental or carer status, pregnancy, race, sex, and other accepted attributes.

You may not like Thorburn’s views, but his right to continue in employment isn’t dependent on whether you like what he or his church thinks.

Cancelling him for the views some members of his religion might hold in defiance of legal protections the state offers him endangers the protections we all enjoy under that same law."

That's me done - time for golf.

 

[phantom13]

Yeh he resigned from a work place because of an incompatibility of key principles.

To go another route, you’d have to wonder why he would even want to work there given the misalignment.

It’s not complex, you and the media just wanna angrily bash at your keyboards.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Yeh he resigned from a work place because of an incompatibility of key principles.

To go another route, you’d have to wonder why he would even want to work there given the misalignment.

It’s not complex, you and the media just wanna angrily bash at your keyboards.

He wants a job.
He has runs on the board running an inclusive organisation.
He would probably not find, nor want to run a non-inclusive organization.

There is no indication that he is a religious zealot, particularly mainstream Christians seem to have a lot of flexibility in their belief systems.

Its obviously an issue within religious groups, some and the high ranking members of churches are not all on the same wave length.

‘Fundamentally awry’: bishops block move to reject same-sex marriage

Sydney’s Anglican archbishop has warned the church is in a perilous position after bishops narrowly vetoed a statement affirming that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

www.smh.com.au

You are making assumptions with a biased opinion.
You don't know which camp he is in.

 

[phantom13]

He wants a job.
He has runs on the board running an inclusive organisation.
He would probably not find, nor want to run a non-inclusive organization.

There is no indication that he is a religious zealot, particularly mainstream Christians seem to have a lot of flexibility in their belief systems.

Its obviously an issue within religious groups, some and the high ranking members of churches are not all on the same wave length.

‘Fundamentally awry’: bishops block move to reject same-sex marriage

Sydney’s Anglican archbishop has warned the church is in a perilous position after bishops narrowly vetoed a statement affirming that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

www.smh.com.au

You are making assumptions with a biased opinion.
You don't know which camp he is in.

I mean we’re all making assumptions about his personal opinion.

The fact he’s stood down, won’t answer the question and has gone to pretty extreme lengths to not directly adress the issue would give a lot more weight to my assumption than anyone else’s.

If he was happy to say “I don’t believe that gays will burn in hell” then he likely wouldn’t need to resign also couldn’t imagine why he’d want to start part of a church that thought that if he didn’t.

If the saints come out tomorrow and condemn black people as being evil Id be throwing out my membership.

In any event this pressing desire some have to defend his right to religious freedoms, centered solely around his right to believe homosexuality is a sin just doesn’t compute for pretty much any modern organisation. His tenure at Nab is absolutely less public and it’s likely his views were never known in the very public way they are now. If you want to argue poor him (being an extravagantly wealthy cis white man, im pretty confident he’ll be fine) that’s what you should be arguing over.

He stood down, that’s really the end of the whole workplace discussion as much as some want to argue about culture wars.

 

[phantom13]

Also which is it?

Cause if you’re saying religious zealots shouldn’t be allowed to get a job like this doesn’t that go completely against the whole “religious discrimination” thing?

 

[Sun Ra]

My view is that organised religions should be abolished and declared illegal. Their assets should be seized by the government.
People should however feel free to practice their religion at their home or in their broom closet.

 

[phantom13]

I’d be curious to know if this went to court (which it seems extremely unlikely to) what the burden and precedent is to prove what your religion specifically is based on?

Church on a hill is an offshoot of catholism isn’t it? So does it’s own specific clear rules about homosexuality constitute religious belief? Or do you need to prove that catholism in general declares homosexuality a sin? Where specifically does it do that? If I can find a catholic priest who doesn’t does that make the whole argument invalid?

My biggest issue is that people very conviently seem to align their religions with belief systems that most mirror their own, except for when they don’t (does old mate keep the sabbath holy? Does he mix his fabrics? Does he plan on selling his daughters?).

If you’re picking the bits you think sound good then it’s not really your religious beliefs anymore is it? And if you can just start you’re own religion with the bits you like and don’t like then it would seem we could wind up with a whole bunch of pretty ****ed up “religious beliefs”.

Anyway, it’s full srp now and nobody wants that.

 

[Dard Ball Get]

My view is that organised religions should be abolished and declared illegal. Their assets should be seized by the government.
People should however feel free to practice their religion at their home or in their broom closet.

Letting the government seize the assets wouldn’t work, they’re one and the same. Have a free for all first in best dressed yard sale

 

[Sun Ra]

Letting the government seize the assets wouldn’t work, they’re one and the same. Have a free for all first in best dressed yard sale

No, I think it would work. Any schools, nursing homes, hospitals, etc owned by religious organisations can be seized and repurposed
as government run facilities. Churches, properties, bank accounts, etc can be seized and transferred to Commonwealth holdings.
Also would need to make a law that anyone who complains about any of this is looking at a minimum of 5 years jail. That should shut them up.

 

[phantom13]

No, I think it would work. Any schools, nursing homes, hospitals, etc owned by religious organisations can be seized and repurposed
as government run facilities. Churches, properties, bank accounts, etc can be seized and transferred to Commonwealth holdings.
Also would need to make a law that anyone who complains about any of this is looking at a minimum of 5 years jail. That should shut them up.

But, but, religious freedoms etc etc.

 

[Sun Ra]

But, but, religious freedoms etc etc.

You just have to take it to an election and get people to vote for it. Then you have a mandate. Need to get Treasury to calculate the windfall.
It would probably pay off the national debt. That's a message you can sell to a population that according to recent census data is less and less
buying the belief industry's crapola.

Religious freedoms ? As I said they'd be free to wank off pray at home.