Yeh let's not play the victim here.
You didn't exactly respond to his points. Imo you minimised, mischaracterized and misquoted his argument. Ignoring the evidence clearly provided to you could most certainly be characterized as having your "head in the sand". Not a personal attack, just a saying that paints a condescending picture based on what can be perceived as a condescending response.
Nothing has been proven doesn't mean it won't be proven. The allegations alone should be cause for serious concern.
I would say it is unusual and audacious to request for an extension while the cloud of internal and external corruption enquiries hang over your head. Not to mention when former employees begin launching a class action lawsuit against you...
I would say the aforementioned investigations aren't exactly "white noise" or the act of "enemies" either...
I agree with you last point though, if insiders are backing him then I feel more comfortable with his re-appointment also.
My point of view is leaning towards non-reappointment but I'm not as sure as I previously was (based on some of yours and some other posters arguments here also).
What is more old Carlton though?
a) Keeping president who's conduct is at the very least unethical or at the very worst blatantly corrupt?
or
b) Not re-appointing (aka "sacking") a Carlton leader as soon as increased member/media pressure is applied?
Lastly I think there is a misnomer applied to posters who don't want to see him re-appointed. They're seen as people who want to proverbially rattle the cage while we are in a premiership window. I think based on the well articulated arguments provided by posters such as Blue and Silver we can stop with that commentary also (that's not aimed at you personally, just other posters on your side of the debate).
PS. Enjoy your work in general good sir.
Last edited:
