News Eddie McGuire to step down end of 2021

[Scodog10]

As I said earlier, I'm not privy to what the club's timetable was and in fact I was not aware of its tabling date. I was simply quoting the media in stating that it was leaked before its intended release date. As such, I'm not claiming definitive evidence. I can't disagree that the club has had a reasonable time to prepare a more considered response and the reasons why it had not is a mystery to me. I refuse to believe that the way Eddie's "pride" comments were interpreted represent the message he would have preferred to send although most people have railed at the inappropriateness of his words.

Nobody is going to suggest that the response that Eddie made was acceptable, and he has admitted that. In terms of why I believe the commissioning of the report was courageous, I can simply state that I believe the club could potentially have made some statements and put some practices in place which may or may not have addressed the core of the problem purely as a way to shut down the discussion. The fact that it chose to lay itself bare for the world to see suggests to me an element of courage especially when I believe that the problem exists in many sporting clubs and not just Collingwood.

I'm certainly not looking to defend the club's handling of every aspect of this issue, I simply think that the report is a good first step and I think we all hope that it leads to real tangible change. That Eddie can be utterly inept at times is not something new or in dispute.

I think we’ve gone well past the first bolded part of your post being a remotely credible option. It’s that sort of behaviour that lead to the outcomes we’ve seen. Look no further than the way Buckley addressed Lumumba’s comments from June last year. On face value his intent was pure, but by angling to keep it in house it made things that much worse.

Although we don’t agree I appreciate that you’ve provided me a better understanding of why you chose to label it courageous. Do you think we would have taken the action of calling for this review without Lumumba’s complaints? That to me is where I would note that it takes courage to proactively self reflect, understand that we have issues and need outside help to address them.

For instance this report has nudged me toward self reflection and one of the things that irks me about my prejudice is not having the confidence to call out my father in law on his racism. I don’t in any way expect people to do that it’s just that I can hardly sit in judgement of the club if I’m not contributing positively to change.

 

[Scodog10]

Whilst I am not a huge fan of the somewhat flowery language the writers used in the review, they did describe its commissioning as follows:

"It was a brave first step that few would have the courage to take and shows the seriousness with which the Club takes the issue."

I don’t agree with their take either. I think you’re right to highlight their use of language because flowery is a pretty apt description (touching on reparations was a bit much for me) and in this case I think it was poor. I’m harping on it yes, but it was only instigated because Lumumba spoke out and that’s where I’ve chosen to plant my flag.

I guess to provide a practical example of what it would take for me to view a similar act as courageous would be if say the Western Bulldogs announced today they were going to conduct a similar review.

I may also be seeming soapboxy, but in this particular case it’s more to get a better feel for PNS’ view rather than break it down. It’s McGuire that’s really in the gun with me...

 

[PieNSauce]

I think we’ve gone well past the first bolded part of your post being a remotely credible option. It’s that sort of behaviour that lead to the outcomes we’ve seen. Look no further than the way Buckley addressed Lumumba’s comments from June last year. On face value his intent was pure, but by angling to keep it in house it made things that much worse.

Although we don’t agree I appreciate that you’ve provided me a better understanding of why you chose to label it courageous. Do you think we would have taken the action of calling for this review without Lumumba’s complaints? That to me is where I would note that it takes courage to proactively self reflect, understand that we have issues and need outside help to address them.

For instance this report has nudged me toward self reflection and one of the things that irks me about my prejudice is not having the confidence to call out my father in law on his racism. I don’t in any way expect people to do that it’s just that I can hardly sit in judgement of the club if I’m not contributing positively to change.

I think it's fairly obvious that the club would have been highly unlikely to commission the report without Lumumba's accusations and that's probably where the club has not shown itself to be particularly wonderful. I just think that there has to be a start point and I see the report as being that point.

The truth about racism is that it is clearly something heavily ingrained in our society. So heavily in fact that many don't even recognise it. It's also probably true that many who do recognise it don't always have the courage to call it out and I can admit that there have been times when I have let it slide. My hope is that our club actually goes hard on this issue and becomes a leader in changing attitudes. God knows we need it.

 

[jackcass]

Being Passionate does not mean you can choose when you leave.

He has made quite a Few Bad Mistakes in the last Few Years

They were hardly "bad" mistakes. They were generally silly more than anything else. Everyone makes mistakes but the types of mistakes Ed has made are rarely sacking offences. Even cumulatively.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I'm not disputing our history, I'm questioning the chronology of those claims. What are the recent incidents, those post Heritier's departure?

There are none, with the arguable exception of not taking his claims seriously enough.

And the vague claim of not drafting enough indigenous/coloured players in recent years. Which is a bit of a stretch. We also haven’t drafted enough key forwards!

 

[sideswipe]

I don’t agree with their take either. I think you’re right to highlight their use of language because flowery is a pretty apt description (touching on reparations was a bit much for me) and in this case I think it was poor. I’m harping on it yes, but it was only instigated because Lumumba spoke out and that’s where I’ve chosen to plant my flag.

I guess to provide a practical example of what it would take for me to view a similar act as courageous would be if say the Western Bulldogs announced today they were going to conduct a similar review.

I may also be seeming soapboxy, but in this particular case it’s more to get a better feel for PNS’ view rather than break it down. It’s McGuire that’s really in the gun with me...

It might be that whilst Lumumba was the catalyst (which the report acknowledges), the Club could likely have "gotten away" with not going down this path? And by commissioning this review, there was likely only one conclusion that would be reached - that the club's procedures/culture were lacking and need improving. So the findings were always going to paint the club in a relatively poor light?

 

[Scodog10]

I think it's fairly obvious that the club would have been highly unlikely to commission the report without Lumumba's accusations and that's probably where the club has not shown itself to be particularly wonderful. I just think that there has to be a start point and I see the report as being that point.

The truth about racism is that it is clearly something heavily ingrained in our society. So heavily in fact that many don't even recognise it. It's also probably true that many who do recognise it don't always have the courage to call it out and I can admit that there have been times when I have let it slide. My hope is that our club actually goes hard on this issue and becomes a leader in changing attitudes. God knows we need it.

That to me is why we differ because I view courage as voluntarily putting yourself in positions that make you feel uncomfortable physically, metaphorically, emotionally, spiritually etc. in order to achieve a desired outcome. Yes commissioning an independent audit of our behaviour was a voluntary act, but it was undertaken thanks to a serious external push and not under the clubs own steam. Good chat though

 

[jackcass]

There are none, with the arguable exception of not taking his claims seriously enough.

And the vague claim of not drafting enough indigenous/coloured players in recent years. Which is a bit of a stretch. We also haven’t drafted enough key forwards!

Pretty much my perception. We've made considerable in-roads on the journey post H's departure, and those efforts appear to be escalating considerably over the last few years. We still have a long way to go, as does society in general, but I'd imagine we'd measure up pretty well against other clubs. Commissioning this review will hopefully trigger similar action more broadly.

 

[Scodog10]

It might be that whilst Lumumba was the catalyst (which the report acknowledges), the Club could likely have "gotten away" with not going down this path? And by commissioning this review, there was likely only one conclusion that would be reached - that the club's procedures/culture were lacking and need improving. So the findings were always going to paint the club in a relatively poor light?

It probably depends on your definition of “gotten away”. Shifting back to Lumumba’s comments on being on the right side of history then no we wouldn’t have gotten away with it.

I guess there could be circumstances where we undertook changes under our own volition without the report that corrected our “systemic racism” I would just have that at extremely long odds. Especially given the findings of the report.

One thing I absolutely agree with is that a report like this was always going to paint us in a bad light. I don’t agree that knowing that and proceeding anyway is a courageous act, but I acknowledge that others will take a different POV. I would say that if we assumed a report like this was going to paint us in a poor light why weren’t we proactive in addressing some of the issues? Chiefly Lumumba. Allowing the report to run its course was an easy way to deflect from adequately addressing his complaints at the time, IMO.*

The only problem I have is that I’m struggling to piece together Lumumba’s expectations of the club moving forward in a practical sense. An example would be how Peter Hellier was roped into it from his comments in 2017. Reading over them his points seemed reasonable and in support of Lumumba’s POV, but he’s been criticised for them so perhaps I’ve missed the context?

*I’ve worded that poorly, but can’t come up with a better way to phrase it. Basically Lumumba’s complaints aren’t just an issue to be dealt with.

 

[sideswipe]

It probably depends on your definition of “gotten away”. Shifting back to Lumumba’s comments on being on the right side of history then no we wouldn’t have gotten away with it.

I guess there could be circumstances where we undertook changes under our own volition without the report that corrected our “systemic racism” I would just have that at extremely long odds. Especially given the findings of the report.

One thing I absolutely agree with is that a report like this was always going to paint us in a bad light. I don’t agree that knowing that and proceeding anyway is a courageous act, but I acknowledge that others will take a different POV. I would say that if we assumed a report like this was going to paint us in a poor light why weren’t we proactive in addressing some of the issues? Chiefly Lumumba. Allowing the report to run its course was an easy way to deflect from adequately addressing the issue at the time, IMO.

The only problem I have is that I’m struggling to piece together Lumumba’s expectations of the club moving forward in a practical sense. An example would be how Peter Hellier was roped into it from his comments in 2017. Reading over them his points seemed reasonable and in support of Lumumba’s POV, but he’s been criticised for them so perhaps I’ve missed the context?

*I’ve worded that poorly, but can’t come up with a better way to phrase it. Basically Lumumba’s beliefs aren’t just an issue to be dealt with.

One thing that would meet my definition of courageous is calling out racism from your in-laws.

Please report back on how it goes down.

 

[Gadzorks]

Gotta wonder if the way the Eddie issue plays is going to impact on this years trade and draft periods.

Top draftees are now quite happy to say no to a club, and trade players look for specific things in their new club. Some are just dollars, but they all seem genuine when they say club culture counts. In our crap years our culture worked against us, but the fagan era culture is cited as a major factor by the a grades who have come to us.

 

[sideswipe]

Gotta wonder if the way the Eddie issue plays is going to impact on this years trade and draft periods.

Top draftees are now quite happy to say no to a club, and trade players look for specific things in their new club. Some are just dollars, but they all seem genuine when they say club culture counts. In our crap years our culture worked against us, but the fagan era culture is cited as a major factor by the a grades who have come to us.

Destination club for young racists though.

 

[Len Smith Medallist]

M

I'm not disputing our history, I'm questioning the chronology of those claims. What are the recent incidents, those post Heritier's departure?

My reading of it is that they are just as likely to come after as before. Any reason to think not?

 

[jackcass]

M

My reading of it is that they are just as likely to come after as before. Any reason to think not?

I can't see them escaping media attention or why they wouldn't have disclosed any instances in the report if they had occurred. Only the Lumumba agitation and a couple of instances within the cheer squad were referenced though.

 

[TradeDraft]

Stopped Reading at Caroline

 

[Len Smith Medallist]

I can't see them escaping media attention or why they wouldn't have disclosed any instances in the report if they had occurred. Only the Lumumba agitation and a couple of instances within the cheer squad were referenced though.

The report is critical of our processes. One of the consequences of inadequate processes is that people don't come forward with their complaints. Being interviewed for this review may be the first time that some have been open about their experience of racism. That's why it is just as likely that people experienced racism both before and since Héritier made his complaint. Héritier's complaint was not a trigger for the implementation of adequate processes as this review clearly states.

 

[Len Smith Medallist]

They were hardly "bad" mistakes. They were generally silly more than anything else. Everyone makes mistakes but the types of mistakes Ed has made are rarely sacking offences. Even cumulatively.

Depends on your job and your employer. I've worked in jobs where the staff code of conduct was such that I would expect to lose my job as a result of the type of gaffes made by Eddie. Especially after more than one breach.

 

[jackcass]

Depends on your job and your employer. I've worked in jobs where the staff code of conduct was such that I would expect to lose my job as a result of the type of gaffes made by Eddie. Especially after more than one breach.

Which gaffs are you referring to?

His Goodes gaff was by far the worst offence he committed and I've never heard of anyone being sacked without due process for something like that. Well at least not 1 that hasn't ended in a wrongful dismissal case. And lets not forget in that instance his employer was the radio station, not the Collingwood Football Club. What action did they take?

 

[Len Smith Medallist]

Which gaffs are you referring to?

His Goodes gaff was by far the worst offence he committed and I've never heard of anyone being sacked without due process for something like that. Well at least not 1 that hasn't ended in a wrongful dismissal case. And lets not forget in that instance his employer was the radio station, not the Collingwood Football Club. What action did they take?

Even if his employer at the time was a radio station or Channel Nine he never clocks off from his role as President.

These are just the ones I remember. I'm sure people who know him better could add to this.

His homophobic comments when commentating the Vancouver Winter Olympics.

Conflating Adam Goodes and King Kong - 5 days after chiding a Collingwood supporter for calling him an ape.

Criticising Adam Goodes war dance celebration.

Referring to John Eren as a 'Mussy'.

Misogynist comments about Caroline Wilson.

Mocking a person with disabilities when tossing the coin.

Being an apologist for Sam Newman's overt racism.

Being a non-interventionist witness to Sam Newman's overt racism and misogyny.

Being more proud of commissioning a report into racism at Collingwood than contrite about its contents.

 

[jackcass]

Even if his employer at the time was a radio station or Channel Nine he never clocks off from his role as President.

These are just the ones I remember. I'm sure people who know him better could add to this.

His homophobic comments when commentating the Vancouver Winter Olympics.

Conflating Adam Goodes and King Kong - 5 days after chiding a Collingwood supporter for calling him an ape.

Criticising Adam Goodes war dance celebration.

Referring to John Eren as a 'Mussy'.

Misogynist comments about Caroline Wilson.

Mocking a person with disabilities when tossing the coin.

Being an apologist for Sam Newman's overt racism.

Being a non-interventionist witness to Sam Newman's overt racism and misogyny.

Being more proud of commissioning a report into racism at Collingwood than contrite about its contents.

Again, hardly sackable offences, even cumulatively.

 

[Woody15]

Even if his employer at the time was a radio station or Channel Nine he never clocks off from his role as President.

These are just the ones I remember. I'm sure people who know him better could add to this.

His homophobic comments when commentating the Vancouver Winter Olympics.

Conflating Adam Goodes and King Kong - 5 days after chiding a Collingwood supporter for calling him an ape.

Criticising Adam Goodes war dance celebration.

Referring to John Eren as a 'Mussy'.

Misogynist comments about Caroline Wilson.

Mocking a person with disabilities when tossing the coin.

Being an apologist for Sam Newman's overt racism.

Being a non-interventionist witness to Sam Newman's overt racism and misogyny.

Being more proud of commissioning a report into racism at Collingwood than contrite about its contents.

Id forgotten about a couple of these. Im sure there are more.

Crazy.

 

[Len Smith Medallist]

Again, hardly sackable offences, even cumulatively.

Again, depends on the job and the employer.

 

[jackcass]

Again, depends on the job and the employer.

We know that. We're talking CFC and Eddie. I'm not sure how it can be so variable.

 

[Len Smith Medallist]

We know that. We're talking CFC and Eddie. I'm not sure how it can be so variable.

You said they were not sackable offences and, clearly that has been the case for Ed. My point is that in some workplaces they would be, especially cumulatively. You can choose to believe this or not. Prior to his comments about Adam Goodes, Ed said that Collingwood has 'zero tolerance towards racism'. Not sure what this means to him but clearly has not affected his position at the club. It's no good saying 'it's time to go', as that time was years ago. He is clearly untouchable and, even now, permitted to control the agenda.

His apology last night was another non-apology. He apologised for giving the impression that he was proud of Collingwood's history of racism. No one really thought that that was what he was saying. What was offensive was that he was taking great pains to pat himself on the back for commissioning the review and stressing what strength this took. This was his priority over apologising for the mistakes, being humbled by the report's content and committing to make reparation to those affected.

Well past time to go!

 

[jackcass]

You said they were not sackable offences and, clearly that has been the case for Ed. My point is that in some workplaces they would be, especially cumulatively. You can choose to believe this or not. Prior to his comments about Adam Goodes, Ed said that Collingwood has 'zero tolerance towards racism'. Not sure what this means to him but clearly has not affected his position at the club. It's no good saying 'it's time to go', as that time was years ago. He is clearly untouchable and, even now, permitted to control the agenda.

His apology last night was another non-apology. He apologised for giving the impression that he was proud of Collingwood's history of racism. No one really thought that that was what he was saying. What was offensive was that he was taking great pains to pat himself on the back for commissioning the review and stressing what strength this took. This was his priority over apologising for the mistakes, being humbled by the report's content and committing to make reparation to those affected.

Well past time to go!

As I've repeatedly said elsewhere, I'm not wedded to Ed. Conversely I'm apprehensive about what change will bring.

For all his foibles, Ed has been a positive impact upon the club. You can't say that for every President.

I can understand how people can get their noses out of joint about some of his activity but I'm more happy to segregate that which occurs internally of the CFC from that which occurs externally. Some can't, I understand that. If he owned a shoe store instead of being Mr Media he wouldn't have the platform for the vast majority of what you suggest have been issues. Which other president is subjected to that same level of scrutiny? None. And it's purely because he's a media personality and it's good fodder.

Yes, he chose to marry the 2 roles. Yes, he must have anticipated what that would entail. But I think much of it is over the top.

People need to be careful what they wish for.