- May 15, 2017
- 23,168
- 88,347
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Dusty
thought she just got pregnant had no idea it was already in production
maybe they got 2 going at same time another will come later
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
PLUS Your club board comp is now up!
thought she just got pregnant had no idea it was already in production
Those in charge don't want the dynasty continuing. The purpose of the League is to encourage gambling and as a bread and circus distraction from the state of ultimately more important things and one club being too dominant is not helpful in either sense. In short, Gill may run footy, but that doesn't mean he truly has to care about it. He's there to implement an agenda.Mate I also reckon it's the tip of the iceberg.
He did kick it & they were still 2 goals behind. An all time classic.Bet Chris Scott wishes he could delete that “if he kicks this we win” from the 2020 GF
Check out SHockings entire Football CV & see what u can find. Let us know how you go.rubbish. where did hocking "not hide it" - link? the club has repeatedly walked away from this nonsense. cos it shows a weak club sooking, looking 4 excuses, unable 2 adjust. hocking had 2 get the tick from mclaughlin. then a tick from the commission. this parallel universe stuff makes us a laughing stock.
This is quiet smething, have u got a link to the interview where this was said?Agree with all of this. Add to is a recent interview where Chris Scott responded as per the exert below:
"
Asked if he wavered on several occasions in the years after managing to secure a premiership in his first season of 2011, Scott answered simply: "Yep."
To the point of considering aborting the plan? "I don't think we ever got to the stage of aborting it. (Recruiting boss) Stephen Wells and I in particular, and (former head of football and current CEO) Steve Hocking as well, have had this conversation all the way through, and I was generally the driver of: 'you know we are going to have to pivot at some point in time' and 'there is going to be a reckoning'.
"
In any sort of healthy landscape in terms of media scrutiny, the football media would be leaping on that statement like a starving leopard. Scott literally states that whilst Hocking was working for the AFL with his responsibilities including rule changes for the entire sport, and final decision maker in MRO cases affecting all teams(obviously including Geelong,) where he is supposed to be impartial, he was also in regular discussions with Scott and Wells about Geelong's interests. It is an astonishing slip of the tongue by Scott, but perhaps he knows due to the way the land lies, nobody can say anything about it.
This is quiet smething, have u got a link to the interview where this was said?
Mate there are plenty of links here going back literally years. If you haven't been following the discussion, that's fine but I'm not going back looking for them. Not my problem.
Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion. Personally I don't profess my opinions lightly, as anyone here will know. SHocking not only changed the rules to negate Richmond (it could have been any team as dominant as Richmond were becoming) but he rushed them through. That's fact.
The only thing quicker in AFL in the last five years than his introduction of rule changes to fundamentally change football was how fast he then went back to be CEO of Geelong (I imagine your opinion there is that there was no conflict of interest in that at all ?) just in time for him to be in the right place, at the right time.
It was either a massive coincidence, or a conspired effort ("state of the game") to change the way football was being played and headed (does anyone seriously doubt this ?) at a time when Richmond were utterly dominant with a game style that he found, as did the AFL and their free to air telecast sponsor, an anathema.
And just quietly for the record since you mentioned it, nobody laughs at me, not to my face anyway. Any Richmond bloke is however welcome to laugh with me because it's us against them as far as I'm concerned.
Chris Scott had a go at the way we played football after the premiership then Shocking studied Richmond and changed rules to hinder us.Agree with all of this. Add to is a recent interview where Chris Scott responded as per the exert below:
"
Asked if he wavered on several occasions in the years after managing to secure a premiership in his first season of 2011, Scott answered simply: "Yep."
To the point of considering aborting the plan? "I don't think we ever got to the stage of aborting it. (Recruiting boss) Stephen Wells and I in particular, and (former head of football and current CEO) Steve Hocking as well, have had this conversation all the way through, and I was generally the driver of: 'you know we are going to have to pivot at some point in time' and 'there is going to be a reckoning'.
"
In any sort of healthy landscape in terms of media scrutiny, the football media would be leaping on that statement like a starving leopard. Scott literally states that whilst Hocking was working for the AFL with his responsibilities including rule changes for the entire sport, and final decision maker in MRO cases affecting all teams(obviously including Geelong,) where he is supposed to be impartial, he was also in regular discussions with Scott and Wells about Geelong's interests. It is an astonishing slip of the tongue by Scott, but perhaps he knows due to the way the land lies, nobody can say anything about it.
Hocking was still on the AFL's game analysis team in September 2022. The team provides recommendations to the rules committee.How Scott defied self-doubt to deliver 'really ambitious' flag dream
When Chris Scott was appointed Geelong coach, he made a pledge to go all-in on winning the flag every single seasonwww.afl.com.au
It is quite something alright. Not one peep from anyone about it. Just me on page 24 of the Steven Hocking Conflict of Interest thread.
Steven Hocking Conflict of Interest
I will openly state my agenda here. At least three of Stephen Hocking’s responsibilities in his role as General Manager Football Operations are clearly conflicted by his history and links with the Geelong Football Club. The first, and most important in my opinion, is his role in directly...www.bigfooty.com
Cats fans response predictable. Nobody else seems to care. Reminds me of the time I was sacked without reason from a bank funded position working for a charity in the UK. I was only working in the position for altruistic reasons, to help people. My colleagues could not believe I was sacked, they believed the work I was doing to be of great benefit. We enquired with the people responsible for the decision, no explanation - and given I had only been there a short time, employment law required no explanation. We got our heads together and realised quickly what was happening. The people responsible intended to pay my wages to a fictitious identity and make false reports that the work that was being completed. We went to the bank who funded the position. They did not care. We went to the local Member of Parliament, he did not care either, only moreso. We went to the Police. They did not care. We went to the Charity Commission, you guessed it, they did not care. The funding for the position went on and people within the organisation were confirming to us that nobody was in the position and no work was being done by anybody in relation to the position. I considered contacting the local media, but in the end decided against it because I did not want to have a public profile.
So somebody stole the salary for the position without the slightest scrutiny from 4-5 different organisations whose proper role it was to scrutinise such things. In the end, even I barely cared, I was onto my next venture which was much more for my benefit. But if it didn't happen to me, I would probably not have believed it possible. Similarly, I can sort of guess why nobody seems interested in the blindingly obvious Steven Hocking conflict of interest. But it is still difficult to believe it has escaped any real scrutiny bar my little thread on BF.
Colin Carter wants to add points from 1856.Collingwood will try to add match points from their junior netball club.
thanks 4 the courteous response.Mate there are plenty of links here going back literally years. If you haven't been following the discussion, that's fine but I'm not going back looking for them. Not my problem.
Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion. Personally I don't profess my opinions lightly, as anyone here will know. SHocking not only changed the rules to negate Richmond (it could have been any team as dominant as Richmond were becoming) but he rushed them through. That's fact.
The only thing quicker in AFL in the last five years than his introduction of rule changes to fundamentally change football was how fast he then went back to be CEO of Geelong (I imagine your opinion there is that there was no conflict of interest in that at all ?) just in time for him to be in the right place, at the right time.
It was either a massive coincidence, or a conspired effort ("state of the game") to change the way football was being played and headed (does anyone seriously doubt this ?) at a time when Richmond were utterly dominant with a game style that he found, as did the AFL and their free to air telecast sponsor, an anathema.
And just quietly for the record since you mentioned it, nobody laughs at me, not to my face anyway. Any Richmond bloke is however welcome to laugh with me because it's us against them as far as I'm concerned.
thanks 4 the courteous response.
yet you haven't provided one. no one connected to the club has asserted the conspiracy nonsense. sure some believe the stand rule has had a big effect but no one has put it was exclusively aimed at us. whereas i believe it has had more 2 do with injuries 2 key players, drop off in form of others, and in some cases ,poor team selection.
i just loathe copping what a pack of whingers we are. if u don't get it u should get out more. my response is to listen to what the club says not the hangers-on. and that we are good enough club 2 overcome it as others have.
I can totally relate to that tale. And, unfortunately, I can even better it substantially with my own. Or worsen it, as the case would be. I still speak out but at least the obligatory death threat never eventuated to much, possibly partly because nobody much listens anyway. Most ordinary Australians who say they support whistleblowers are kidding themselves. They wouldn't recognise a real one if they fell over him. It's often a 'him', by the way.Cats fans response predictable. Nobody else seems to care. Reminds me of the time I was sacked without reason from a bank funded position working for a charity in the UK. I was only working in the position for altruistic reasons, to help people. My colleagues could not believe I was sacked, they believed the work I was doing to be of great benefit. We enquired with the people responsible for the decision, no explanation - and given I had only been there a short time, employment law required no explanation. We got our heads together and realised quickly what was happening. The people responsible intended to pay my wages to a fictitious identity and make false reports that the work that was being completed. We went to the bank who funded the position. They did not care. We went to the local Member of Parliament, he did not care either, only moreso. We went to the Police. They did not care. We went to the Charity Commission, you guessed it, they did not care. The funding for the position went on and people within the organisation were confirming to us that nobody was in the position and no work was being done by anybody in relation to the position. I considered contacting the local media, but in the end decided against it because I did not want to have a public profile.
So somebody stole the salary for the position without the slightest scrutiny from 4-5 different organisations whose proper role it was to scrutinise such things. In the end, even I barely cared, I was onto my next venture which was much more for my benefit. But if it didn't happen to me, I would probably not have believed it possible. Similarly, I can sort of guess why nobody seems interested in the blindingly obvious Steven Hocking conflict of interest. But it is still difficult to believe it has escaped any real scrutiny bar my little thread on BF.
That’s Australia to a THow Scott defied self-doubt to deliver 'really ambitious' flag dream
When Chris Scott was appointed Geelong coach, he made a pledge to go all-in on winning the flag every single seasonwww.afl.com.au
It is quite something alright. Not one peep from anyone about it. Just me on page 24 of the Steven Hocking Conflict of Interest thread.
Steven Hocking Conflict of Interest
I will openly state my agenda here. At least three of Stephen Hocking’s responsibilities in his role as General Manager Football Operations are clearly conflicted by his history and links with the Geelong Football Club. The first, and most important in my opinion, is his role in directly...www.bigfooty.com
Cats fans response predictable. Nobody else seems to care. Reminds me of the time I was sacked without reason from a bank funded position working for a charity in the UK. I was only working in the position for altruistic reasons, to help people. My colleagues could not believe I was sacked, they believed the work I was doing to be of great benefit. We enquired with the people responsible for the decision, no explanation - and given I had only been there a short time, employment law required no explanation. We got our heads together and realised quickly what was happening. The people responsible intended to pay my wages to a fictitious identity and make false reports that the work that was being completed. We went to the bank who funded the position. They did not care. We went to the local Member of Parliament, he did not care either, only moreso. We went to the Police. They did not care. We went to the Charity Commission, you guessed it, they did not care. The funding for the position went on and people within the organisation were confirming to us that nobody was in the position and no work was being done by anybody in relation to the position. I considered contacting the local media, but in the end decided against it because I did not want to have a public profile.
So somebody stole the salary for the position without the slightest scrutiny from 4-5 different organisations whose proper role it was to scrutinise such things. In the end, even I barely cared, I was onto my next venture which was much more for my benefit. But if it didn't happen to me, I would probably not have believed it possible. Similarly, I can sort of guess why nobody seems interested in the blindingly obvious Steven Hocking conflict of interest. But it is still difficult to believe it has escaped any real scrutiny bar my little thread on BF.
thanks 4 the courteous response.
yet you haven't provided one. no one connected to the club has asserted the conspiracy nonsense. sure some believe the stand rule has had a big effect but no one has put it was exclusively aimed at us. whereas i believe it has had more 2 do with injuries 2 key players, drop off in form of others, and in some cases ,poor team selection.
i just loathe copping what a pack of whingers we are. if u don't get it u should get out more. my response is to listen to what the club says not the hangers-on. and that we are good enough club 2 overcome it as others have.
we will now have an afl premiership and a afl club champion lmaoOK, I'm a very progressive type. but this is getting totally stupid. How about the premiers get the premiership, like we've always done.
That’s Australia to a T