No Oppo Supporters OPPOSITION OBSERVATION XXXVI

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mate I also reckon it's the tip of the iceberg.
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.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

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.
Check out SHockings entire Football CV & see what u can find. Let us know how you go.
 
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?
 
This is quiet smething, have u got a link to the interview where this was said?


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.


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.
 
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.
 

Attachments

  • fool hocking.jpg
    fool hocking.jpg
    79.9 KB · Views: 31
  • 26013-ac71ca56521c9db2ebc06f867846ab54.jpg
    26013-ac71ca56521c9db2ebc06f867846ab54.jpg
    25.9 KB · Views: 29
Gary Lyon wants a Goodwin statue after one flag.

Gees,they very quickly forget the mighty Tigers.
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.
Chris Scott had a go at the way we played football after the premiership then Shocking studied Richmond and changed rules to hinder us.
Then we got the “state of the game” diatribe by Whateley.

No mention of that after a dour grand final last year,no,all hidden under the rug.
 

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.


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.
Hocking was still on the AFL's game analysis team in September 2022. The team provides recommendations to the rules committee.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The AFL has gone to shit. Literally gets worse every year.

Hopefully a new, non boys club CEO can save the game.
 
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.
 
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.

of course the club isn't gonna whinge publicly about the corrupt bullshit. It's a lose lose situation for them. But we're fans and we don't have to worry about keeping up appearances

have a chat to old mate Dimma once he retires and he'll confirm to you what a corrupt piece of shit Steve Hocking is, I 100% guarantee it. he already half cracked it in the B&F speech last year

it's more of a conspiracy theory to believe the AFL didn't deliberately try to **** the tigers repeatedly
 
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.
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.

No journo ever comes near me, for that matter.

Siberiantiger
AKA Soberian Tiger, Siberian Taiga.
 
Last edited:

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.


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 T
 
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.

Nobody connected with the club could speak openly about this if they did believe it, unless they could prove it to be true. There are defamation laws for a start, not to mention other considerations such as not wanting to be seen to be making excuses etc.

Another point is you are falling for the gaslighting being aimed at our supporters. To notice and state that Steven Hocking for eg operated as AFL Footy Operations Manager with an obvious conflict of interests, which he later completely franked by taking up the CEO position at Geelong, is not a conspiracy theory. That much requires no conspiracy at all.

But what I believe Chris Scott has done is shown that they were conspiring to Geelong's benefit while Hocking was in his AFL role. Therefore it becomes a conspiracy in fact, not in theory.

Richmond's demise I agree with you is much more to do with other inevitable things but that is an entirely separate matter. As you say we will also get the chance to adjust to current rules like every other club. Geelong got that chance before any other club, because they are essentially rules designed by their current CEO, who was according to Scott in talks with Scott and Wells "all the way through." It would stretch credibility beyond its breaking point to imagine that Hocking was not taking input from Scott about the rule changes during those discussions. And I don't mean broad input that all coaches may have had, fine detail that was only sprung on other clubs at the last possible moment it could have been.

I would rather speak the truth and cop the gaslighting than accept the laughably flawed machinations of the AFL on face value as presented by the AFL and football media.
 
Last edited:
OK, I'm a very progressive type. but this is getting totally stupid. How about the premiers get the premiership, like we've always done.
we will now have an afl premiership and a afl club champion lmao

as if anybody cares about the latter
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top