the_oracle
Debutant
- Mar 23, 2002
- 88
- 0
Terry wallace on 3aw tonight made i thought were sensational claims when he blamed the doggies financial problems for his leaving.
stated that last year the doogies had 12 heads of dep't 's who had to prepare a submission to the afl to get funding and out of those 12 only 1 is left.
he stated that he couldn't work in an environment where he knew that peoples jobs were at continual risk and that people on $40,000 were doing the jobs of 1.5 people.
he also felt that the club would be better off without him because then they could pay less for a coach and put that money saved on him into the club.
i think he has entered into dangerous territory (and even though i hate the doggies - well love-hate because bro loves them and i'm out in the west of melb) and is playing with fire here.
i thought it was a self serving egotistical attack that did nothing for the doggies and the perception thay are held in. this is just on top of david smorgon saying that another club president broached the idea ('half-joking' of course) of a merger with them.
as greg baum said in his EXCELLENT ARTICLE in the age on saturday - get rid of a club and you'll get rid of the soul of the competition (or something like that).
if the doggies go - well the roos (who i follow) will be right behind them and the saints, dees and the cats won't be too far behind again.
i don't know what the long-term answer is but for the short term i reckon the survival of the clubs is integral to the health of the competiton.
i'm sick of the afl and their media buddies - why does sydney and brissy get constant tv coverage into melbourne which means maximum sponsorship dollars when melbourne clubs suffer.
i know i've gone over the place but i'm passionate about this issue.
stated that last year the doogies had 12 heads of dep't 's who had to prepare a submission to the afl to get funding and out of those 12 only 1 is left.
he stated that he couldn't work in an environment where he knew that peoples jobs were at continual risk and that people on $40,000 were doing the jobs of 1.5 people.
he also felt that the club would be better off without him because then they could pay less for a coach and put that money saved on him into the club.
i think he has entered into dangerous territory (and even though i hate the doggies - well love-hate because bro loves them and i'm out in the west of melb) and is playing with fire here.
i thought it was a self serving egotistical attack that did nothing for the doggies and the perception thay are held in. this is just on top of david smorgon saying that another club president broached the idea ('half-joking' of course) of a merger with them.
as greg baum said in his EXCELLENT ARTICLE in the age on saturday - get rid of a club and you'll get rid of the soul of the competition (or something like that).
if the doggies go - well the roos (who i follow) will be right behind them and the saints, dees and the cats won't be too far behind again.
i don't know what the long-term answer is but for the short term i reckon the survival of the clubs is integral to the health of the competiton.
i'm sick of the afl and their media buddies - why does sydney and brissy get constant tv coverage into melbourne which means maximum sponsorship dollars when melbourne clubs suffer.
i know i've gone over the place but i'm passionate about this issue.