Show us who's boss

[Ludwig]

Think you mean Pridham! Sorry to be a spelling-Nazi.

This is clearly a coded message. I think he actually means Pilgrim, like in Pilgrim_of_Plymouth.jpg

I still believe these things should not be played through the media.

Eddie attacks the issues, but never mentions the AFL in prosecuting the issues. Eddie then meets with the AFL and I?m sure he is a thoroughly charming individual behind the closed doors. He does meet the AFL having swayed public opinion to his cause, which is powerful.

Pildrim should be working behind the scenes and building bridges with the other three Northern Clubs. The four Northern Presidents should be having joint meetings with Gillion and Dillion and putting through the arguments in favour of the Academy systems.
By all means Pildrim can publicly put through his arguments as to why the Academies are in the best interest of the greater game, but don?t publicly tell the AFL how to do its job.

Gillion has been in the job a short time and the situation is not at the point where you need to make public statements about his approach to the job.

If there arguments are strong enough in favour of the academies then we will win. Gillion is from a business strategy background and I believe he has the capacity to make decisions based on sound logic not populist backflips. Give the guy a chance.

Then there are the 4 Northern Presidents -- Rushmore2.jpg

And Gillion and Dillion must be code for Billion, probably a reference to the Bondi Billionaires:

FRANKLIN Lance.pngTIPPETT Kurt.png

Since pilgrims dress in the Collingwood colours, there may be some connection there.

But what does it all mean? How does it all fit together?

I'll probably be up all night working on this puzzle, but I'll try to get the answer before sunrise.

Don't tell me Matt. I want to work it out on my own.

[Bloods05]

When there is a power vacuum at the top, we can't allow Eddie to have exclusive occupancy of it. Even the master strategist Kochie would agree with that.

[mcsquirta]

I believe that people are missing a point about why Andrew needed to do this interview. I think that he is afraid that some of that mud that Eddie is throwing at Sydney Swans might stuck and people in Sydney (or NSW) start believing that the Swans are doing something against the rules.

Also, it's the Swan's job in NSW to increase interest/convert supporters of other codes to AFL. Anyone who is even just a little bit interested in AFL will think exactly what you said, and probably switch off to the idea.

I think the reason Pridham might have done the interview could also be for the education of the NSW public - who the AFL needs to expand the game, and yet lets McGuire get away with semi-hysterical accusations of "rigging", which unfairly degrades the Swans - as well as the game in general - and is an unjustified setback to developing support for AFL in Sydney.

[liz]

McLachlan might already have been in his current job a short while but he's hardly new to the AFL. Did he not used to be in charge of communications or something of that ilk? And Fitzpatrick and the rest of the commissioners have all been around a while.

"Interesting" fact about McLachlan I just discovered - he has three children...one is called Edie and another is called Sydney...

[ShockOfHair]

When there is a power vacuum at the top, we can't allow Eddie to have exclusive occupancy of it. Even the master strategist Kochie would agree with that.

As Shane Crawford, that great philosopher and keen observer of the human condition, would say:

"That's what I'm talking about!"

[MightyBloods]

McLachlan might already have been in his current job a short while but he's hardly new to the AFL. Did he not used to be in charge of communications or something of that ilk? And Fitzpatrick and the rest of the commissioners have all been around a while.

"Interesting" fact about McLachlan I just discovered - he has three children...one is called Edie and another is called Sydney...

and the other called Bud?

[cherub]

I still believe these things should not be played through the media.

Eddie attacks the issues, but never mentions the AFL in prosecuting the issues. Eddie then meets with the AFL and I?m sure he is a thoroughly charming individual behind the closed doors. He does meet the AFL having swayed public opinion to his cause, which is powerful.

Pildrim should be working behind the scenes and building bridges with the other three Northern Clubs. The four Northern Presidents should be having joint meetings with Gillion and Dillion and putting through the arguments in favour of the Academy systems.
By all means Pildrim can publicly put through his arguments as to why the Academies are in the best interest of the greater game, but don?t publicly tell the AFL how to do its job.

Gillion has been in the job a short time and the situation is not at the point where you need to make public statements about his approach to the job.

If there arguments are strong enough in favour of the academies then we will win. Gillion is from a business strategy background and I believe he has the capacity to make decisions based on sound logic not populist backflips. Give the guy a chance.

I think you are being naive. McLachlan has said "boys, stop fighting. Maguire ignores this. Andrew does the right thing. McLachlan does nothing. Andrew has spoken privately. It hasn't been effective. It is naive to think that fairness and logic win out even most of the time in organisations. That's why Maguire is trying to generate public support. That's why Pridham has to counter it. And McLachlan has been as impressive as a wet dishmop. What was he doing having a dinner that was almost certainly going to exclude most of the interstate coaches.? He has just reinforced the Viccentric nature of his perspective. It is Andrew's job to fight for what is fair and right for Sydney. And that includes influencing public opinion. Timing is crucial. The time to give McLachlan a chance is time Maguire uses to shore p public opinion for his own ends. I turned on to watch the Dockers-St Kilda debacle, and half of Maguire's intro was dissing the Swans. I am now boycotting Fox-which is a pain in Perth.

[Matt80]

I think you are being naive. McLachlan has said "boys, stop fighting. Maguire ignores this. Andrew does the right thing. McLachlan does nothing. Andrew has spoken privately. It hasn't been effective. It is naive to think that fairness and logic win out even most of the time in organisations. That's why Maguire is trying to generate public support. That's why Pridham has to counter it. And McLachlan has been as impressive as a wet dishmop. What was he doing having a dinner that was almost certainly going to exclude most of the interstate coaches.? He has just reinforced the Viccentric nature of his perspective. It is Andrew's job to fight for what is fair and right for Sydney. And that includes influencing public opinion. Timing is crucial. The time to give McLachlan a chance is time Maguire uses to shore p public opinion for his own ends. I turned on to watch the Dockers-St Kilda debacle, and half of Maguire's intro was dissing the Swans. I am now boycotting Fox-which is a pain in Perth.

I believe we have no basis to judge Gill as yet. You are right when you say that logic and fairness don't always win out, but let's give Gill a clean slate.

I would like to see some forward media attack from Pridham:

- Ringing in to Eddie's Triple M Radio show and asking for an on the spot debate on the Academy's. If Eddie does not want to put the call on live, make it known on the Swans website that Maquire did not want to have the debate. The headline could be "Scaredy Eddie".

- Turn up to the Fox Footy studio and ask for a Friday Night half time debate with Eddie. If he refuses just run with "Scaredy Eddie" again.

- Invite Eddie up for a tour of the QBE Academy. Get him to talk to some of the kids about the sports options in Sydney.

[CureTheSane]

Can only compare Pridham and McLughlan as they have been in theor roles for about the same amount of time.
One had been a leader, one has been seen to be subordinate to others.

[liz]

I believe we have no basis to judge Gill as yet. You are right when you say that logic and fairness don't always win out, but let's give Gill a clean slate.

I would like to see some forward media attack from Pridham:

- Ringing in to Eddie's Triple M Radio show and asking for an on the spot debate on the Academy's. If Eddie does not want to put the call on live, make it known on the Swans website that Maquire did not want to have the debate. The headline could be "Scaredy Eddie".

- Turn up to the Fox Footy studio and ask for a Friday Night half time debate with Eddie. If he refuses just run with "Scaredy Eddie" again.

- Invite Eddie up for a tour of the QBE Academy. Get him to talk to some of the kids about the sports options in Sydney.

Get a friend to go onto "Who Wants to Be A (Bondi) Billionaire" and get them to "call a friend", preferably on question 1. When they call you, rather than read out the question they want your help on, get them to ask you to explain the purpose of the academies.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Given the AFL is apparently set to pull one of the great swifties of all time and change the rules just prior to the draft so we have to use our first two picks to get Heeney - or so the reports suggest - Mr Prez is perfectly entitled to call Gil for being a pea-hearted spud.

[mcsquirta]

Well clearly Andrew has decided to fight Eddie's mass saturation of wild accusations with mass saturation of reasoned responses, but in the much less 'shouty' medium of print, in the new Sam R.R. Lane Trilogy "Lord of the Swans". Go Swans, Go Adelaide (for this week only!)

Show us who's boss, Swans chairman Andrew Pridham tells Gillon McLachlan

Swans chairman blasts attack on club

Andrew Pridham upholds a grand tradition in defence of the Swans

[dimelb]

Last night at the Jude Bolton dinner I made a point of thanking Andrew for his response to Fat Bastard and wished more power to his arm. He obviously doesn't want to start a fracas but also won't back away from it. Good on him.

[barry]

Given the AFL is apparently set to pull one of the great swifties of all time and change the rules just prior to the draft so we have to use our first two picks to get Heeney - or so the reports suggest - Mr Prez is perfectly entitled to call Gil for being a pea-hearted spud.

I just cant see it happening. 2 picks for 1 player in the Draft changes the Draft completely. Its a major structural change.

The pea hearted lion needs to find his courage or he's going to create a mess

[i'm-uninformed2]

I just cant see it happening. 2 picks for 1 player in the Draft changes the Draft completely. Its a major structural change.

The pea hearted lion needs to find his courage or he's going to create a mess

My money is its happening.

The proposal is if someone lodges a bid a certain margin above ours - so say someone lodges pick 4 when we're at 18 and the margin for invoking the rule is 10 picks higher - we will be forced to use 18 and our next one.

And what's worse is, they are going to bring it in for this year's draft.

And our opponents whine about rorting.