2021 pre-season general footy chat

[bloodspirit]

After 23 years he is going, what, 9 months earlier than his/the Board announcement of his departure at the next AGM - hardly hounded out by the outside world.

Except that you have to remember that Board announcement came (and, I would infer, was precipitated by) their receipt and review of the Do Better report before that announcement.

The report, authored by people outside of Collingwood FC, makes it very clear that there needs to be change at the Board level. And pretty well the only person named as the author of a racist statement in the entire report is Eddie McGuire (in relation to comparing Goodes to King Kong) - the rest is mostly references to unnamed "fans" and staff.

[Auntie.Gerald]

EM has so much trouble separating himself from his own importance and the good of the game / club ....

no doubt there has been so fantastic initiatives at the club, yet once again Eddie started with eddie and finished with eddie. It was his list of actions. It should have been the clubs list of achievements.

Great leaders strive to get the best out of everyone in their team and praise the team. Great leaders do not elevate them self above their team mates. Eddie does every time.

Eddies tone is so divisive because he does have a go, he does give 150% but his identity and desire to be acknowledged is like a blazing bushfire that never wants to die.

His starting line......."i try". I I. I. I Eddie !!!!

inflated ego and guilty of not getting it right at all in some seriously important areas of society and recognition !

[Sandridge]

What's the chance all these spuds who are basically apologists for McGuire will one day realise it's possible to do
some good work in the community without turning it into a virtue signaling exercise, and that it doesn't give you a free
pass to make racist comments. Somewhere between Buckleys and none. I think Pridham will be waiting a long time
for any type of intelligent reflection from this lot.

Spot on. You get the impression that, for McGuire, the most important result of Collingwood's work in the community is that he can boast that Collingwood's done a lot of work in the community. All AFL clubs - and especially ours! - do the community-based work that he thinks makes Collingwood special! They just don't big-note themselves about it like he does.

[Sandridge]

You have no idea what joy it brings me to see the Woods having to cop it sweet! Since 1946 In the school yard I have to put up with pie supporters tell me the pies could do no wrong, then later in life I really had to put up with the Bull$%#@ of how bad was South. NOW I will die happy , 2 Premierships. Eddy knocked off his perch .Its a good year when things dont go the pies way, No matter what happens this season I will be a happy old man.
GO BLOODS

Good on ya, Old S.M. Blood. Your loyalty over many, many years has been rewarded!

[BRISWAN]

For Gods sake .......Try not bring American or any politics into a footy forum

Its pathetic dull and inapropriate analogy

Lets just stick to footy and the Swans

[dejavoodoo44]

EM has so much trouble separating himself from his own importance and the good of the game / club ....

no doubt there has been so fantastic initiatives at the club, yet once again Eddie started with eddie and finished with eddie. It was his list of actions. It should have been the clubs list of achievements.

Great leaders strive to get the best out of everyone in their team and praise the team. Great leaders do not elevate them self above their team mates. Eddie does every time.

Eddies tone is so divisive because he does have a go, he does give 150% but his identity and desire to be acknowledged is like a blazing bushfire that never wants to die.

His starting line......."i try". I I. I. I Eddie !!!!

inflated ego and guilty of not getting it right at all in some seriously important areas of society and recognition !

Good point about leadership, and I think that was the main reason why Roos was such a great leader. He realised that leading meant a democratic flow of ideas. Actually, to explain that more fully, I probably need to get a bit discursive.

While the human mind is a truly remarkable thing, individual intelligence is a bit overrated. That is, most of our knowledge and ideas are held outside of the individual. In historical times, it was in oral histories and cultural knowledge. This was later added to with book knowledge, which allowed ideas to be increasingly added to and greater specialisation. Now with the internet, anyone who is connected, has access to a huge range of things that other people have learned. And that learning is almost infinitely greater, than what each individual can stuff inside our heads.

So, to use a football club as an example, a good leader will realise: that the stats person knows more about computers than they do; the fitness coach knows more about exercise than they do; the forward coach probably knows more about attacking structure, etc, etc. And the players probably know a bit about what's working for them. So it's a matter for the coach, to make sure that individuals are putting their skills to good use, and to encourage good communication, in order to aid cooperation and coordination.

Which is why I think Roos was so effective, because he prioritised communication, to bring out the best of the wide range of components. I think that way of thinking was passed down to Longmire, and he and others continue in that manner. Which does make me feel optimistic about the club's future.

Conversely, it's why raving narcissists (certainly Trump, possibly Eddie) tend to be poor managers. They, by definition, have an inflated view of their own intelligence. Consequently, they're less likely to take into account the often superior knowledge of others. They also favour people who agree with them and dismiss or punish, those who give honest, but critical advice. Then, since things start to work less well, but the narcissistic ego has to be maintained, they will shift the blame to others when things go wrong, but take personal credit for the achievement of others, when things go right. Which usually leads to an increasingly dysfunctional organisation.

So, going into the season, I'd much rather be us than Collingwood.

[mcs]

What's the chance all these spuds who are basically apologists for McGuire will one day realise it's possible to do
some good work in the community without turning it into a virtue signaling exercise, and that it doesn't give you a free
pass to make racist comments. Somewhere between Buckleys and none. I think Pridham will be waiting a long time
for any type of intelligent reflection from this lot.

Absolutely agree KT - nailed it.

[neilfws]

My last thought on the McGuire business: I think yesterday, pretty much every headline at The Age AFL page had his name in it. Today, 9 stories with either his name or photo.

Somehow the media has, yet again, managed to make the story almost entirely about him, rather than the issue - systemic racism - presumably because they think that's what people want to read about.

Difficult to raise awareness and have discussion of issues in a society where media is all about clicks and views.

[Bloods05]

For Gods sake .......Try not bring American or any politics into a footy forum

Its pathetic dull and inapropriate analogy

Lets just stick to footy and the Swans

It's a pretty damn apt analogy actually. Why should politics be a taboo subject?

[Mr Magoo]

My last thought on the McGuire business: I think yesterday, pretty much every headline at The Age AFL page had his name in it. Today, 9 stories with either his name or photo.

Somehow the media has, yet again, managed to make the story almost entirely about him, rather than the issue - systemic racism - presumably because they think that's what people want to read about.

Difficult to raise awareness and have discussion of issues in a society where media is all about clicks and views.

I would like the discussion be about the actual contents of the report. I think most people are just reading either the "foreward" of that report or the medias view (which will suit their own agendas depending on the outlet).

The "systemic racism" point is especially poignant re your point about "clicks and views" but there has been next to no analysis and discussion from anyone about how that conclusion was reached or whether the opinoins expressed in the report were balanced and fair in the circumstances.

It would seem to me that no one dare analyse whether the reports conclusion is correct/incorrect/ overstated/ understated and it seems that many just accept that its fact because the authors opinion in the report says so.

For example , if you read the report, its very light on factual evidence and it basically points to seven incidents over 50 years dating back to 1970 in which a racist incident occurred (or is alleged to in the case of Lumumba). One of those incidents is an apology by the club to robert muir on his treatment by fans in the 1970's. In at least two other instances it was attributed to collingwood supporters not the club yet it seems that those seven incidents plus from what I can ascertain from the report " a general feeling" or perception from those interviewed that the club could have addressed such incidents better that lead to the authors conclusion that systemic racism is a part of Collingwood Football club.

While I agree that for each of the incidents (one of which is lumumbas allegation about his nickname ) you would say "yep, that was racist", particulalrly the incidents mentioned in the 70's and 80's , I dont see how that limited factual evidence points to a finding of a systemic issue in the club in the year 2021.

Im sure Ill be shouted down for my summation but to have real discourse on matters like this you have to have be able to challenge facts and evidence not just perception and opinion.

[bloodspirit]

I would like the discussion be about the actual contents of the report. I think most people are just reading either the "foreward" of that report or the medias view (which will suit their own agendas depending on the outlet).

The "systemic racism" point is especially poignant re your point about "clicks and views" but there has been next to no analysis and discussion from anyone about how that conclusion was reached or whether the opinoins expressed in the report were balanced and fair in the circumstances.

It would seem to me that no one dare analyse whether the reports conclusion is correct/incorrect/ overstated/ understated and it seems that many just accept that its fact because the authors opinion in the report says so.

For example , if you read the report, its very light on factual evidence and it basically points to seven incidents over 50 years dating back to 1970 in which a racist incident occurred (or is alleged to in the case of Lumumba). One of those incidents is an apology by the club to robert muir on his treatment by fans in the 1970's. In at least two other instances it was attributed to collingwood supporters not the club yet it seems that those seven incidents plus from what I can ascertain from the report " a general feeling" or perception from those interviewed that the club could have addressed such incidents better that lead to the authors conclusion that systemic racism is a part of Collingwood Football club.

While I agree that for each of the incidents (one of which is lumumbas allegation about his nickname ) you would say "yep, that was racist", particulalrly the incidents mentioned in the 70's and 80's , I dont see how that limited factual evidence points to a finding of a systemic issue in the club in the year 2021.

Im sure Ill be shouted down for my summation but to have real discourse on matters like this you have to have be able to challenge facts and evidence not just perception and opinion.

I think you make a fair point, Mr Magoo. I also thought the report was light on detail. The report writers do reference interviews with at least 30 people in or connected to the club but, for the most part, they don't set out what the various interviews disclosed except that there was a consensus that Collingwood FC could "do better". After I first read it, I nearly remarked that I wonder if the people who commissioned the report felt they got bang for their buck. None of the conclusions are well explained or backed up. But that doesn't mean they can't be but perhaps they kept in separate documents (potentially at the behest of the integrity committee that commissioned the report), mindful that the final report was earmarked for public release.

[dejavoodoo44]

My last thought on the McGuire business: I think yesterday, pretty much every headline at The Age AFL page had his name in it. Today, 9 stories with either his name or photo.

Somehow the media has, yet again, managed to make the story almost entirely about him, rather than the issue - systemic racism - presumably because they think that's what people want to read about.

Difficult to raise awareness and have discussion of issues in a society where media is all about clicks and views.

Which is possibly not helped by the fact that The Age has been acquired by the 9 Network.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Now that Eddie's out of a job, I was thinking of hiring him to play the lead role in the next of my biographical movies on American presidents, called:

........ tRUMP

[ATTACH]2284[/ATTACH]

I think there's a strong resemblance between Eddie and Donald in nearly all respects - physical appearance, attitude, self-esteem, self-indulgence, ignorance, and on and on.

We wouldn't need a film director: "Just be yourself, Eddie."
We wouldn't need a script: "Just say whatever comes into you head, Eddie."

And Donald can stop running for President of the United States again. He can just take over for Eddie as President of Collingwood, in a like for like replacement.

I can see the Collingwood job ad now:

Seeking ignorant narcissistic racist for club president. Knowledge and common sense not required.

You can add Despot Dan to that list too. Infact, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Eddie join the Andrews team.

[KTigers]

I think you make a fair point, Mr Magoo. I also thought the report was light on detail. The report writers do reference interviews with at least 30 people in or connected to the club but, for the most part, they don't set out what the various interviews disclosed except that there was a consensus that Collingwood FC could "do better". After I first read it, I nearly remarked that I wonder if the people who commissioned the report felt they got bang for their buck. None of the conclusions are well explained or backed up. But that doesn't mean they can't be but perhaps they kept in separate documents (potentially at the behest of the integrity committee that commissioned the report), mindful that the final report was earmarked for public release.

I would think that for people involved in the footy industry and making their living from it that Melbourne is very much a
company town and as such there will be a lot of tip toeing around pretty much every issue or transgression that comes up.
Why would it be any different from any other company town in this regard?
People who leave a company town and/or are no longer dependent on it financially are much more likely to speak freely
than people still connected to it like the bulk of the interviewees for the report apparently are. So I'm not surprised if the
report is "light on detail".
As for all the people (I'm not referring to RWO-ers here) getting so offended by the word "systemic" and pondering loudly
what the phrase "systemic racism" actually means, why not just substitute the phrase "regular and on-going racism" to make
it all a bit clearer to them. Because that is what has been happening at Collingwood. Chimp, slave, King Kong? Seriously, it's
just so @@@@@@.

[BRISWAN]

BECAUSE THIS FORUM IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT FOOTBALL !!!

It's a pretty damn apt analogy actually. Why should politics be a taboo subject?