General off-season footy chat

[wolftone57]

I love Daisy to an unreasonable extent

Should we put Daisy on Stalker Watch?

Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

[wolftone57]

Reckon the doco makers thought it would be really good when they conceived it, then it turned into really nothing, but having spent the money they aired it anyway.

It needed to feature the great Dodoro and gun 2020 List Manager Ned Guy to raise a level of interest.

If they wanted to make a comprehensive doco they should have included far mor content. By this I mean more agents, more players, filming the agents at work, filming agents and player meetings, agent club meetings etc. To take just less than a handful of agents and players is piss poor.

Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

[wolftone57]

Yes, I reckon the chances of Tom Morris getting an AFL story right, is roughly the same as a mad uncle accurately predicting the future, by bloodily sacrificing a goat and reading its entrails.

What are you saying! This works. I have personally seen it done. They count the cups full of blood and if you drink the blood you get that many decades of good luck.

You know it makes sense

Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

[wolftone57]

I’m not a big fan of journos a lot of the time as they all too often report inaccurately with stuff all accountability.

But if a journo gets their facts right, then they’ve done their job. A public dressing down in a derogatory manner isn’t called for and Bevo should be sanctioned. Bevo was brutal. Workplace harassment. If anyone spoke to Bevo like that when he underperformed as a coach, he would arc up big time.

No wonder they are the Western Bullies

Be o looking more like a '70's Serial Killer with that Mo. Or Chopper, but Chopper was more polite

Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

[aardvark]

Seems Bevo might have been right about Morris. Not sure how Morris survives this....Buns Davison on Twitter: "Also this… "

[wolftone57]

I don’t think Bevo’s outburst can be considered workplace harassment. Both parties work for different workplaces.

I think Morris can be a big problem for Bevo. Someone is leaking to Morris and will now continue to leak even more. I assume the person leaking is not on Bevo’s team. Morris will keep getting the leaked info and will grind Bevo into the ground.

I think the other journalists in the press conferences will now not ask any questions and leave the floor totally open for Morris to ask all questions of Bevo.

Actually it is both their workplaces because they are both working. A workplace is not necessarily a building. If you are a worker who takes their work with them, as in a journalist, then you are in your workplace no matter where it is as long as you are working. Morris was working. So was Beveridge. Hence both were in their place or placement of work. Harassment takes into account workers who are harassed online, in another place other than their employers building. Harassment laws state that harassment in performance of one's duties etc.

Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

[i'm-uninformed2]

I don’t think Bevo’s outburst can be considered workplace harassment. Both parties work for different workplaces.

I think Morris can be a big problem for Bevo. Someone is leaking to Morris and will now continue to leak even more. I assume the person leaking is not on Bevo’s team. Morris will keep getting the leaked info and will grind Bevo into the ground.

I think the other journalists in the press conferences will now not ask any questions and leave the floor totally open for Morris to ask all questions of Bevo.

Before you get too strident in your attachment to Tom, you might want to wait to see whether or not the audio doing the rounds this arvo on social media of him talking about a colleague is verified. I won't name whom, as she doesn't deserve her name dragged into it. But 'if' it is legitimate, it's an awful mix of misogyny and homophobia and Tom'll be out of a job by the day's end.

[aardvark]

Before you get too strident in your attachment to Tom, you might want to wait to see whether or not the audio doing the rounds this arvo on social media of him talking about a colleague is verified. I won't name whom, as she doesn't deserve her name dragged into it. But 'if' it is legitimate, it's an awful mix of misogyny and homophobia and Tom'll be out of a job by the day's end.

Link above. Enjoy! Seems there's another one about to rear it's ugly head too.

[liz]

Before you get too strident in your attachment to Tom, you might want to wait to see whether or not the audio doing the rounds this arvo on social media of him talking about a colleague is verified. I won't name whom, as she doesn't deserve her name dragged into it. But 'if' it is legitimate, it's an awful mix of misogyny and homophobia and Tom'll be out of a job by the day's end.

You reckon that's a mix of misogyny and homophobia? It's cringeworthy, sure, but I wouldn't use either of those terms to describe it. Doing so, IMO, detracts from criticism of comments that really are homophobic or misogynistic. I guess the context in which the comment was made matters. If he was on the phone to a mate and made those comments, he needs to find new mates (ie not those who tape and release private conversations) but I guess we all make comments about the opposite sex (or same sex) in private that aren't too different. If the comment was made in a professional context that's a different matter. For it is certainly an unprofessional comment and the crassness of it multiplies.

Regardless of that comment and any fall out, I don't think it mitigates or explains or excuses Beveridge's outburst. The original story from Morris was pretty lame. Not something worth getting as excited about as he did on Monday, but a minor story nonetheless. It appears to have been factually correct and I don't see the malice in it that Beveridge seemed to see. If Beveridge is going to get that worked up about such a trivial matter, let's hope for his and his club's sake that there aren't any meaningful stories about the Dogs worth breaking this season. Not sure how he will cope.

He also has form for getting aggressive towards journalists, to extents that far exceed the substance of what they have said. Sure, most footy journalists are pretty lame and little of what the "news" they break is of much interest, but reactions like Beveridge's are like getting pest exterminators into your house to get rid of a fly, when a simple swat or Raid spray would do.

[i'm-uninformed2]

You reckon that's a mix of misogyny and homophobia? It's cringeworthy, sure, but I wouldn't use either of those terms to describe it. Doing so, IMO, detracts from criticism of comments that really are homophobic or misogynistic. I guess the context in which the comment was made matters. If he was on the phone to a mate and made those comments, he needs to find new mates (ie not those who tape and release private conversations) but I guess we all make comments about the opposite sex (or same sex) in private that aren't too different. If the comment was made in a professional context that's a different matter. For it is certainly an unprofessional comment and the crassness of it multiplies.

Regardless of that comment and any fall out, I don't think it mitigates or explains or excuses Beveridge's outburst. The original story from Morris was pretty lame. Not something worth getting as excited about as he did on Monday, but a minor story nonetheless. It appears to have been factually correct and I don't see the malice in it that Beveridge seemed to see. If Beveridge is going to get that worked up about such a trivial matter, let's hope for his and his club's sake that there aren't any meaningful stories about the Dogs worth breaking this season. Not sure how he will cope.

He also has form for getting aggressive towards journalists, to extents that far exceed the substance of what they have said. Sure, most footy journalists are pretty lame and little of what the "news" they break is of much interest, but reactions like Beveridge's are like getting pest exterminators into your house to get rid of a fly, when a simple swat or Raid spray would do.

So I reckon she might have a view about whether it being in a professional or personal setting really makes a difference or not as to whether she wants to work around him, and that's her call.

And to be clear - I'm not defending Beveridge per se. He's clearly a lunatic and inherited habits from his mentor Clarko, a cranky old man lashing out at the world. My sincere hope is the distraction of this story and him detonating a bomb inside his club by publicly airing his view there are leakers inside the joint causes nothing but misery for the start of their season and beyond. They are a team of cheats I despise, and I wish every horror upon them.

What I also can't cop is the media being so self-indulgent. I think there are plenty of good football journalists. I don't think Tom is one. But to watch them all get so indignant today to the point where they question a coach's mental health within two minutes of bemoaning his invocation of mental health at the presser and the risks to Tom's mental health is beyond the pale. And that includes journalists I usually like and respect.

[Meg]

You reckon that's a mix of misogyny and homophobia? It's cringeworthy, sure, but I wouldn't use either of those terms to describe it. Doing so, IMO, detracts from criticism of comments that really are homophobic or misogynistic. I guess the context in which the comment was made matters. If he was on the phone to a mate and made those comments, he needs to find new mates (ie not those who tape and release private conversations) but I guess we all make comments about the opposite sex (or same sex) in private that aren't too different. If the comment was made in a professional context that's a different matter. For it is certainly an unprofessional comment and the crassness of it multiplies.

Regardless of that comment and any fall out, I don't think it mitigates or explains or excuses Beveridge's outburst. The original story from Morris was pretty lame. Not something worth getting as excited about as he did on Monday, but a minor story nonetheless. It appears to have been factually correct and I don't see the malice in it that Beveridge seemed to see. If Beveridge is going to get that worked up about such a trivial matter, let's hope for his and his club's sake that there aren't any meaningful stories about the Dogs worth breaking this season. Not sure how he will cope.

He also has form for getting aggressive towards journalists, to extents that far exceed the substance of what they have said. Sure, most footy journalists are pretty lame and little of what the "news" they break is of much interest, but reactions like Beveridge's are like getting pest exterminators into your house to get rid of a fly, when a simple swat or Raid spray would do.

I agree with all the points made by Liz.

Good article about Beveridge’s tirade by David Mark on ABC site, under the heading:

‘Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge's attack on journalist Tom Morris opens him up to claims of hypocrisy’

[stevoswan]

I think Beveridge might not be a fan of Tom Morris… decent spray he gave him in the post match tonight

Very immature display by Beveridge....but we've seen it all before. He's a bit nasty.

[stevoswan]

Seems Bevo might have been right about Morris. Not sure how Morris survives this....Buns Davison on Twitter: "Also this… "

Morris might be a douche but he survives because everything he wrote re: the Bulldogs, was correct and true. Beveridge acted like a spoilt child. How does Beveridge survive this? Oh that's right, because he, like his team, are a protected species.....

As for the colourful description of the Foxsports lady.....well, that's another matter. It wasn't good.

[Bangalore Swans]

Actually it is both their workplaces because they are both working. A workplace is not necessarily a building. If you are a worker who takes their work with them, as in a journalist, then you are in your workplace no matter where it is as long as you are working. Morris was working. So was Beveridge. Hence both were in their place or placement of work. Harassment takes into account workers who are harassed online, in another place other than their employers building. Harassment laws state that harassment in performance of one's duties etc.

Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

I was thinking more that Morris and Beveridge work for different organisations. How can workplace harassment be deemed to have occurred if both parties work for different organisations?

If a bloke asks a girl whom works in a different industry to spent the evening with him and she’s offended and declined there is nothin to report.

If a girl works in the same company as the bloke then workplace harassment has occurred and the bloke could be up for serious misconduct.

Beveridge and Morris are more like the 1st example.

[Bangalore Swans]

Before you get too strident in your attachment to Tom, you might want to wait to see whether or not the audio doing the rounds this arvo on social media of him talking about a colleague is verified. I won't name whom, as she doesn't deserve her name dragged into it. But 'if' it is legitimate, it's an awful mix of misogyny and homophobia and Tom'll be out of a job by the day's end.

What the hell is the world coming too. It’s illegal to record someone speaking without informing them.

Come on mate. You need to play by the law 1st and foremost.