I think you'll find that Caro didn't come up with the Bluebeggers spread. In fact she was surprised with it. The chief editor of the paper did this. This was confirmed on the day the article was released on 3AW.

_________________
For some silly reason, you people want to assassinate him, and it's just rubbish. You people. All of you, ALL of you!

Good to hear your views Molly.

My reason for starting this thread is because I hear so much discussion on this and other boards but all I see in these discussions are peoples perceptions and opinions. I want to establish what the raw facts are, because I see very little of these. I was not trying to be critical of the board.

News item on the Footy Show last night (Wed evening) stated Carlton has just reneged on some kind of exclusive media agreement with the Age, after being heavily pressured (possibly even indirectly threatened) by the HUN to move it to the HUN. Not clear what the details were, but partly blamed Collo for it and referred to it as a media war between theAge and the HUN.

They also had a sound and vision grab of Fisher stating that he was one of the people responsible for helping get the new Board in and that now he wished he had not done so.

Unfortunately in my opinion Fisher is a loud irrational hothead who loves the sound of his own voice, and he should have taken his own advice and not presented such a bad vision of the Club, given his own criticism of the Board's media image. And next time I see him at the Club I'll point out to him the hypocrisy of this piece of fame (not that I expect he will understand such a rational criticism).

Of course, the HUN caters strongly to Collingwood supporters and the general anti-Carlton majority of footy fans, and also has a number of journos (Pierik, Robinson) who developed back scratch arrangements with John Elliot and have continually published pro Elliot anti Collo/Board artcles over the last few years.

Malouf speaking to a number of training watchers (including Synbad and myself) after training Wed, stated emphatically that Fevola was NEVER up for trade ... stated how bad would he (Malouf) have looked if it were not true and Fevola was traded after he had made such emphatic statements last year. He said Fev was always a required player.

He also said he never said Fevola was the face of the Club, rather that Fevola would become one of the faces of the Club and draw some marketing component, because Kouta was still the face of the Club.

There was also the consideration of how bad would the Club look given the current state of the list if he was traded and went on to kick 100 goals at another Club.

One listener replied with the view "I'm not calling you a liar, but I just don't believe you". Malouf reiterated emphatically that he was a required player and was never up for trade.

Fisher is a nutcase.

Not the player... the USC bloke...

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Ummm

4thChicken, Steve et al.
Try and read my posts again. All I am trying to do is make a statement to undecided members that will help them decide one way or another whether this Board is responsible for providing a vision to the membership. If you want to say we are different to a corporation, then fine, go ahead and do it. But in the legal sense we aren't, and that is what makes the contribution of membership so important. I didn't realise that providing neutral members with such a viewpoint was a crime. As for all your arguments etc - well, I'd debate them. But as you would also have noted from my posts, I have not once sought to debate the merits or otherwise of the current Board's position on ANYTHING (you wouldn't be able to tell in there whether I voted for Lee, Kernahan, Pavlou, Valmorbida, Clarke, or no-one) - all I've done is to articulate that they are under no responsibility to provide a vision, but that they may be held accountable for not doing so. Now I know how Cazz feels when he tries to present an even-handed account - disagree with the majority and it's game on.

@#$%&! reasonableness Molly!

_________________
This type of slight is alien in the more cultured part of the world - Walsh. Its up there with mad dogs, Englishmen and the midday sun!

Surely you're not serious Molly?

What you have offered is the minimum disclosure requirements of a corporate entity.
Some members, supporters and sponsors expect more.
And so they should!
That's their right.

I dont think the majority are calling for your head just yet!

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

Thank you for your post Molly and I hope you are not going defensive on us. I always thought that this was a place to come on line, anonymously and debate all things Carlton. Topics ranging from the logo on this year's member's Caps through to next year's potential draft picks. I figure that if I cant come on here and cast a critical eye over carlton stuff, with other Carlton folk, then where can I go. If i try it on BF there will be some peanut jump in with a stupid neanderthal response etc.

Your point is well taken, but the very point that you raised, ie all Carlton folks should do their own research, come up with their own decisions and vote accordingly in board elections is well made. This is essentially the topic of much of the banter in this post. Your point about corporations law and the legal requirements on the club are accepted I think but some of us feel that the club has a moral, ethical and common sense duty to do more than the minimum required by law. I guess that it all boils down to what you consider a responsibility to be. Is your only responsibility to the lawmakers of the land? I think many of us are hurting and we look to the leaders of the club for some direction. The realisation that we are meeting the minimum legal requirements and that we are not legally entitled to any more information than what is currently being given is small compensation for many.

I dont think anybody's argument is with you, rather you have raised a topic of interest and ispired some responses. If we are to do that independant personal research to form an opinion, then isnt healthy debate on the subject just a normal part of that process?

_________________
"Who discovered we could get milk from cows, and what did he think he was doing at the time?" Billy Connolly

Sorry 2ndEffort - maybe I did get too defensive! I just kept on seeing posts that wanted to pick a bone with me over the Board's current performance, and at the end of it all, I wasn't even trying to enter into that discussion!

molly - dont take things the wrong way - definitely not here to pick a bone with you but rather to present an alternative viewpoint. You claim that the board has met its legal obligations - I see honest/integrity as one of them - and in that regard I think they have failed (as pointed out on the financial figures they release for the ground upkeep). I agree they dont have to provide a vision - I dont think I've stated in this thread that they need to do so.

Also, in case you think I'm carrying an agenda - Just so you know - I'm not a member (have never been yet, but will eventually) - so oviously I havent voted one way or another.

Thanks Molly - I understand perfectly what you have said.

It's up to every individual to cobble together their own view on what they think the board should or should not be doing. You've just provided some legal parameter to one aspect of it.
It's good to hear the passion coming through on this board that I think will keep the club in good stead in coming years - Collo & board involved or not.

_________________
This might sound extreme in the context of alleged sexual assault, drunken violence and a drug trafficking charge...