Talking Footy

VFL supporters

filthy


racist


slime


I've said it since day dot
& nothing that goes on in here ..... indicates I'm wrong

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Phelpsy wrote:

Why do you say Victorians? AFL is the major sport in this country with strong leagues across the country and string followings. Is that an attempt to demean the sport to say it is only followed in Victoria or something .... Mental giants these lot ??? I guess I am just as bad lowering myself to comment ... Oh well.

Geez you are entering crappers level of comprehension.

I said VICTORIANS<because that is where the sport is based.
Where it is run.
Where the media is compliant.
Where deals are done with the police .
Where you get looked after by the court system if you are part of the AFL.
Where AFL fans lap up the media feelgood stuff & close their ears to the rest.
Where a Victorian club boss or some other Victorian geriatric racist can say what they like & it I brushed off by the media down there ,as in jest or some other BS.
Strange how other states don't see things the same.


Mental giants are those defending racists & rednecks who make gay jokes

The sport of Australian rules is and has been played through independent leagues throughout the country. Aussie Rules isn't Victorian based.

The media are compliant are they? Maybe tell essendon how compliant the media were last year when they published 5 articles a week mostly based on speculation. This did untold damage to essendons and the AFL brand. Care to explain how this was compliant?

The MOU with the police lasted for only a few years so "no deals are being done"

Celebrities in most fields are often treated differently by the courts

I wonder if anyone can explain the fact that Victoria and South Australia started organised competition in the same year as a Victorian sport?

If people think the AFL get a good run in the media in Victoria they don't obviously read Victorian press. Also, I would say south Australians and western Australians are more passionate and crazy about their AFL than Victorians. Look at how west coast got away with so much for so long ... They were untouchable. And just tune in to the media after the tribunal hands down their verdicts and hear how they are slammed by the media.

What I don't get is how the foundation set up with O'Loughlin back in September 2009 has been deemed to have had such a positive effect compared to Fred Chaney who has been active in bettering the Australian aboriginals lot over period of about 53 years.

Fred Chaney has been involved in Aboriginal Affairs going as far back as 1961 where he was an advocate to give the Australian aboriginals the right to vote and the subsequent passing of the referendum in 1967. He went on to set up the Aboriginal Legal Service in W.A. He was the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. For many years, Fred was Deputy President of the National Native Title Tribunal and, more recently, is Chair of Desert Knowledge Australia and chaired the Board of Central Desert Native Title services. He was instrumental in establishing the Graham (Polly) Farmer Foundation, which supports Indigenous young people to reach their potential.

So what we have is Adam Goodes recognized for his efforts over a period of 51 months compared to the ongoing efforts of someone over a period of about 53 years. I think I know who is more deserved of the title of Australian Of The Year.

To put it in terms the AFL mob will understand. why give the man of the match to someone who comes along and kicks a behind in the last quarter when you have someone that has kicked 3 goals in every quarter.

Shame you weren't on the panel. It's hardly goodes fault is it? So font blame him
... And debate over who should or shouldn't always happen . Was this other guy nominated for this award or just the senior award? Maybe next year you can nominate him ?

Another point. This is about 2013 and 2013 only. Not back to 2009 or back to 1961.

NRLCrap1 wrote:

Another point. This is about 2013 and 2013 only. Not back to 2009 or back to 1961.

This is the criteria for awarding Australian Of The Year

Criteria

In choosing the recipients of the Australian of the Year Awards, regard is given to the nominee's achievements in the year immediately prior to receiving the award, as well as their past achievements and ongoing contribution to the Australian community and nation.

Note where it says

"as well as their past achievements and ongoing contribution to the Australian community and nation."

http://www.australianoftheyear.org.au/t ... /criteria/

Get it right just once will you.

Look up some information once in a while, it's not that hard. Get your carer to help you if it's difficult for you.

Still, a panel picked goodes .

Phelpsy wrote:

Still, a panel picked goodes .

then they need shooting for this disgusting choice

Phelpsy wrote:

Still, a panel picked goodes .

That's right, nobody said Goodes picked himself. What I am saying is that he didn't deserve it as much as Fred Chaney. What's your take on it Phelpsy? Looking at the achievements of the two, who would you say is more to deserved of the title of Australian of the year, Goodes or Chaney?

Yep, I see your point, but don't know the ins and outs of it. Maybe the panel talked about this and came up with giving one the senior award and the other the general one. Who knows. Fact is, a panel of people made the selection. I have no doubt being a person of high profile counts in many cases which it shouldn't. I mean look at previous appointments such as Steve Waugh. I do worry when goodes is called a disgusting person though which seems a bit silly. I am also sure there are many many others who could be considered more deserving. I guess they have to be nominated first and if no one nominated the other bloke not much they can do. But I don't really know how it works. I say good on him though and don't see why the need to vilify him. He still does good work .... He doesn't have to, so good on him for putting something back.

MarkZZZ wrote:

NRLCrap1 wrote:

Another point. This is about 2013 and 2013 only. Not back to 2009 or back to 1961.

This is the criteria for awarding Australian Of The Year

Criteria

In choosing the recipients of the Australian of the Year Awards, regard is given to the nominee's achievements in the year immediately prior to receiving the award, as well as their past achievements and ongoing contribution to the Australian community and nation.

Note where it says

"as well as their past achievements and ongoing contribution to the Australian community and nation."

http://www.australianoftheyear.org.au/t ... /criteria/

Get it right just once will you.

Look up some information once in a while, it's not that hard. Get your carer to help you if it's difficult for you.

I don't need a carer. Read it again, and this time understand it - and read the context. It is about the previous year. Anything prior to that is window dressing. Reality is, if they did nothing in the previous year - they wouldn't even get past the nomination stage.

Getting it, goose?

NRLCrap1 wrote:

MarkZZZ wrote:

NRLCrap1 wrote:

Another point. This is about 2013 and 2013 only. Not back to 2009 or back to 1961.

This is the criteria for awarding Australian Of The Year

Criteria

In choosing the recipients of the Australian of the Year Awards, regard is given to the nominee's achievements in the year immediately prior to receiving the award, as well as their past achievements and ongoing contribution to the Australian community and nation.

Note where it says

"as well as their past achievements and ongoing contribution to the Australian community and nation."

http://www.australianoftheyear.org.au/t ... /criteria/

Get it right just once will you.

Look up some information once in a while, it's not that hard. Get your carer to help you if it's difficult for you.

I don't need a carer. Read it again, and this time understand it - and read the context. It is about the previous year. Anything prior to that is window dressing. Reality is, if they did nothing in the previous year - they wouldn't even get past the nomination stage.

Getting it, goose?

Oh dear, you really are a moron aren't you. Your level of comprehension is that of a gnat. Where does it say that less importance is given to previous years. NOWHERE. Does it say "for the nominee's achievements in the year immediately prior to receiving the award"and include "their past achievements and ongoing contribution to the Australian community and nation." Does it say one is worth more than the other. NO

Got it dumbo

Phelpsy wrote:

Yep, I see your point, but don't know the ins and outs of it. Maybe the panel talked about this and came up with giving one the senior award and the other the general one. Who knows. Fact is, a panel of people made the selection. I have no doubt being a person of high profile counts in many cases which it shouldn't. I mean look at previous appointments such as Steve Waugh. I do worry when goodes is called a disgusting person though which seems a bit silly. I am also sure there are many many others who could be considered more deserving. I guess they have to be nominated first and if no one nominated the other bloke not much they can do. But I don't really know how it works. I say good on him though and don't see why the need to vilify him. He still does good work .... He doesn't have to, so good on him for putting something back.

Pretty non committal there Phelpsey. All the other things aside. Lets say you are the one making the decision. You are handed the names of the two candidates, who would you choose, Goodes or Chaney. No deflections.

Have you got the ticker to commit one way or the other and give reasons to back it up?