Lucy Cornes in Twitter attack after Will Minson offends Port Adelaide players with of

[Sedat]

Collingwood do show a bit of barb in the public arena. And you are upset that we do the same? Well if we had their historical narrative, supporter base, media experience and cash we may well do. But we are not Collingwood and we don't have Eddie McGuire, as much as we would like to dream. I tend to think the opposite. Our club is super careful and 'bland' because they really do care about the result and want to be ultra-sensitive to this stuff. They really do care about the organization. ( Actually I have noted a worrying trend also and that is many of the staff at the Dogs are supporters of other clubs! But that's another story )

GD, I think this is a cop-out and reinforces the small-time, downtrodden perception that exists out there about our club. We similarly rolled over and accepted tier 2 compensation for losing Ward to GWS, even though days prior we 'demanded and fully expected to receive' tier 1 compensation. We roll over and accept our dreadful stadium deal at Etihad. We roll over and accept other clubs waltzing in and taking over our turf in Darwin. Off the field, all we ever seem to do is roll over.

[Ghost Dog]

GD, I think this is a cop-out and reinforces the small-time, downtrodden perception that exists out there about our club. We similarly rolled over and accepted tier 2 compensation for losing Ward to GWS, even though days prior we 'demanded and fully expected to receive' tier 1 compensation. We roll over and accept our dreadful stadium deal at Etihad. We roll over and accept other clubs waltzing in and taking over our turf in Darwin. Off the field, all we ever seem to do is roll over.

I'm not sure people on the outside can see how you are stringing the narrative together. However, as a supporter, I completely empathize
The reality is that Eddie McGuire is a media commentator with lots of connections. He helped us find a sponsor and we gave him a little medal for it FFS! Your argument is for us to be more pushy in the media and in general dealings. Sure, it's time we saw a bit more 'cracking in' with the administration side of things; but on this particular ' soft tissue ' issue I am fairly sure Collingwood may have spun it a bit differently but they would have rested a player, nonetheless.

[LostDoggy]

Collingwood do show a bit of barb in the public arena. Youare upset as we don't do the same? Well, if we had their historical narrative, supporter base, media experience and cash we may well do. But we are not Collingwood and we don't have Eddie McGuire, as much as we would like to dream. I tend to think the opposite. Our club is super careful and 'bland' because they simply care to keep the ship steady, and are not that confident in the media. ( Actually I have noted a worrying trend also and that is many of the staff at the Dogs are supporters of other clubs! But that's another story )

You're confusing cause and effect GD. Collingwood aren't loud because they have their 'historical narrative', supporter base and money. They have a supporter base and money because they are loud. Despite their history, it was an administrative basketcase when Eddie took over. We have as much of a historical narrative as any other club in the league -- it's a matter of knowing it, being proud of it, and selling it, which we are shit at. I mean, long-term supporters like yourself even believe the popular perception that we have no 'historical narrative' (not your fault), but the best marketing organisations know how to tell good stories that change perceptions.

Once again, like the club, you seem to think that pleasing the AFL and other clubs are what we should be thinking about, but if supporters walk away and we drop to 15,000 members, the AFL will be the first ones looking to ship us off interstate. Conversely, if we actually stand for something and attract 40,000+ members, we can stand on our own two feet and tell the AFL to sod off (something Collingwood does regularly). Why would any kid out there looking for a club to support be attracted to a club with a softly, softly approach that loses its best young players regularly and kow-tows quietly to AFL HQ? Dogs fans loved the wog squad who intimidated the opposition. Hawthorn's unsociable footy was hated by others but loved by their own fans. We've already mentioned Eddie.

There is a marketing concept called 'clanning' -- the desire of people to feel a part of something they can identify with and get behind. It's not just a matter of on-field success (as North can tell you), and it's not logical: it's why people fight civil wars against their neighbours et al, but in this context, it's an important psychological factor. People want to arbitrarily unite behind colours and fight other tribes. This tribalism is what drives football at its heart, and the Dogs, in its desire to become bland, colourless and safe, has completely missed the boat on that one.

In fact, I argue that being a smaller club, clanning is even more important, as we really want to tap into a sense of being a crusader fighting the good fight, which a lot of people can identify with. Instead, I don't really know what we stand for, and I challenge anyone who hasn't drunk the club's kool-aid to tell me what it is. I think I heard kids call the Dogs 'losers' recently, so that's something we stand for maybe. Your brand isn't what you tell people it is, it's what they tell you it is, based on their observations. Actions speak louder than words.

GD, your approach of 'doing the right thing' is admirable, but not from a long-term business perspective - we are not a charity, a non-profit, or a government agency where towing the party line and not rocking the boat is important. We are a competitive business in a cut-throat environment. Eddie's biggest strength is realising that this is a business, and businesses live and die by their core customers, ie. members and fans, and he only supports the rest of the AFL in order to create a better business environment for Collingwood to thrive in. Without wanting to offend anyone, I can see even on this board that those of us whose livelihoods are determined by commercial realities -- you know, those of us with big income targets and have to constantly sell, hit up donors, or deal with investors, to survive -- are the ones most disappointed with the Dogs, because we can see how commercially naive our practices are. Those of us more used to an administratively neutral environment -- public servants et al -- are satisfied with the Dogs not rocking the boat, because that's what works in non-commercial sectors. It looks like our administration has chosen to hitch itself closely to city hall and behave like a good little organisation. That may be a good short-term survival strategy, but comes at the expense of your long-term growth, just at a time when we need it most.

[Ghost Dog]

Some comments from Theage. Copied them in as I thought they were good Craic

4 comments so far

Its a shame Will has been hung out to dry. Port Power are a soft, soft club.

Commenter
Richo
June 20, 2012, 7:41AM

Congrats to the media circus, twitter users & sqealing Port players, one massive over reaction, you got your result. Mr Cassisi - you obvously didn't hear a teammate vilify a cancer patient a few years ago! Soft club Port - get their WAGS to fight their battles!

Commenter
Soft
June 20, 2012, 8:53AM

I feel for Will, but I can't wait to give it to Danielle Pearce next time Port play over here, what a squib.

Commenter
June 20, 2012, 8:55AM

Dont worry Minson, the Bulldogs supporters hold no grudge against you and are 100% behind you.
This farcical episode lies on the shoulders of Cassisi and Pierce.. what an absolute bunch of handbags. Get a tablespoon of cement up ya, and harden up. What an absolute joke.
I'm looking forward to the next Port match - the sledging will be epic


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-new...#ixzz1yHrBrxm1

The thing is, what is Pearce going to do next time a player says ' How's your mum Dan?' or worse. Is he going to dare dragging it into the media again?

[Ghost Dog]

. I mean, long-term supporters like yourself even believe the popular perception that we have no 'historical narrative' (not your fault), but the best marketing organisations know how to tell good stories that change perceptions.

Once again, like the club, you seem to think that pleasing the AFL and other clubs are what we should be thinking about, but if supporters walk away and we drop to 15,000 members, the AFL will be the first ones looking to ship us off interstate.

Wow! what a great post and some interesting ideas. I get the part about 'clanning'. You yourself would have to admit that in any organisation you need a mix of 'sales' types and 'people ' types.
I would have you on the Bulldogs board any day Lantern ^_^ need a job?

I never said I wanted us to be close to city hall. But you have to admit, having a media mogul as your top guy gives you a big advantage in the press.
We have rolled over badly with the Ward thing and the lack of spirit from the club on that one created a lot of resentment.

But on this particular issue, give the club a break. Cannot fight this one. You can't expect everyone to get all teary for Charlie Sutton ( an empathetic, emotional tug on the heart string ) and then pretend that what Will did was ok, having press conferences to defend him and being all bully about it ( a more business, hardline attitude ) on the same day.

You have Brendan saying stuff like "I think Charlie Sutton and his presence and what he means in our Club’s history resonated with the players in the lead-up to the game – I think they wanted to represent him and his family really well."
It's a bit in in-congruent to then come out and robustly defend Minson's use of the 'M' word ( Mother!)



For Dogs fans, feel it's going to have a reverse effect and Will is going to be a cult hero from now on.

When I mean ' historical narrative' I'm talking about the P word. Premierships.
Let's clan!

[G-Mo77]

Haven't really said much since his suspension yesterday but here goes. We sold a 10 year servant at the club down the river as far as I'm concerned. Will's character took an absolute hammering yesterday, TV, Radio, Social Media, online forums everyone who's halo magically appeared over their heads were sticking the boots in. Our club instead of standing up for him rolls over and does exactly what these fragile angels wanted.

A 10 year servant for our club who is set to become a FA in 2012. Something tells me that Minson will be at another club next year and I wouldn't blame him one bit!

[LostDoggy]

Next time you take ten voluptuous sth American girls to the footy, do you want to pm me?

Thanks for the laugh!! Made my morning!!

[Sedat]

^ ^ ^ ^
Lantern, nothing more need be added - brilliantly summarised.

Vanilla is as good as death in the competitive world of business. Only those brands/organisations that have a compelling point of difference to their competitors will survive and thrive long-term. What do we as a club stand for? What is our brand DNA? What is our point of difference from the rest of the competition? Probably a topic for another thread but well worth fleshing out.

[Ghost Dog]

These ladies are massive Minson fans. They don't care what he says as they can't understand it anyway!!

[Throughandthrough]

Lantern, interesting post and well written. My job fits one of your desciptions but my view is the opposite so i guess i am a statistical outlier

My question is though, while its great and mighty to have a small passionate group of fans who love the fact that their club takes a hard line approach on something, (wog squad/unsociable footy/etc) would that approach help get new supporters? And conversely would it turn people away?

I'll use an extreme example just to make the question clearer.

Let's say the WBU decided "as of today the dog's are a men only club. We will only allow men into the matches, we will provide scantily clad waitresses to serve cheap cold beer"

a % of our members would think its the best news ever and never miss a match. May even get some new sponsors (Lynx, anyone)

A % of lost members or even other club supporters would also love it and sign up

But a % of existing members would drift off, (and a lot of sponsors as well)

I think we need to look at the big picture

Would Mission sponsor us if our team was known for causing brawls every week? I doubt it.

[jeemak]

You're confusing cause and effect GD. Collingwood aren't loud because they have their 'historical narrative', supporter base and money. They have a supporter base and money because they are loud. Despite their history, it was an administrative basketcase when Eddie took over. We have as much of a historical narrative as any other club in the league -- it's a matter of knowing it, being proud of it, and selling it, which we are shit at. I mean, long-term supporters like yourself even believe the popular perception that we have no 'historical narrative' (not your fault), but the best marketing organisations know how to tell good stories that change perceptions.

Once again, like the club, you seem to think that pleasing the AFL and other clubs are what we should be thinking about, but if supporters walk away and we drop to 15,000 members, the AFL will be the first ones looking to ship us off interstate. Conversely, if we actually stand for something and attract 40,000+ members, we can stand on our own two feet and tell the AFL to sod off (something Collingwood does regularly). Why would any kid out there looking for a club to support be attracted to a club with a softly, softly approach that loses its best young players regularly and kow-tows quietly to AFL HQ? Dogs fans loved the wog squad who intimidated the opposition. Hawthorn's unsociable footy was hated by others but loved by their own fans. We've already mentioned Eddie.

There is a marketing concept called 'clanning' -- the desire of people to feel a part of something they can identify with and get behind. It's not just a matter of on-field success (as North can tell you), and it's not logical: it's why people fight civil wars against their neighbours et al, but in this context, it's an important psychological factor. People want to arbitrarily unite behind colours and fight other tribes. This tribalism is what drives football at its heart, and the Dogs, in its desire to become bland, colourless and safe, has completely missed the boat on that one.

In fact, I argue that being a smaller club, clanning is even more important, as we really want to tap into a sense of being a crusader fighting the good fight, which a lot of people can identify with. Instead, I don't really know what we stand for, and I challenge anyone who hasn't drunk the club's kool-aid to tell me what it is. I think I heard kids call the Dogs 'losers' recently, so that's something we stand for maybe. Your brand isn't what you tell people it is, it's what they tell you it is, based on their observations. Actions speak louder than words.

GD, your approach of 'doing the right thing' is admirable, but not from a long-term business perspective - we are not a charity, a non-profit, or a government agency where towing the party line and not rocking the boat is important. We are a competitive business in a cut-throat environment. Eddie's biggest strength is realising that this is a business, and businesses live and die by their core customers, ie. members and fans, and he only supports the rest of the AFL in order to create a better business environment for Collingwood to thrive in. Without wanting to offend anyone, I can see even on this board that those of us whose livelihoods are determined by commercial realities -- you know, those of us with big income targets and have to constantly sell, hit up donors, or deal with investors, to survive -- are the ones most disappointed with the Dogs, because we can see how commercially naive our practices are. Those of us more used to an administratively neutral environment -- public servants et al -- are satisfied with the Dogs not rocking the boat, because that's what works in non-commercial sectors. It looks like our administration has chosen to hitch itself closely to city hall and behave like a good little organisation. That may be a good short-term survival strategy, but comes at the expense of your long-term growth, just at a time when we need it most.

Good post.

I've found the whole saga depressing over the last couple of days. Here's a few of the reasons why:

- Minson is a dill because of his prior record, and he should have been able to produce something a little better than your standard mum sledge considering his intelligence. If you can't get inside someone's head without being offensive then you shouldn't be sledging

- Pearce is a brat of the highest order, and will want to keep his nose extremely clean going forward. Any step outside the line of what is publicly acceptable should be met with widespread condemnation. It's all or nothing, this guy chose nothing and should be held to account for that

- The influence of the Cornes family and their hypocritical viewpoint makes me ill. I mean, who the bloody hell are these people and considering their priors in this area why are they not being lambasted and ridiculed by all and sundry

- I'm torn between acknowledging the club took the path of least resistance through a pragmatic approach, and thinking they should have taken a stand against the hysterical frenzy portrayed across the media, past players and twitterati who screamed for a public flogging of Minson, and ultimately received one

- The AFL's commercially driven charade surrounding respect and responsibility towards women taking another victim. The AFL has so much more to do in this area to change the culture of football players and attitudes towards women, and public whippings of players isn't a very good starting point

- The willingness of the football industry and public to mirror society, and demonstrate how truly shallow and pathetic it is. There are significantly larger issues affecting sport and society as a whole than this one, and I wish society could be raised from its slumber and become half as passionate about them, as they seem to be over the childish actions of a professional sportsperson


This article contains comments from the club backing Minson's character and sticking by his version of events:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-new...619-20m6q.html

To me, this is not emphatic enough.

What would really please me is ex-team mates who are in the media going in to bat heavily for Minson over the coming weeks, and I also want to see them and other prominent Bulldogs people (particularly at the home game luncheon's address to members) whilst doing so openly attack the hypocrisy demonstrated by the Cornes family, ex-players and football commentators since this blew up on Monday. The club, whilst acknowledging Minson's comments were not appropriate, need to point out how disappointed they are with his character being trashed. They also need to remind those trashing him that they've all stuck their heads out of the ground, and they now must be prepared to have them knocked off if they step out of line in the future.

[bornadog]

These ladies are massive Minson fans. They don't care what he says as they can't understand it anyway!!

Did they enjoy the game

[Ghost Dog]

Did they enjoy the game

Loved it. Bulldogs are now 'their team' and it's amazing what a free baseball cap will do!

Their community people spent a good while explaining the game before we went.
It made a big difference, as I have brought students before but the game was a bit lost on them without the white board part. It's a bit difficult to explain the game at the ground with the noise and what not with low literacy folks.

[Sedat]

Good post.

I've found the whole saga depressing over the last couple of days. Here's a few of the reasons why:

- Minson is a dill because of his prior record, and he should have been able to produce something a little better than your standard mum sledge considering his intelligence. If you can't get inside someone's head without being offensive then you shouldn't be sledging

- Pearce is a brat of the highest order, and will want to keep his nose extremely clean going forward. Any step outside the line of what is publicly acceptable should be met with widespread condemnation. It's all or nothing, this guy chose nothing and should be held to account for that

- The influence of the Cornes family and their hypocritical viewpoint makes me ill. I mean, who the bloody hell are these people and considering their priors in this area why are they not being lambasted and ridiculed by all and sundry

- I'm torn between acknowledging the club took the path of least resistance through a pragmatic approach, and thinking they should have taken a stand against the hysterical frenzy portrayed across the media, past players and twitterati who screamed for a public flogging of Minson, and ultimately received one

- The AFL's commercially driven charade surrounding respect and responsibility towards women taking another victim. The AFL has so much more to do in this area to change the culture of football players and attitudes towards women, and public whippings of players isn't a very good starting point

- The willingness of the football industry and public to mirror society, and demonstrate how truly shallow and pathetic it is. There are significantly larger issues affecting sport and society as a whole than this one, and I wish society could be raised from its slumber and become half as passionate about them, as they seem to be over the childish actions of a professional sportsperson


This article contains comments from the club backing Minson's character and sticking by his version of events:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-new...619-20m6q.html

To me, this is not emphatic enough.

What would really please me is ex-team mates who are in the media going in to bat heavily for Minson over the coming weeks, and I also want to see them and other prominent Bulldogs people (particularly at the home game luncheon's address to members) whilst doing so openly attack the hypocrisy demonstrated by the Cornes family, ex-players and football commentators since this blew up on Monday. The club, whilst acknowledging Minson's comments were not appropriate, need to point out how disappointed they are with his character being trashed. They also need to remind those trashing him that they've all stuck their heads out of the ground, and they now must be prepared to have them knocked off if they step out of line in the future.

Jeemak, another fantastic post, and you have perfectly encapsulated my personal thoughts on the whole affair following the events of the last 48 hours. It is possible to sanction somebody and also give them unwavering public support. We failed to adequately address the latter IMO.

[jeemak]

Jeemak, another fantastic post, and you have perfectly encapsulated my personal thoughts on the whole affair following the events of the last 48 hours. It is possible to sanction somebody and also give them unwavering public support. We failed to adequately address the latter IMO.

Agreed, though considering we can't change how it's been handled to this point, what are your thoughts on making good and pulling back some ground for Minson and the club?