The Footy Show

[G-Mo77]

Re: The Footy Show

Did anyone pick up Aker's faux pas when he referred to the conversation he had with Sam, then corrected himself and said Sam overhead. Later in the segment he again referred to having a conversation with Sam, who then grilled Cooney.

As I said to my wife. They're getting caught in a web of their own lies.

[AndrewP6]

Re: The Footy Show

I thought one of the worst things was Newman claiming someone will 'neck' themselves if a but fragile under such treatment....irresponsible

Yes, that was poor.

[Ghost Dog]

Re: The Footy Show

Did anyone pick up Aker's faux pas when he referred to the conversation he had with Sam, then corrected himself and said Sam overhead. Later in the segment he again referred to having a conversation with Sam, who then grilled Cooney.

no, I did not pick up on that. That 'chinese restaurant' thing sounds a bit too made up.

Faux Pas has a different meaning.

A faux pas is a violation of accepted social norms (for example, standard customs or etiquette rules)

[Mantis]

Re: The Footy Show

Did anyone pick up Aker's faux pas when he referred to the conversation he had with Sam, then corrected himself and said Sam overhead. Later in the segment he again referred to having a conversation with Sam, who then grilled Cooney.

Aker mentioned this morning that he had spoken to Sam directly, but thought he did so 'in-confidence'.

[comrade]

Re: The Footy Show

The sticking point for me was he insinuation of a fractured playing group, the best person to refute this would have obviously been a player. To the neutral observer it appears that we were simply looking for a reason to sack Aker and have picked a relatively flimsy one, sending a backroom figure onto the show only enforced this view. Aker grabbed all the points from tonight in my mind and what was a relatively split issue has now gatered into a vendetta against our club on behalf of innocent Akermanis

AS long as the playing group are united, who gives a crap if there is a vendetta against us.

I agree that Rose lost the points tonight.

[GVGjr]

Re: The Footy Show

The sticking point for me was he insinuation of a fractured playing group, the best person to refute this would have obviously been a player. To the neutral observer it appears that we were simply looking for a reason to sack Aker and have picked a relatively flimsy one, sending a backroom figure onto the show only enforced this view. Aker grabbed all the points from tonight in my mind and what was a relatively split issue has now gatered into a vendetta against our club on behalf of innocent Akermanis

The unanimous decision by the playing group was more around how it was phrased to the players. I'm fairly confident that it was not the total playing group that said he had to go and anyway Hall could not speak for all players.

I get what you are saying but a 1st year player at the club like Hall isn't the right person to field the questions.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: The Footy Show

That was a disaster. It couldn't of gone worse. I'm convinced we're a chicken running around without its proverbial head. Why would we agree to do a live interview with Akermanis and Newman sitting either side? It's downright stupid. Secondly, why put Rose on the stand? He isn't qualified. He did the best he could, but he was overpowered by Aker/Sam the entire time. The crowd's response was pretty clear after that question regarding the sacking/Aker's lack of form. If ANYBODY was going to do this - surely it should have been the President of the club or James Fantasia?

What did we think would happen? God. I'm against Aker, but there's no disputing the fact that he made our club and Rose look guilty. I know of bulldog supporters/members already who are disgusted with the course of events.

Whilst many will say they can take a jump, the reality is - every member counts. Rightly or wrongly, tonight has only made things worse and divided supporters (and possibly the club) even further apart.

Just a disaster.

[comrade]

Re: The Footy Show

no, I did not pick up on that. That 'chinese restaurant' thing sounds a bit too made up.

Faux Pas has a different meaning.

A faux pas is a violation of accepted social norms (for example, standard customs or etiquette rules)

Yes, yes. You know what I mean

Proves that Aker is a white ant and a Sam Newman is a liar.

[AndrewP6]

Re: The Footy Show

But TFS painted in and presented it in that light mate. Cam Rose has to be careful with what he says —*he is an employer who has sacked an employee and there are legal considerations on top of PR considerations. Comments he makes can still hurt the club if not considered and thought out. Aker, however, has the natural advantage of 1. being out of contract and free to speak and 2. having the support of the panel.

In the face of this, very impressive by Cam.

Fair enough, I thought his appearance and comments were pointless. Given the factors you mention, they might as well not have bothered.

[soupman]

Re: The Footy Show

It's obviously a very tough and awkward situation and tonights interview didn't exactly help our cause.

Akermanis presented himself as the victim and looked visibly hurt. However, some of his points were bullshit.

One of his stuff ups was early on, when he mentioned the info Sam Newman had apparently overheard. The actual wording of his sentence however was something like "...conversation we/he had...overheard".

He also talked about who could have leaked some info to the media, saying how the only people who knew the info were Akermanis, Steve Price, Sam Newman and Rodney Eade. He then went on to say (with Newmans assistance) that clearly none of Price, Newman or Akermanis were the leak so that left one possibility. I'm still trying to figure out how Akermanis telling Price and newman doesn't classify as a leak.

As for Campbell Rose, he did as well as could be expected. However, why was he on? He said it himself at one point, that he wasn't the right person to ask. That makes us look like idiots. We have a trust issue, central to the game day perssonnel and we pull in a financial yachter with no experience as a footballer to speak on our behalf. I thought that was poor and it should have been either Smorgon, Eade or Johnno if anybody.

[GVGjr]

Re: The Footy Show

But TFS painted in and presented it in that light mate. Cam Rose has to be careful with what he says —*he is an employer who has sacked an employee and there are legal considerations on top of PR considerations. Comments he makes can still hurt the club if not considered and thought out. Aker, however, has the natural advantage of 1. being out of contract and free to speak and 2. having the support of the panel.

In the face of this, very impressive by Cam.

Excellent point

[ledge]

Re: The Footy Show

I think Aker dobbed himself in , first said he never leaked anything then mentioned when he told Newman.
The piss off bit actually showed how its all about him .

Gary Lyon actually had Aker in a bind about two clubs there has to be something about you.

[angelopetraglia]

Re: The Footy Show

Rose did OK. But why not role at the big gun? Smorgon is a public speaking star, has the respect of the footy world and would not have been bullied by either Sam or Aker.

He always comes across with such raw passion and belief. Can't believe he wasn't there tonight.

[LostDoggy]

Re: The Footy Show

I read this on BF and thought this Melbourne supporter summed up my thoughts really well.

Rose talks mostly in business school cliches. He doesn't want to get pinned down by any specifics because it makes it harder to talk in those cliches. It's non-committal, politically correct, nothing talk.

I have no doubt that Aker can be a pain in the arse to deal with, but it doesn't justify the action they have taken. Not to mention how stupid it is to sack him when they are running into a finals campaign. They could have kept him on ice to see if they needed him in the finals, avoided a media shit-storm, and allowed his contract to lapse instead of ending it on shaky grounds.

The Bulldogs have made an enormous tactical error here - even if you do swallow the "trust" reasoning. Poor administration.

Aker made some very good points and has made the Bulldogs look foolish.

A general survey of this thread says that a majority of neutral supporters believe Aker should not have been sacked. Maybe 75% no, 25% yes. Yet almost 100% of Bulldogs supporters side with the club. All this says is that club supporters don't think with logic, they think emotionally and devotedly. They can't afford to doubt what the Bulldogs are saying because it would mean walking away from the club.

Why do the Bulldogs need to claim that the decision was totally unanimous? It clearly wasn't. That's another one of those cliches that CEOs and presidents use? Again, makes them look silly. If the club had been less obsessed with pulling him into line and making "kangaroo courts", they could have let the season end, possibly won a premiership with Aker's help, and then parted ways. It's absurd to think that Aker's immediate removal will galvanise the club and solve all their problems. This will leave a worse climate at the club than what they were already experiencing. They have totally exaggerated the "trust" issue. He may have been the most hated person at the club, but it's got nothing to do with winning football matches. They should have waited til the end of the year to sort it out, and part ways then.

[G-Mo77]

Re: The Footy Show

Fair enough, I thought his appearance and comments were pointless. Given the factors you mention, they might as well not have bothered.

I would have liked to have said nothing at all and avoided the shit storm and publicity this pathetic show got but if we went that way we would have been bagged even more. Throw anyone else out there and they would have been ambushed like Campbell Rose was tonight. Rose was the best guy for the job. He knew what he should or shouldn't say and didn't get caught up in the dribble Aker and Same were spewing out through the whole segment.