Way wide of the mark huh? So you say you're not a mason and imply you would never be on? It's a ridiculous notion you infer. I'm so glad you snared a little insight somewhere to be able to recognise the absurdity of the CSSC. You're a little negative though for a fluffball
I think we've covered this. I'm not part of the club, or associated in any way aside from being a passionate fan. I don't have any knowledge of club politics, nor do I really want any. I just want to express some opinions about the football club I follow, preferably about things on the field when it comes down to it. Fair enough?
Keep investigating Horace.
If you insist.
From the ICAC website:
"Fighting corruption in the NSW public sector"
"What is a public official?
For conduct to be considered corrupt under the ICAC Act it must involve a New South Wales public official or public authority.
A public official is defined in the ICAC Act as an individual having public official functions or acting in a public official capacity."
Doesn't matter, that was just a throw away line of you used anyway.
The press release came out post phuque up. It's damage control. Why weren't members who were to be displaced informed BEFORE they just moved the Glee Club into a other people's seats. They weren't informed because the club doesn't care and have shown their hand by flagging that the Glee Club will be the golden children of the club and receive favour when possible.
You're perhaps right in saying its damage control. But it could also be seen as the club listening to the complaints of its members. I'd rather they not screw up in the first place, but if they fix it then that will do me. If they don't then there's a problem, sure..
You've obviously got some sort of bad blood with Irivine/the "Glee Club"/someone else. That's fine, none of my business, I didn't intend to walk into it. But you don't need to associate me with them simply because I don't have a problem with them.
I don't think you know what your own point is Horace. You said "I agree that people who have had their seats in the same place for years wouldn't want to move, but if its an upgrade then surely that's a small sacrifice that could be made?"
I then explained it for you because I am kind and benevolent that "HAHAHA If it were an upgrade it wouldn't be a sacrifice would it?"
Now you think you agree with me.
Nice slide, but you've missed the plate Wally.
My point is that its not much of a sacrifice if its an upgrade, except for the fact that some fans are rightly aggrieved that they have to move at all or that no effort had been made to ensure that they would be able to sit with the same people they have in the past.
Benevolent is a bit of a stretch. Try for cordial, and work your way up.
If you don't know and don't care you should think twice about forming an opinion of what is good. I've stated simple facts Cyril. Things that are on Public record. I could say more that I know about from my time as a mason but I'll stick to what's been said in the papers and other media. Irvine is a founding mason. Now they are on the end of a sweetheart deal to get better seats from other members who weren't informed of the move.
It's simple to see the favourtism. Take off the rose coloured glasses maybe.
So commenting without knowledge again. You're either a liar or an idiot. Probably both but to add to that you stink of being a club employee.
Mate, if posting facts was all that was allowed then these forums would grind to a halt in seconds.
I think we've just got a different outlook. Possibly because you've seen the club f*ck up for longer than I have. That might also be why I think the current admin is an improvement, cos the ones I've seen lately were much worse.
Anyway, I aim for fair and realistic and when in doubt, positive. So shoot me for not being as bitter, I just reckon some optimism might help, rather than hinder.
For the last time, I'm not against you, nor for the 'masons' or Irvine or whoever. Why do you all call them masons anyway btw?
Make your own mind up on whether I'm realistically an idiot, or a liar.
Really? Then crawl back into the cavern you lurk from. If you reply further you might imply you do care. If you don't care you might stop The White Knight act and cease from defending things you have so far admitted to like
a) are ridiculous
b) you know nothing about
c) you don't care about
No. Your problems are more far reaching I'm afraid.
I don't care about your feud is all. The rest- sticks and stones. And I'm lucky enough to not have many problems.
Sixty years? What makes you think the club will last 60 years.
That was my point: "At that rate, I'll be the one around in sixty years time telling another "wide eyed fluffball" how good it was back in the day... when I had a club."
The smokescreen being thrown up that all is well in the world of the Sharks shouldn't fool anyone. They are smiling assassins. They are putting on the brave front and smiley faces. Polluting websites and brochures with images of the Peter Garrett wannabe and all the while hoping the CSSC favouritism and the rape of the fmaily budget slips on by.
This all points to a lack of ideas to move forward other than to extort even more money from fans.
More cynicism. You don't want to give them any latitude. I disagree and think they deserve some time. Disagreement's no problem.
Anyway, didn't you say why make change for change sake? Well guess what Cedric, that's what we got. Change for change sake.
We got change because what we had was an admin firmly planted in neutral in terms of ideas and ability, while other clubs and codes were moving forward. Oh yeah and there was the porn thing and the hitting women thing and the huge hole in the budget thing and the poor marketing thing.
Of course you are sure. You're a self proclaimed lurker. You're probably a mason, possibly a club employee and doing a good job exposing things I can comment on
Need enemies much?
Anyway, we're pretty far off topic. In a honestly non-sarcastic way, what are your ideas?
