bennymacca wrote:
a lie is different to saying you think something might happen when you know for sure it plainly wont
Is it. When does that "something" turn into a lie. Or is it when you've convinced yourself that "something" is going to happen that it isn't a lie. Ethical business does not work your way.
bennymacca wrote:i believe it was always 4000 total supporters, if you can show me a quote otherwise im happy to be corrected. now obviously that was wildly optimistic, but trigg doesnt make these figures out of thin air. obviously someone did some estimates and attempted to work it out, but i honestly believe they thought they would get 4k per game.
making wrong predictions does not mean you lied. it could mean you did. or you could just be wrong.
4000 number has been discussed a number of times. If not 4000 Crows supporters, how many actual Crows supporters did he mean? Academic, its now turned out to be a couple of hundred max. Who don't pay to get in and add nothing to the atmosphere of a game. Worse than that, particularly for Centrals who has a fair dual allegiance, its created a supporter split and has lead to long term, rusted on loyal supporters who added to the atmosphere of games, leave for good.
Over estimated with some basis of the estimate you say. If you can show me the basis of the estimate and subsequent legitimacy then
I'm happy to be corrected.
Shucks, Wide eyed honest to goodness it was over optimistic. Your belief is touching, but its us paying for such incompetence. Too big a mistake to brush off.
bennymacca wrote:wild dog wrote:The threat to enter the Ammos; a lie?
The unanimous decision required by the SANFL clubs; a lie?
both leverage to get what he wanted. he was acting in the best interests of his club, which is what i want him to do.
dont forget it was up to the SANFL clubs to let the crows into the comp.
Leverage is a funny word/term that has been so nicely manipulated. Its now up there with derivatives. Do you know what it means? The thing is with leveraging in the business sense, is normally you have to pay back on the gamble. In the world of the SANFL unfortunately that does not happen.
So you say he leveraged, but then you say that after all, the Clubs let the C***s in. So if some clubs were saying no and the leveraging convinced them, is there culpability on the part of the leverager, or is it the sucker leveragees fault for being taken in.
Anyway the above statement is probably mute because your belief is he was acting in the best interest of your club (I notice that does not mean Centrals) so the end justified the means. The relationship between the Crows and the SANFL has been reduced to that; a great pity and a lack of historical understanding by supporters such as yourself.
bennymacca wrote:now im the first to admit that i dont think it has worked out that well. it definitely hasnt been a disaster, but you can pretty certainly say it hasnt been a positive for the league. and im sure it is below their expectations. it is in the crows interest for the sanfl to be going well too.
so i would conclude part salesmanship, part bad estimates. can you blame trigg for that? certainly. it seems like the crowd numbers of 4k (let alone an extra 4k) have been wildly inaccurate. but i dont think he would deliberately lie.
Would someone who was in a weak position, had made some bad decisions and support from staff and board was not looking rosy, was able to force a deeply unpopular proposition through its shareholders thus gaining needed credibility, not able to lie? If that proposition is a dud, based on flimsy or even made up data, and the technique used to sell the proposition unethical all to gain much need credibility, all combined not make a lie?
The logic of the SA AFL clubs acting in their best interest should be countered by the SANFL clubs. In the best interest of my club, as of next year charge the Crows and Port each a game day figure that compensates for the disastrous financial mess that we are finding ourselves in.