Should Callan Ward be allowed to come to the Charles Sutton medal presentation night.

[NoseBleed]

On S.E.N. last week, Callan Ward stated that he planned to come to the B&F presentation.

We've all had our say about his decision to move to Sydney, we've all got our opinions.

But he's gone, and he no longer wears Red White and Blue.

Personally, the moment I saw him in another teams colours, he became an opposition player. For that reason, I personally don't want him to be allowed to attend our B&F.

He may have "served out his contract", he may have been "part of our side this year". But football is about looking forward, not backward, and he's chosen not to be one of us.

I think the club has handled the Callan Ward situation pretty meekly, and believe allowing him to attend the B&F will only reinforce that weakness.

That's why I vote "No".


I'm curious to hear the opinions of other Woofers.

Craig.

[Remi Moses]

No for mine. Got no doubt how limp this club is he'll get an invite!
Hey he'll probably get a standing ovation

[GVGjr]

I guess this is just another variation of the question about if he should have played the last game or not but I voted Yes to him attending the Charles Sutton medal.

[NoseBleed]

GVG when he played the last game he was (ahem) "Undecided".

Now he belong to, and wears the colours of, another team.

Why would you want him there? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm asking why?

C.

[G-Mo77]

No for mine. Got no doubt how limp this club is he'll get an invite!
Hey he'll probably get a standing ovation

And a video package of highlights.

No from this end.

[LostDoggy]

Yes for me.

He has signed with GWS, but the B&F was for the year that just passed.
He'll come back when we can challenge for the flag again.
Still has alot of mates at the club.

[chef]

I voted yes as he should be allowed.

But he shouldn't want to, as he can't have it both ways as he is now a Giants player. Starting to come across as a really selfish person IMO.

His night could get ugly.

[GVGjr]

GVG when he played the last game he was (ahem) "Undecided".

Now he belong to, and wears the colours of, another team.

Why would you want him there? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm asking why?

C.

He played a significant role within the season and the night is about the reflection of that season.
I'm surprised that he wants to go but if he can bring himself to do it then he should be allowed to go.

[chef]

Did Harbrow go the year he left?

[The Coon Dog]

To me, the B&F is a reflection of the 2011 year & Callan played for us in 2011, of course he should be allowed to attend.

[LostDoggy]

Maybe he wants to show off his new Bugatti, assorted bling and Brynne Edelsten equivalent?

[Mantis]

No problems with him being allowed to attend.

Just really, really surprised that he would want to.... Perhaps he just feels that everyone will be understanding towards him... But I doubt it.

[I'm Not Bitter Anymore!]

Won't it be awkward?

[Greystache]

Just really, really surprised that he would want to.... Perhaps he just feels that everyone will be understanding towards him... But I doubt it.

Given his Mum clearly thinks he's the victim in this whole scenario, perhaps Callan thinks this way too and is of the opinion people will feel sorry for him and actually sympathize with his situation. No one's ever accused him of being particularly bright.

[bornadog]

No way, sorry he left the club and he is now with one of our competitors.

If you voted yes then Rocket should also be invited.

[Mofra]

Yes - he played in 2011 and the B&F is about the 2011 season

[SlimPickens]

He played for the bulldogs this year so of cousre he should be invited. He may not attend but i think it's pretty childish to say he shouldn't be allowed to attend.

[strebla]

I voted yes I think its weak when they don't attend and for what its worth BAD i think rocket should also be invited!!!

[Maddog37]

I think he should be welcomed.

He made the choice and showed his priorities were money over club. We have a choice to show him we will go on without him and give him one last taste of the great community and spirit that is the Western Bulldogs Football Club. We need to act with class and grace.

Hope he walks away from the night second guessing his choice.

[soupman]

Yeah sure, on the condition that he has to wear his full GWS kit and has to sit in the corner for the duration of the presentation, we could even present him with the red substitutes vest halfway through the function.

[The Underdog]

No problems with him being allowed to attend.

Just really, really surprised that he would want to.... Perhaps he just feels that everyone will be understanding towards him... But I doubt it.

Agree with this. He'd have to have huge Cojones to show up. The players might understand but I bet some of the supporters don't.

[bulldogsman]

Yes he should be allowed.

I hope they throw in a few jokes about money if he does attend.

[Prince Imperial]

Of course he should be allowed. But the question for me is whether he should. The B&F is a celebration of the players and their season. However, it is also an event for members and sponsors and the first event before the start of a new season and quiet frankly Ward's presence is a big reminder of what we have lost in a poor onfield season. A lot of sponsors attend this event and I'm sure from a marketing point of view, the club don't want a physical, tangent reminder of a big negative when they are desperately trying to get these sponsors to renew for 2012. Probably wouldn't matter if we were a big club or coming off a good season but I would prefer that he did not attend. The club shouldn't say anything though because they would look like pricks.

[GVGjr]

No way, sorry he left the club and he is now with one of our competitors.

If you voted yes then Rocket should also be invited.

I certainly don't agree with the underlying theme of you are either with us or against us.
In your opinion how hard should the club draw that 'line in the sand' on that whole argument?

[bornadog]

I certainly don't agree with the underlying theme of you are either with us or against us.
In your opinion how hard should the club draw that 'line in the sand' on that whole argument?

My opinion is no invitation at all. The line in the sand is drawn when he signed a new contract with his new club.

[Bulldog4life]

My opinion is no invitation at all. The line in the sand is drawn when he signed a new contract with his new club.

My sentiments exactly.

[LostDoggy]

They should invite his mother for her thoughts on modern football/comedic relief.

[choconmientay]

Yes for me. He should be allowed. He may get some booing and unwelcome remarks from the crowd if he choose to attend. Also, we already moved on so why bother burning all bridges.

[The Underdog]

My opinion is no invitation at all. The line in the sand is drawn when he signed a new contract with his new club.

Do we not invite the player's we are delisting or who are likely to be traded? After all they will no longer be with us.

[bornadog]

Do we not invite the player's we are delisting or who are likely to be traded? After all they will no longer be with us.

They are still Bulldogs so yes.

I think the Ward issue is different. Its been a controversial issue all year around and there are many supporters who are dirty on him. He is the one that walked out on the club whereas those to be delisted or traded are still with us and may have no choice (unless they ask for a trade)

[LostDoggy]

Yes he should be invited, he was one of best players this year.

[turtle]

Yes for me. Despite him leaving, and probably having decided to do so quite some time ago, I believe he gave his heart and sole every time he put the jumper on.

[soupman]

If he's keen then there is no reason not to apart from spite. It'll just unneccessarily upset players and staff and would look bad. As long as there are no big presentations to him it should be alright.

Could be awkward if we get a Bob Murphy or one of the older guys up to speak to everyone about how staying loyal and sticking with your mates is what it's about.

[Desipura]

Dont ever burn your bridges, let him go to the B&F.

[Ghost Dog]

Welcome at the B and F by the staff at Whitten oval, I'm sure.
for some Fans, looking down the likely barrel of being bottom feeders for quite a few seasons to come,
, and our rotten season to date, can understand how it would be hard to swallow.
yet, the bad PR generated by such a spiteful act - not worth it.

[Maddog37]

Wouldn't it be nice if he announced a ten grand donation to the bulldoze the debt fund.

Would certainly go a long way towards healing some wounds...........

[The Coon Dog]

I'm with mjp here on this in the sense we have some supporters wanting Cal to be made persona non grata as he hasn't shown loyalty (I can relate to this), but at the same time we have supporters suggesting we move players like Shaun Higgins on.

So its OK for a supporter to want a player to go to another club but its the act of betrayal when a players chooses this himself.

I'm confused by this apparent double standard. :confused:

[always right]

I'm with mjp here on this in the sense we have some supporters wanting Cal to be made persona non grata as he hasn't shown loyalty (I can relate to this), but at the same time we have supporters suggesting we move players like Shaun Higgins on.

So its OK for a supporter to want a player to go to another club but its the act of betrayal when a players chooses this himself.

I'm confused by this apparent double standard. :confused:

Whoah pardner!.....that sort of talk will get you hung around these parts.

[LostDoggy]

football is about looking forward, not backward.
A BF is about looking back on the year?


Yeah sure, on the condition that he has to wear his full GWS kit and has to sit in the corner for the duration of the presentation, we could even present him with the red substitutes vest halfway through the function.

Like.

[LongWait]

I don't understand what we could reasonably gain by refusing Ward an invitation. Up to him then if he attends and what he makes of it. As Desi said - you never burn your bridges unless you have absolutely no choice.

[Topdog]

Pretty sure Wallace wasn't invited and he was a part of our season the year he quit. Callan has quit on us to continue his career at another club. My no couldn't be any stronger.

[Rocco Jones]

I'm with mjp here on this in the sense we have some supporters wanting Cal to be made persona non grata as he hasn't shown loyalty (I can relate to this), but at the same time we have supporters suggesting we move players like Shaun Higgins on.

So its OK for a supporter to want a player to go to another club but its the act of betrayal when a players chooses this himself.

I'm confused by this apparent double standard. :confused:

Not everyone has that double standard TCD.

I did not want Ward to play Round 22 and I am against trading the likes of Cross and Higgins. Of course loyalty is a two-way street. I want our club to be as loyal as possible to good servants.

Even though I was against Ward playing Round 24, I think he should be invited to the B&F night. I find going out there wearing our jumper a lot more meaningful than a seat at the B&F that anyone can buy anyway. Also, I saw the spot in the 22 against Freo was being about the future and the B&F about the season that has already been. Ward is our past not our future.

[Rocco Jones]

No way, sorry he left the club and he is now with one of our competitors.

If you voted yes then Rocket should also be invited.

Either way surely Rocket should be invited.

Rocket didn't leave us, we sacked him. Whether you agree with the decision or not, you cannot question his dedication to our cause and he dealt with the sacking with dignity. I would be disappointed in the club if we didn't invite him.

[The Underdog]

Either way surely Rocket should be invited.

Rocket didn't leave us, we sacked him. Whether you agree with the decision or not, you cannot question his dedication to our cause and he dealt with the sacking with dignity. I would be disappointed in the club if we didn't invite him.

Especially considering the dignity with which he handled the whole thing. He may not want to come, but he should be invited.

[SonofScray]

Not everyone has that double standard TCD.



FWIW I don't see it as a double standard at all. As a fan you want guys you see as required players, valuable players to stick with the Club and you want players who you see as less valuable, or not required to get out of the way.

To me it goes right back to the Club v individual type arguments that have been brought up through the whole saga. I think you are right that loyalty is a two way street. However it isn't necessarily a equal relationship. One party, in given circumstances can exert power over the other. Most of the time it is the club, sometimes its a player. I'd prefer it be the Club more often than not.

[GVGjr]

My opinion is no invitation at all. The line in the sand is drawn when he signed a new contract with his new club.
So anyone who turns their back on the club should be written off as far as the club is concerned?

[Rocco Jones]

FWIW I don't see it as a double standard at all. As a fan you want guys you see as required players, valuable players to stick with the Club and you want players who you see as less valuable, or not required to get out of the way.

To me it goes right back to the Club v individual type arguments that have been brought up through the whole saga. I think you are right that loyalty is a two way street. However it isn't necessarily a equal relationship. One party, in given circumstances can exert power over the other. Most of the time it is the club, sometimes its a player. I'd prefer it be the Club more often than not.

Depends where you draw the line here. If I played for the Dogs and they traded someone like Cross due to the market and needs, I would see that as part of the culture of the club, to make business decisions. The more a club acts like a cold business, the more players are going to treat it like one.

[bornadog]

So anyone who turns their back on the club should be written off as far as the club is concerned?

No not written off. Its just not appropriate for him to attend under the circumstances. This has been a very controversial issue this year and Ward has chosen not to be a part of the team.

[GVGjr]

No not written off. Its just not appropriate for him to attend under the circumstances. This has been a very controversial issue this year and Ward has chosen not to be a part of the team.

So should the same standard have been applied to the likes of MacGuinness, Hawkins and Harbrow?

By the way, were you calling for Harbrow not to be played in the finals last year when it was evident that he wasn't committing himself to the club beyond that year? Do we know if he attended the night last year?

[Sedat]

It's a 2011 function and Ward was a 2011 player so he can go as far as I'm concerned - will probably finish in the top 5 in any event. Not much to be gained by petulantly stopping him from attending - makes us look worse by doing so.

That's not to say I want the fans to roll out the red carpet for him - I want him to feel uncomfortable in the presence of shattered and disappointed fans who have been following this club for their entire life.

[GVGjr]

It's a 2011 function and Ward was a 2011 player so he can go as far as I'm concerned - will probably finish in the top 5 in any event. Not much to be gained by petulantly stopping him from attending - makes us look worse by doing so.

That's not to say I want the fans to roll out the red carpet for him - I want him to feel uncomfortable in the presence of shattered and disappointed fans who have been following this club for their entire life.

Totally agree.

I just want to challenge the whole notion of drawing a line in the sand with players that leave the club. Does Dempsey not deserve to be in our TOC because he left us for the big pay day? Should he not be welcome at the club? Where do we draw the line?

[LostDoggy]

Ca££an should be invited but I'll be surprised he wants to go. I'd expect he'd be booed and I don't blame people that do.

[EasternWest]

Wouldn't it be nice if he announced a ten grand donation to the bulldoze the debt fund.

Would certainly go a long way towards healing some wounds...........

I don't care if he goes or not.

But I most definitely would not want any of his money.

[bornadog]

So should the same standard have been applied to the likes of MacGuinness, Hawkins and Harbrow?

By the way, were you calling for Harbrow not to be played in the finals last year when it was evident that he wasn't committing himself to the club beyond that year? Do we know if he attended the night last year?

No I never called for Harbrow or Ward to not play out the year, they still had a contract to fulfill.

Once both players retire they are welcome back any time. Meanwhile they are part of a different team.

[LostDoggy]

F*** no.

How timid are we as a club that we bend over backwards to accommodate people who shit all over us?

[GVGjr]

]No I never called for Harbrow or Ward to not play out the year, they still had a contract to fulfill.
[/B]
Once both players retire they are welcome back any time. Meanwhile they are part of a different team.

And if you ask them or expect them to play out the year then surely they should be part of the night if they choose.

[LostDoggy]

And if you ask them or expect them to play out the year then surely they should be part of the night if they choose.

At what point do the club get to make calls in the best interests of the club? So what if we expect them to play out their CONTRACT, then tell them to get lost once they've sold out? They make it clear it's a business transaction, we treat it like one -- it's not like we instigated it.

Pandering to players is all well and fine, but we know that a club like Collingwood would never stoop so low, so it seems that we're saying we need to act loser-ish because we're too poor to keep our players otherwise. If that's our rationale, we've already lost them -- no player wants to stay at a club seen as a doormat if they have a choice.

How about we stand for something? We can pander to the players all we want, but it will come at the expense of members and fans -- no one wants to give their money to a place that stands for nothing except keeping players happy at all costs. Letting the tail wag the dog is a short-term play -- have some pride, and maybe than our supporters can have some pride in the club too, which is the only way we'll build a long-term membership base.

I mean, it's not like I'm saying trade Chris Grant here.

[LostDoggy]

And if players want to leave because their feelings are hurt because we take a strong stance with their mates that turn their backs on the club, I say that these players are probably not that valuable to the club in the long-term anyway, as these are the types of blokes who go missing when the heat is on -- is it a coincidence we have more than our share of those?

Yes, we'll suffer some short term pain in losing a few high-profile sooks, but in the long-term you end up with a bunch of guys who want to play for the shirt, or at the very least, have some semblance of character.

Which, at the end of the day, is probably the one thing our list, even more so than a small forward or an outside runner, lacks most of all (with clear exceptions, of course).

[GVGjr]

At what point do the club get to make calls in the best interests of the club? So what if we expect them to play out their CONTRACT, then tell them to get lost once they've sold out? They make it clear it's a business transaction, we treat it like one -- it's not like we instigated it.



The night is a reflection of the season and he played his role within that year. Seems only fair that he has the chance to come to the night.




Pandering to players is all well and fine, but we know that a club like Collingwood would never stoop so low, so it seems that we're saying we need to act loser-ish because we're too poor to keep our players otherwise. If that's our rationale, we've already lost them -- no player wants to stay at a club seen as a doormat if they have a choice.



Allowing a departing player to attend a B&F is hardly 'pandering to the players' in my opinion.



How about we stand for something? We can pander to the players all we want, but it will come at the expense of members and fans -- no one wants to give their money to a place that stands for nothing except keeping players happy at all costs. Letting the tail wag the dog is a short-term play -- have some pride, and maybe than our supporters can have some pride in the club too, which is the only way we'll build a long-term membership base.

I mean, it's not like I'm saying trade Chris Grant here.

What token gesture do you want the club to make? How does not allowing one player to attend a B&F suddenly become a club defining moment?

As a club we were happy to play him so he should be able to attend the night if he wants to.

It's a reflection of 2011 not the season launch of 2012.

[LostDoggy]

This is really pissing me off about our club and our supporters, that we're so bloody meek and mild about everything, trying to please everyone all the time but just coming off as weak.

You know, North is poor but at least they've consistently tried to stand for something, however annoying. Your brand is not what you say about yourself, it's what others say about you. North's brand in the AFL is probably "honest battling triers".

Port and Melbourne are the other financially struggling clubs who have no idea what their brand should be.

Collingwood is 'financial powerhouse', Hawthorn had their 'line in the sand', Carlton 'impatient, will cheat to win' etc. etc.

You know what ours is, whether we like it or not? "Poor, pathetic pushovers." Everyone knows that when push comes to shove, we'll choke or bottle it or go missing because we always do. Yet here we are, always still wanting to play nice so as to not upset anyone, or just in case our players walk out on us etc. etc. etc.

FFS Footscray. Grow some balls.

[LostDoggy]

What token gesture do you want the club to make? How does not allowing one player to attend a B&F suddenly become a club defining moment?


It's part of a recurring pattern of behaviour that we just roll over when we have to take a stand on anything, on or off the field, and I, for one, am just sick and tired of it.

It shouldn't be a token gesture, but it will be because if we do it, it will be the only stand we've taken on anything this year (oh, other than the faux tough decision of sacking our coach).

[GVGjr]

This is really pissing me off about our club and our supporters, that we're so bloody meek and mild about everything, trying to please everyone all the time but just coming off as weak.



Treating people with contempt most likely won't make a club either tough or successful.

[LostDoggy]

Treating people with contempt most likely won't make a club either tough or successful.

But we do, though, all the time. We treat our fans with contempt regularly. We treated our coach with contempt.

But somehow, the one idiot who actually said 'screw you all, I'm taking the cash', we want to treat with kid gloves, or worse, welcome with open arms?

I'll turn the question on its head, and ask: with our culture of broad mismanagement, internal rubbish and regular underperformance, why do you think a token gesture of being misguidedly 'respectful' to the one player who turned his back on us is going to make a difference to the culture of our club?

It certainly didn't help us keep any players over the GC/GWS era. And it certainly won't make us either tough or successful.

ps. If Ward is 'welcomed' to the B&F and there's a 'farewell speech' or 'presentation' for him, I will spew. That will be treating the punters with contempt. I know you've put in more than most over the years (especially to Ward, which is why I think you may be slightly biased here) but I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.

[comrade]

This is really pissing me off about our club and our supporters, that we're so bloody meek and mild about everything, trying to please everyone all the time but just coming off as weak.

You know, North is poor but at least they've consistently tried to stand for something, however annoying. Your brand is not what you say about yourself, it's what others say about you. North's brand in the AFL is probably "honest battling triers".

Port and Melbourne are the other financially struggling clubs who have no idea what their brand should be.

Collingwood is 'financial powerhouse', Hawthorn had their 'line in the sand', Carlton 'impatient, will cheat to win' etc. etc.

You know what ours is, whether we like it or not? "Poor, pathetic pushovers." Everyone knows that when push comes to shove, we'll choke or bottle it or go missing because we always do. Yet here we are, always still wanting to play nice so as to not upset anyone, or just in case our players walk out on us etc. etc. etc.

FFS Footscray. Grow some balls.

Sad, but true.

I know this thread was designed to generate discussion but does anyone honestly think our administration won't send Ward an invite? I mean, come on.

[GVGjr]

But we do, though, all the time. We treat our fans with contempt regularly. We treated our coach with contempt.



So the club should be pandering to the fans?

[LostDoggy]

So the club should be pandering to the fans?

It shouldn't be pandering to anyone, least of all a former player who walked out on the club for money.

But if it's going to pander to anyone, at least the fans over a turncoat who isn't on the list anymore and plays for another club, surely.

We showed Terry the door when he wanted out, I don't see what the difference is.

ps. I mean, members are actually still stakeholders of the club, Ward isn't. Surely our views count more than his?

[GVGjr]

We showed Terry the door when he wanted out, I don't see what the difference is.

Huge difference. He lost faith with the club and the players and it wasn't just a once in a lifetime offer to set himself up financially. You don't see the difference because you don't want to.

[LostDoggy]

Huge difference. He lost faith with the club and the players and it wasn't just a once in a lifetime offer to set himself up financially. You don't see the difference because you don't want to.

So the Saints shouldn't be filthy because Lyon obviously received a massive offer from Freo, so how can they possibly begrudge him a once in a lifetime opportunity to set himself up financially?

You don't see how it's exactly the same because you don't want to.

[LostDoggy]

Huge difference. He lost faith with the club and the players and it wasn't just a once in a lifetime offer to set himself up financially. You don't see the difference because you don't want to.

If anything, I can almost respect Terry's position more (well I would if he was telling the truth) because at least he framed it in 'principles' ie. he couldn't see himself taking the group any further. In a way it's an almost noble reason. (Of course we all know it's because it was because Sydney had promised him a job on top dollar, so it's exactly the same).

For Callan it's only ever been about the dosh. When someone tells you that money is worth more than what we put our heart and soul and hard-earned into, can f*** off for all I care. I mean, it may be understandable, but don't expect me to care what his reason is -- I'm not a Callan Ward fan, I'm a Dogs fan, and I have the long-term best interests of the club at heart, not the best interests of Callan Ward.

[GVGjr]

So the Saints shouldn't be filthy because Lyon is obviously getting a massive salary from Freo, so how can they possibly begrudge him the opportunity to set himself up financially?

You don't see how it's exactly the same because you don't want to.

This is the difference, I actually do see both sides of the argument but I haven't read anything that convinces me that all this posturing about drawing a line in the sand and how much better we will be by not extending an invitation to the B&F to a player that finished the season with us. It's certainly not a tough club defining act to say no as you seem to be suggesting.

By the way, the Saints should be filthy about Lyon. He has a year to run on a contract.
It's the same reason why people were more upset about Wallace declaring he couldn't take the club further even though he had 2 years to go on a contract. He did that because he was certain he had another job to go to.
I find it hard to believe you can see the merit in the Wallace decision. Ward finished his contract and Wallace walked out on his.

We are talking about a once in a lifetime offers to youngsters like Ward and Harbrow not about experienced coaches positioning themselves just for better deals.

[LostDoggy]

This is the difference, I actually do see both sides of the argument but I haven't read anything that convinces me that all this posturing about drawing a line in the sand and how much better we will be by not extending an invitation to the B&F to a player that finished the season with us. It's certainly not a tough club defining act to say no as you seem to be suggesting.
.

I never actually suggested that it was a club-defining act as I know it would be anything but, just something that I would prefer.

In isolation, you're absolutely right, it's meaningless. We've given up so much ground on our brand in the last 24 months that making a stand with Callan would be pointless, so yes, you're right that inviting him would make no difference whatsoever, which is a massive indictment on our culture and actually the saddest part of the whole thing. It just seems like the straw that will break the camel's back for a lot of people. I know it is for me.

ps. the only reason Callan 'honoured his contract' was because its end happened to coincide with him leaving (due to the rules imposed on GWS). You don't really think if hypothetically the rules were different and GWS could approach him with 2 years left to run that he wouldn't have made the same decision? Let's not make him out to be a martyr here.

[Ghost Dog]

I never actually suggested that it was a club-defining act as I know it would be anything but, just something that I would prefer.

In isolation, you're absolutely right, it's meaningless. We've given up so much ground on our brand in the last 24 months that making a stand with Callan would be pointless, so yes, you're right that inviting him would make no difference whatsoever, which is a massive indictment on our culture and actually the saddest part of the whole thing. It just seems like the straw that will break the camel's back for a lot of people. I know it is for me.

ps. the only reason Callan 'honoured his contract' was because its end happened to coincide with him leaving (due to the rules imposed on GWS). You don't really think if hypothetically the rules were different and GWS could approach him with 2 years left to run that he wouldn't have made the same decision? Let's not make him out to be a martyr here.

Membership for storm next year Lantern? Melbourne Victory?

You're right Lantern though, and I think the club is going to shed a lot of 'fringe' members on the smaller ticket options - which still hurts nevertheless. Screwed over by the AFL and screwed over by our lack of membership. Awesome.

Still, I HATE the 'poor me' mentality going around amongst some our supporters. This sort of thing happens in sport, get over it. No time to waste.

[GVGjr]

I never actually suggested that it was a club-defining act as I know it would be anything but, just something that I would prefer.


You seemed to think that the club had to stand for something.



In isolation, you're absolutely right, it's meaningless. We've given up so much ground on our brand in the last 24 months that making a stand with Callan would be pointless, so yes, you're right that inviting him would make no difference whatsoever, which is a massive indictment on our culture and actually the saddest part of the whole thing. It just seems like the straw that will break the camel's back for a lot of people. I know it is for me.



What ground have we given up in the last 24 months. I've actually been critical of the club in a number of areas so I would be interested in what you see has been occurring.



ps. the only reason Callan 'honoured his contract' was because its end happened to coincide with him leaving (due to the rules imposed on GWS). You don't really think if hypothetically the rules were different and GWS could approach him with 2 years left to run that he wouldn't have made the same decision? Let's not make him out to be a martyr here.

I've never made him out to be a martyr but I was genuinely surprised by your Ward comparison to Lyon and Wallace. Both coaches had already made a lot of money from their football careers and yet still seem to be focused on the dollars rather than the sense ;)
Ward is entering his first serious contract so I understand the temptation.

If I was Callan, I wouldn't actually go so I do see your side of the argument but I just don't think the B&F is the right time to make a stand.

[SonofScray]

This is really pissing me off about our club and our supporters, that we're so bloody meek and mild about everything, trying to please everyone all the time but just coming off as weak.

You know, North is poor but at least they've consistently tried to stand for something, however annoying. Your brand is not what you say about yourself, it's what others say about you. North's brand in the AFL is probably "honest battling triers".

Port and Melbourne are the other financially struggling clubs who have no idea what their brand should be.

Collingwood is 'financial powerhouse', Hawthorn had their 'line in the sand', Carlton 'impatient, will cheat to win' etc. etc.

You know what ours is, whether we like it or not? "Poor, pathetic pushovers." Everyone knows that when push comes to shove, we'll choke or bottle it or go missing because we always do. Yet here we are, always still wanting to play nice so as to not upset anyone, or just in case our players walk out on us etc. etc. etc.

FFS Footscray. Grow some balls.

100% agree. I am getting really frustrated with this shift in the Club and its fans in recent years. We've really lost site of what we're about.

[AndrewP6]

Well, this thread has been an interesting read. As for an answer to the OP, I'm squarely in the 'No F'n way' camp. FWIW, I tend to agree with much of Lantern's remarks. For mine, Ward decided some time ago (let's be honest, it wasn't after the last game) that he didn't want to be a Bulldog, he didn't want to be a part of our Club. He decided that money was preferable to mateship, cash preferable to camaraderie, loot preferable to loyalty. In my mind, that means he forfeits all rights to being a Bulldog (including attending the B&F), forthwith. He cut his ties, he shouldn't be allowed to keep them temporarily attached, to sit and look back on a year when he was, at the very least, considering leaving. He says he gave everything to the Dogs, well call me cynical but that 'everything' was clearly preoccupied the last two games. He wanted the money, he got the money, he can sit on piles of it in his crib at Breakfast Point, and check our B&F results on Twitter. Stay away, turncoat.

[Ghost Dog]

I've never made him out to be a martyr but I was genuinely surprised by your Ward comparison to Lyon and Wallace. Both coaches had already made a lot of money from their football careers and yet still seem to be focused on the dollars rather than the sense ;)
Ward is entering his first serious contract so I understand the temptation.

If I was Callan, I wouldn't actually go so I do see your side of the argument but I just don't think the B&F is the right time to make a stand.

His contract with us wasn't serious? I think some supporters are being far too conciliatory.

When is the right time to make a stand? When the season is over and everyone has forgotten about it? Or next year when we sink like a stone?

Maybe time for those of us who want a club to have something of a Gemeinschaft aspect to it should follow a VFL club which has a strong sense of community.

[GVGjr]

His contract with us wasn't serious? I think some supporters are being far too conciliatory.

When is the right time to make a stand? When the season is over and everyone has forgotten about it? Or next year when we sink like a stone?

Maybe time for those of us who want a club to have something of a Gemeinschaft aspect to it should follow a VFL club which has a strong sense of community.

Generally it's acknowledged that player contracts between the ages of 21 and 26 are the ones where the real money can be earned and I think you already know that.

I lot of people are wanting the club to make a stand against Ward. What does it achieve and how will it benefit the club either in the short or longer term?
It's a B&F night for the 2011 season and he played a significant part within the season.

[the banker]

So what if Callan is a great bloke who gets on with the players and football dept. I am with Lantern on this. Not in a passionate vindictive way but as a natural cultural procedure he should not have been invited.

[w3design]

No for mine. Got no doubt how limp this club is he'll get an invite!
Hey he'll probably get a standing ovation

Totally agree he will get invited piss weak by our club as normal.:mad:

[Ghost Dog]

Generally it's acknowledged that player contracts between the ages of 21 and 26 are the ones where the real money can be earned and I think you already know that.

I lot of people are wanting the club to make a stand against Ward. What does it achieve and how will it benefit the club either in the short or longer term?
It's a B&F night for the 2011 season and he played a significant part within the season.

I can't fathom your logic.

Business world analogy.

If your star employee gets head hunted a month before the christmas party, he might be invited for a few drinks, but if he was head hunted by a rival company for a massive sum, and your firm is financially struggling, how odd would it appear to your shareholders to have that person at the main function table, laughing and knocking back crown lagers with the president and executives?

Shareholders would frown upon a company that did such a thing.

Callan Ward should be asked to donate his spot at the B and F to a supporter who has cancer or some other hard luck story. Or be asked to Auction his spot at the table to raise money for Bulldoze the debt.


How does it benefit us to allow him to come? Bulldogs are pussy cats!

And yet, from the players point of view, I can see how it's just a business for them. Of course, the players don't really want Callan to feel the heat. Same as company people don't really give a rats about shareholders as long as they have a job


Treating people with contempt most likely won't make a club either tough or successful.

It's not about being vindictive. It's just odd to have him there. Cultural process, as banker stated

[w3design]

So what if Callan is a great bloke who gets on with the players and football dept. I am with Lantern on this. Not in a passionate vindictive way but as a natural cultural procedure he should not have been invited.

Phil Davis did the right thing and said he would not attend their B&F.They also told Gunstan to get stuffed as well. Harden up Doggies.:mad:

[bornadog]

Phil Davis did the right thing and said he would not attend their B&F.They also told Gunstan to get stuffed as well. Harden up Doggies.:mad:

Our pole currently sitting on 50/50 which tells me half the people that attend the B&F will be pissed off if he showed up.

I doubt very much that he will show up even if he is invited.

[Maddog37]

Phil Davis did the right thing and said he would not attend their B&F.They also told Gunstan to get stuffed as well. Harden up Doggies.:mad:

They also drafted Ritchie Tambling and seem to be losing more players to other clubs than most. Should we do that too?

[Murphy'sLore]

Sorry, maybe it's a bloke thing, but I can't see how not inviting him makes us look 'tough' or 'ballsy' or 'hard'. To me, it seems petty, spiteful and pathetic.

Also, if you want to draw the corporate analogy and say that you'd never invite someone who'd gone to a rival company to the Christmas drinks, you have to accept that players will behave like corporate employees and they may choose to move to alternative employers if they get a better offer. You can't have it both ways.

[Ghost Dog]

Sorry, maybe it's a bloke thing, but I can't see how not inviting him makes us look 'tough' or 'ballsy' or 'hard'. To me, it seems petty, spiteful and pathetic.

Also, if you want to draw the corporate analogy and say that you'd never invite someone who'd gone to a rival company to the Christmas drinks, you have to accept that players will behave like corporate employees and they may choose to move to alternative employers if they get a better offer. You can't have it both ways.


Did anyone say they don't accept him going? It's pretty well accepted by everyone now.
Sure. it is as mercenary as any corporate environment now for most players.
But not for all players. Ryan Griffen, case in point.

I agree that being petty and vindictive is bad PR. But what about being professional? why not ask him to donate his seat to, as I mentioned, a worthy bulldogs supporter?

The B and F is hardly christmas drinks. It's a bit more formal than that.
It's more akin to an annual general meeting as it's in the public domain.

Anyway, out of 84 supporters surveyed, 50% do not want him at the event. And so, his appearance is controversial and likely to upset a few people, more so than if he didn't come.

And yes, sometimes you DO need to cater to the fans. Without them, you don't have a club

[LostDoggy]

Did anyone say they don't accept him going? It's pretty well accepted by everyone now.
Sure. it is as mercenary as any corporate environment now for most players.
But not for all players. Ryan Griffen, case in point.

The B and F is hardly christmas drinks. It's a bit more formal than that.
It's more akin to an annual general meeting as it's in the public domain.

Anyway, out of 84 supporters surveyed, 50% do not want him at the event. that's a fact

I'd be happy for him to attend for 100 grand a seat

[GVGjr]

GD, sorry I can't quote your post but to answer your question I think the business world analogy that you are referring to is more along the lines on banning someone from the Xmas drinks more that the AGM.

By the way, Plenty of outgoing CEO's present their final results even though they are deaparting the company.

I get why you don't want him there but how exactly does it benefit the club?

[AndrewP6]

GD, sorry I can't quote your post but to answer your question I think the business world analogy that you are referring to is more along the lines on banning someone from the Xmas drinks more that the AGM.

By the way, Plenty of outgoing CEO's present their final results even though they are deaparting the company.

I get why you don't want him there but how exactly does it benefit the club?
Not my question, but IMO it helps promote a sense of pride in our club and in the jumper, by saying "We're Bulldogs through and through. If you're not, you're not welcome". I for one, subscribe to the "Us and them" theory

[LostDoggy]

And yes, sometimes you DO need to cater to the fans. Without them, you don't have a club

I don't understand the problem with catering to fans anyway, especially on off-field issues such as social functions such as B&Fs. Aren't they designed specifically TO cater to fans? I mean, we pay good money for those seats. What are we saying here -- give us money to pay the players and clear our debt, then shut up and sit meekly in the corner? We're the club's most important stakeholders, and it's probably high time they realised that -- I mean, they're always complaining about fans who don't sign up. Instead of whining about those who don't give a toss, how about treating those that DO sign up with some respect?

You know, the last time a club 'catered to its fans', Sydney picked up Paul Roos instead of Terry Wallace and dodged a bullet.

Sometimes I don't think us "fans" get anywhere near enough respect as a group, especially those of us who pour our hard-earned into the place and may know a thing or two about building successful cultures and teams.

[LostDoggy]

Lantern. If you were single and female and i wasn't married i'd buy you dinner.

[always right]

Lantern. If you were single and female and i wasn't married i'd buy you dinner.

Lantern is a bloke:eek:;)

[LostDoggy]

Lantern is a bloke:eek:;)

Thus the 'if'. And not that there's anything wrong with that. :)

[LostDoggy]

My heart says NO, and my head says, Yes!

[LostDoggy]

No go

[Topdog]

Callan isn't departing though G, he has departed. His contract with us has finished he is no longer a Western Bulldogs employee / player.

[LostDoggy]

NO WAY, Just like he should not have been allowed to play the last game, that spot should have been given to someone who wanted to be a bulldog. I guess he played as the other potentials were required for Willy finals, no point stuffing them up too.

[Ghost Dog]

GD, sorry I can't quote your post but to answer your question I think the business world analogy that you are referring to is more along the lines on banning someone from the Xmas drinks more that the AGM.

By the way, Plenty of outgoing CEO's present their final results even though they are deaparting the company.

I get why you don't want him there but how exactly does it benefit the club?

The point above entirely depends on the circumstances of their leaving.

The system punishes the poor and gives gifts to the strong, ( compo pics for their discards they intended to cut anyway- Brown and Fraser ) so there is something to be annoyed about.

However, it's hard to get worked up it when the club seems so soft on the issue, unlike other clubs who are acting quite differently. Scully was not allowed to play and neither were others. Neeld has had his marching orders and won't be able to participate in the finals series. The other GWS players won't be attending B and Fs for their former clubs. What are we thinking? Many members do get fatigue.

Clubs cannot draw on the fanaticism and loyalty of supporters then decline it at their convenience. what you reap, you sow
As one of my lecturers used to say, don't buy a dog and then blame it for barking.

[Remi Moses]

Sorry, maybe it's a bloke thing, but I can't see how not inviting him makes us look 'tough' or 'ballsy' or 'hard'. To me, it seems petty, spiteful and pathetic.

Also, if you want to draw the corporate analogy and say that you'd never invite someone who'd gone to a rival company to the Christmas drinks, you have to accept that players will behave like corporate employees and they may choose to move to alternative employers if they get a better offer. You can't have it both ways.

Yes and if you draw another "corporate' analogy if you get head hunted and move on you pretty much don't get a "farewell" couple of days. You would usually finish up that day!
Getting tired of this Glib "it's a business" drivel that get's doddled out. It's utter nonsense

[boydogs]

I doubt very much that he will show up even if he is invited.

He said he wants to go.


Sorry, maybe it's a bloke thing, but I can't see how not inviting him makes us look 'tough' or 'ballsy' or 'hard'. To me, it seems petty, spiteful and pathetic.

Think of it as inviting your ex-Boyfriend who cheated on you to Christmas dinner - it's not so much tough & ballsy not to, as it is pathetic & awkward if you do.


Also, if you want to draw the corporate analogy and say that you'd never invite someone who'd gone to a rival company to the Christmas drinks, you have to accept that players will behave like corporate employees and they may choose to move to alternative employers if they get a better offer. You can't have it both ways.

I'd have thought the loyalist view was that a departure would be even less welcome at a footy club function than a corporate function, as you're less accepting of financial motivations. Can't see how this is having it both ways.

[chef]

He's sitting on the hill watching Willi with our players, so I guess he'll be going to the count.

[I'm Not Bitter Anymore!]

He's sitting on the hill watching Willi with our players, so I guess he'll be going to the count.

I just saw that too had to look twice

[Topdog]

Still one of the boys....

[AndrewP6]

Still one of the boys....

He's one of the GWS boys now.
Those guys (Dogs sitting with him) are better men than me.

[LostDoggy]

He was at Willi today

[LostDoggy]

He didn't sit with the boys for very long. Most of the time he was no where near them with some other guys. Besides the few minutes he went up to the group of our players the only player to approach Ward and spend some time with him was Grant.
Ward was sitting not far from us and we pretty much saw him for at least 3/4 of the game.

[boydogs]

Is it just me, or does it seem like there is more to this Ward stuff than meets the eye?

I wonder whether a 2nd trade with GWS or financial contribution to the club will be forthcoming, just seems like the players and the club are very comfortable with him still being around

[1eyedog]

Is it just me, or does it seem like there is more to this Ward stuff than meets the eye?

I wonder whether a 2nd trade with GWS or financial contribution to the club will be forthcoming, just seems like the players and the club are very comfortable with him still being around

Thinking the same thing, an internal clause that brings him back to the club post-GWS contract:p

[ledge]

Thinking the same thing, an internal clause that brings him back to the club post-GWS contract:p

Now wouldnt that be funny watching all the Ward haters magically call him the prodigal son and loving him again

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Now wouldnt that be funny watching all the Ward haters magically call him the prodigal son and loving him again

I doubt you'd see that happen.

Will he be wearing GWS colours at the B&F?

[Mofra]

I doubt you'd see that happen.
Why not? Hall belted Chris Grant behind play, yet is loved universally by fans after only two seasons.
Bulldogs fans are a fickle yet forgiving lot ;)