This campaign has opened my eyes to a few things and it just floors me how people in the media, press and radio make totally ignorant comments about something they know very little and sometimes absolutely nothing about. If they knew even a little bit of the history of RFC then you could accept their views if they were based on the whole picture, rather than just the last 5 years.
What’s more aggravating is that even so-called “informed” opinions are irresponsible and unbalanced in their comments and present half the story they want told and throw in token references to the other side of the debate, just to make it look like they are switched on and even-handed. We wouldn’t want professionalism to get in the way of personal bias, would we?
Maybe it’s me who needs to open my other eye, but throughout this whole thing, no one has been able to explain what the alternative group offers. And when commentators say “it’s time for change”, what do they mean and why? On the basis of what? None of them explain that. We’re supposed to follow, like sheep, and hang on to every word they say. Fortunately, most people can think for themselves.
We all know the last 5 years has been unacceptable but that’s not enough reason to change, to me. Because that’s exactly what’s been the problem with this footy club over the last 20+ years. These people just don’t get that and don’t understand that it hasn’t worked before. So why will it work now? And why will people who have been there before and who are prepared to find scapegoats and someone to blame when things go wrong make a difference now? Won’t they just give us more of what we’ve had? Haven’t we all had enough of running around in circles and always getting back to solving all our problems the same way they were created?
Caro’s entitled to her opinion. But if she reckons she’s been professional throughout this campaign then I haven’t seen where. I don’t mind if someone’s opinion is different to mine, but where’s the credibility in her argument?
She explains her call for change by saying that Casey has been there long enough. What if the alternative openly demonstrates they have even less of a clue? Do we actually care about Richmond here?
