(04-25-2018, 02:55 AM)LP link Wrote:I know the original source of the rumors Kruddler refers to and it was initally a disgruntled past player.

Actually, since Ratts time it's been the same player as the source for many of these rumors, someone who just wouldn't tow the team line and got the kibosh because of it! The bloke is still sprouting rumors about the current Carlton club even though his AFL career ended up at a foreign club some time ago!

The system is simple, players vote on the members of the leadership group, from the list of top nominations the coaches selected the leadership group, captain and VC from that list. Not all the top nominations make the final cut, and the captain isn't necessarily the top player choice, although Daisy confirmed he thought after voting Murphy was the unanimous player selection for this year, and that was later confirmed a couple of weeks later by the coaches. The proposed captain has to accept the nomination, you cannot be made captain if you do not want it!

The coaches by the way at the time Daisy's opinion was offered refused to confirm or deny Murphy would again be captain. I suppose that is because of the two things that must happen after the player vote.

It has to be that way because the players have no idea who is a keeper and who is a trade bait, you cannot have players select a captain who will be possibly traded at season end, it kills club culture!

(04-25-2018, 02:46 AM)kruddler link Wrote:First paragraph, I don't assume anything.
I was told what the players were told.
I was told what the coaches decided afterwards.
Either the coaches lied to the players beforehand. Or they changed their mind afterwards and failed to tell the players.
In any event, it breeds mistrust amongst the group, especially when the message trickles down from one of the assistant coaches to at least one of the players at the time.

As for 'remarkable'....i was clearly talking about Simpson, not Murphy. If this type of comprehension is commonplace, i'm not surprised you are still arguing.

(04-25-2018, 03:31 AM)LP link Wrote:Kruddler, I'm telling you the rumours you profligate originate from a source that was around almost a decade ago and have been repeated and distorted many times over and over again since they originally surfaced. They have been around since before Murphy was captain, and go back to even when Judd arrived and was made captain! They have become more vitriolic and distorted year by year.

None of us would seriously question Judd being made captain, and so back then these rumours had no traction.

Our clubs leadership voting process has not changed for a very long time, I understand it's been that way going back at least as far as the Parkin/Brittain era!

(04-25-2018, 07:36 AM)Lods link Wrote:I'm a little confused...if we're talking pre-Judd era what's the relevance for the captain selection process 10 years later. ???

(04-25-2018, 07:49 AM)kruddler link Wrote:I'm talking pre-judd era dodginess in regards to picking captaincy/leaders.
There was also the Mick era that was famous for controversy regarding the captaincy/leaders.

Paul is suggesting that the club knows best because the players chose Murphy.

I'm calling bollocks due to a history of doctoring in the past.

(04-25-2018, 07:53 AM)PaulP link Wrote:No, I'm saying I want straight answers from verifiable sources as to whether the process is legit or corrupt.