I have not heard Gills presser. What the Clubs or players (and the fans-who the hell do they think they are!) want is irrelevant imo. They control clubs such as GC, Adelaide and Port anyway. The AFL is a management organisation. That is the they are only interested in their brand and money and all they do is manage every scenario they encounter or create towards those aims. If they can do that and keep the clubs/players/fans happy as well that is a bonus. But if one of the clubs/players/fans become collateral damage in the pursuit of brand or money then so be it.
IMO if they have chosen someone already it will be a person they think will be perceived as acceptable but will still keep those two aims as a priority.
For the record yes I have read The Boys Club. But I had already formed my thoughts well before that. You need to apply a bias filter when reading it but the core facts I think are correct or the author would have been buried in a law suit faster than a Greg Willliams handball.
Absolutely. But at what point do the clubs stand up against the collateral damage?
I had no sympathy for Hird, but the book made me see that in a different light. Connolly and Bailey were shafted re the tanking saga. The stress on Bailey may well have contributed to his death. Sydney were wrongly punished over the Franklin issue because the AFL sulked they didn't get their desired outcome.
Each club may not have a lot of strength individually, but as a whole they certainly do. No one could read that book and think it was ok to run an organisation in the way it was managed.
Warner simply told it as he saw it - not biased - but not worried about any potential payback. Most of the media run scared of the AFL.