Murray “The Meddler” McCully

Written By: - Date published: 2:39 pm, October 7th, 2010 - 9 comments
Categories: sport - Tags:

Everyone’s favourite autocrat is at it again.  Trevor’s onto the story early, but it now seems that 2 of our most celebrated Olympic heroes are to be McCully fodder and gone-burger from coaching the sport in which they were champions.

Ian Ferguson and Paul McDonald are being squeezed out by Canoe Racing NZ, and the reason why?

“I was told that Murray McCully felt it was unconscionable that I would be coaching Stevie,” Ferguson said.

Murray McCully, never afraid to get his mates in to do the job himself, thinks having one of our most successful sportsmen ever coaching is just too much nepotism.  Yes, it is his son who happens to be one of the best hopes of the new generation, but we didn’t kick Walter Hadlee out of NZ cricket when his sons turned out to be quite good.  If it’s an All Black lineage it’s celebrated.

But Murray knows best.  He always does.  Just like with International Aid where he gets his people in or he cuts funding, now with sport, he picks the team or the funding is over.  Best not leave it to the experts, we’ve got Murray now.

9 comments on “Murray “The Meddler” McCully ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. rich 1
    7 October 2010 at 2:50 pm

    At least he isn’t trying to compete himself. Unless there’s an event in the Special Olympics for the over 200kg parliamentarians sack race.

  2. Tigger 2
    7 October 2010 at 3:06 pm

    National so believe they were born to rule (not govern, rule)…no wonder they brought back knighthoods – they think they’re running their own personal kingdoms.

    Just remember that meddling fingers going where they’re not supposed to using end up getting bit…or burned.

  3. Bob Stanforth 3
    7 October 2010 at 7:56 pm

    So, hearsay and gossip is now fact? Nice.

    Funny, I got told on here the other day that any claim was an irrelevance if it wasn’t supported by fact. But now this. “I got told”. That would stand up well in a law court.

    Pathetic.

    • bbfloyd 3.1
      7 October 2010 at 9:01 pm

      Bob.. of course you have more accurate information to base your comments on, don’t you. you had better fill us in on what was really said.. i’m all ears. wouldn’t like to think that you are just calling trevor a liar for the sake of it.

      • Galeandra 3.1.1
        7 October 2010 at 9:17 pm

        Bob Stanforth, Isn’t this blog site simply one room in the court of public opinion? Ferguson is likelier than you to have something to report about what happened and why. . Read Mallard’s post, for the fact that he expressed an opinion about the reasons for the change in his situation. What you make of it is over to you, but don’t have a tantrum.

    • lprent 3.2
      7 October 2010 at 10:55 pm

      The statement was from the article linked above it in the post. You on the other hand were making assertion statements without bothering to link to ANY backing materials. It isn’t ‘fact’ that people here are interested in, it is being able to look at the backing materials.

      Most ‘facts’ are subjective and typically may have many interpretations. Having you assert your interpretation is pretty pointless unless you provide links to material to support your contentions. Then people will look at the reliability of the sources – for instance you could be simply channeling an dissembler idiot like Wishart. They will also look for the points that you ‘overlooked’ – like the link in the post above.

  4. Swampy 4
    9 October 2010 at 1:13 am

    The article contains all of the reasons why Sparc (not McCully) is leading this decision yet you chose to focus on a piece of innuendo provided by one of the protagonists who is hardly unbiased.

    Sorry but this is absolutely pathetic, it cannot be considered worthy of such a blog of repute as the Standard.

    • bbfloyd 4.1
      9 October 2010 at 11:30 am

      just a small correction S. if you read the post on R.A. he goes into a bit of detail regarding what was said by the minister. this, in fact, isn’t innuendo, if this was a court case, they call this hearsay. i surely don’t need to point out the obvious differences between hearsay and innuendo do i?

      but just for the sake of clarity, hearsay is when a person relates what they have heard. simple enough? if you wish to get technical, then that means that, for example, i told someone that i was going to run up the road in my underwear. then that person was called to testify in the indecent exposure case that followed as to what they heard me say, then that is hearsay evidence.

      innuendo is, by definition, implication. as in implying that you are gay by stating that you have very feminine hands.

      get it?

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.