Melbourne City Fan Representative Group

[rass]

39 minutes ago, Tesla said:

Did he "fuck up"? 

Cause I would expect that he would have been charged if that was the case.

So I would like to know why exactly Novillo was suspended. 

It's not about whether he was charged or not. The club conducted an investigation and issued a statement (below) that explained specifically why they gave the sanction they did:

'Whilst the incident has not resulted in criminal charges, the Club’s investigations have confirmed that there has been a significant breach of the requirements set out in the FFA National Code of Conduct.

Specifically that the player failed to uphold professional standards off the field, failed to behave in a manner that promotes the highest standards of integrity and the player failed to properly explain his absence from a Club training session.

The Club has therefore applied the maximum sanction available to it under the FFA National Code of Conduct. Harry will receive a two match suspension and be fined 50% of one week’s wages.
Read more at http://www.melbournecityfc.com.au/article/melbourne-city-fc-statement/co3pdrciacgk1dc4w0da5dwzv#HcPpQP3PxQXYwqRu.99 "

We can only take their word for it on this. If there's a significant breach, then there's a fuk up. They explained it in a public statement and there's no way they are going to elaborate further on this in an FRG meeting.

[Shahanga]

1 hour ago, Tesla said:

Did he "fuck up"? 

Cause I would expect that he would have been charged if that was the case.

So I would like to know why exactly Novillo was suspended. 

They did give their reasons, such as they were.

It is possible to "fuck up" without being charged by the police. 

Really it's not in Harry or the club's interests to trawl over the details in public. Either ask the man himself or @strider(who was probably camped outside his residence with binoculars or something)

[possiblygeorge]

9 hours ago, Dylan said:

It's getting to a point where the only thing that will increase the support base is either a world class marquee or constant success.

there is still one issue. We have the lowest numbers and have extortionate ticket prices, surely there is a link there

Start throwing coins at the ref

inb4 "zomg #dontgetcourt"

Edited February 23, 2016 by possiblygeorge

[belaguttman]

One thing I'd like to see is the franchise putting some effort into giving the fans an opportunity to acknowledge a player who has left the team. I appreciate that it isn't always possible to do this in person but even having a public announcement at the next game would help. Melburnians could give them a farewell chant. A farewell video message from the player on the big screens would help too.

Edited February 23, 2016 by belaguttman

[possiblygeorge]

2 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

One thing I'd like to see is the franchise putting some effort into giving the fans an opportunity to acknowledge a player who has left the team. I appreciate that it isn't always possible to do this in person but even having a public announcement at the next game would help. Melburnians could give them a farewell chant.

Thought we did that with Velaphi and the bloke in the next bay lost his shit and tried to fight someone from the Melburnians lol

[jw1739]

1 minute ago, belaguttman said:

One thing I'd like to see is the franchise putting some effort into giving the fans an opportunity to acknowledge a player who has left the team. I appreciate that it isn't always possible to do this in person but even having a public announcement at the next game would help. Melburnians could give them a farewell chant.

Agree, Bela. Wouldn't be too hard to record a short farewell from the likes of Paartalu and Williams and show it on the big screen. May I suggest you also put your idea on City Voice?

[belaguttman]

6 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Agree, Bela. Wouldn't be too hard to record a short farewell from the likes of Paartalu and Williams and show it on the big screen. May I suggest you also put your idea on City Voice?

Done

[thisphantomfortress]

1 hour ago, possiblygeorge said:

Thought we did that with Velaphi and the bloke in the next bay lost his shit and tried to fight someone from the Melburnians lol

I was capo that day, don't remember anyone trying to start a fight about it. I def would've loved to get stuck into them.

[Tonyboozeadams]

1 hour ago, jw1739 said:

Agree, Bela. Wouldn't be too hard to record a short farewell from the likes of Paartalu and Williams and show it on the big screen. May I suggest you also put your idea on City Voice?

not williams

[NewConvert]

33 minutes ago, Tonyboozeadams said:

not williams

Take the good with the bad. Williams never dissed the club and never disrespected the fans.

[belaguttman]

42 minutes ago, Tonyboozeadams said:

not williams

Could have done the Tando chant during the Redders farewell address

[wombegongal]

22 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

Take the good with the bad. Williams never dissed the club and never disrespected the fans.

If we win, we win...... big respect

[agoalie]

3 hours ago, possiblygeorge said:

Thought we did that with Velaphi and the bloke in the next bay lost his shit and tried to fight someone from the Melburnians lol

Yeh that was me. The one from melburnians 

Edited February 23, 2016 by agoalie

[thisphantomfortress]

18 minutes ago, agoalie said:

Yeh that was me. The one from melburnians 

How do I not remember this?

[SF33]

6 hours ago, rass said:

It's not about whether he was charged or not. The club conducted an investigation and issued a statement (below) that explained specifically why they gave the sanction they did:

'Whilst the incident has not resulted in criminal charges, the Club’s investigations have confirmed that there has been a significant breach of the requirements set out in the FFA National Code of Conduct.

Specifically that the player failed to uphold professional standards off the field, failed to behave in a manner that promotes the highest standards of integrity and the player failed to properly explain his absence from a Club training session.

The Club has therefore applied the maximum sanction available to it under the FFA National Code of Conduct. Harry will receive a two match suspension and be fined 50% of one week’s wages.
Read more at http://www.melbournecityfc.com.au/article/melbourne-city-fc-statement/co3pdrciacgk1dc4w0da5dwzv#HcPpQP3PxQXYwqRu.99 "

We can only take their word for it on this. If there's a significant breach, then there's a fuk up. They explained it in a public statement and there's no way they are going to elaborate further on this in an FRG meeting.

Breaching curfews, alcohol bans, skipping training (which was confirmed above) or a training clinic without a legitimate excuse etc. I'd take a guess and say the vast majority of points in the player code of conduct would not result in a player facing criminal charges by breaching them. And, as far as I'm concerned, getting caught breaching any of the above should result in a player being suspended, no questions asked.

[Tonyboozeadams]

3 hours ago, NewConvert said:

Take the good with the bad. Williams never dissed the club and never disrespected the fans.

Other than his lack of fitness and general care factor

[agoalie]

1 hour ago, thisphantomfortress said:

How do I not remember this?

no idea, i was pretty agro, cops almost ejected me but me and they guy sorted our differences out at half time.

[belaguttman]

8 hours ago, Tesla said:

Did he "fuck up"? 

Cause I would expect that he would have been charged if that was the case.

So I would like to know why exactly Novillo was suspended. 

People aren't charged in these type of situations for a variety of reasons, the commonest one is that the other party refuses to press charges. Its neither a confirmation of guilt (as this is determined by the Court) or a confirmation of innocence. We don't know all the facts and nor should we. The franchise has more facts that will hopefully remain confidential but presumably they have based their sanction on those facts.

[Dylan]

@Murfy1 can you thank the club from me for organising more facility tours for prem A members who couldn't make it mid week. I appreciate it very much

[SF33]

I'd like to ask (or at least raise a point) about the injury news that arrives on Thursday, with the team selections. If a player was not available for selection the previous week, was a late withdrawal, or was subbed off with an injury, it should be mandatory that they appear on this list, even if it just says: KISNORBO (ankle) - AVAILABLE (as an example). As with players like Koren, it would clear up for us whether he's is being overlooked for selection, or he is genuinely carrying an injury. If a player is iffy as to whether he'll come up, he can be listed as TEST.

I understand that sometimes it is for the greater good to keep something like Mooy's ribs under wraps, but if a player has obviously been injured in the last game, or didn't play in the last game (or longer), due to injury, I think it's disrespectful to the supporters (and arguably, to the player too) if they don't even get their name on that list. Hughes is the obvious current example, but it happens all the time. You don't even have to change it from week to week, in the case of someone like Gameiro: GAMEIRO (knee) - SEASON. Job done. A bit of openness/respect.

 

[thisphantomfortress]

8 minutes ago, SF33 said:

I'd like to ask (or at least raise a point) about the injury news that arrives on Thursday, with the team selections. If a player was not available for selection the previous week, was a late withdrawal, or was subbed off with an injury, it should be mandatory that they appear on this list, even if it just says: KISNORBO (ankle) - AVAILABLE (as an example). As with players like Koren, it would clear up for us whether he's is being overlooked for selection, or he is genuinely carrying an injury. If a player is iffy as to whether he'll come up, he can be listed as TEST.

I understand that sometimes it is for the greater good to keep something like Mooy's ribs under wraps, but if a player has obviously been injured in the last game, or didn't play in the last game (or longer), due to injury, I think it's disrespectful to the supporters (and arguably, to the player too) if they don't even get their name on that list. Hughes is the obvious current example, but it happens all the time. You don't even have to change it from week to week, in the case of someone like Gameiro: GAMEIRO (knee) - SEASON. Job done. A bit of openness/respect.

 

Short answer to this is its not happening, its raised every meeting. The club physio's hate giving out the info. Not changing

[jw1739]

13 minutes ago, SF33 said:

I'd like to ask (or at least raise a point) about the injury news that arrives on Thursday, with the team selections. If a player was not available for selection the previous week, was a late withdrawal, or was subbed off with an injury, it should be mandatory that they appear on this list, even if it just says: KISNORBO (ankle) - AVAILABLE (as an example). As with players like Koren, it would clear up for us whether he's is being overlooked for selection, or he is genuinely carrying an injury. If a player is iffy as to whether he'll come up, he can be listed as TEST.

I understand that sometimes it is for the greater good to keep something like Mooy's ribs under wraps, but if a player has obviously been injured in the last game, or didn't play in the last game (or longer), due to injury, I think it's disrespectful to the supporters (and arguably, to the player too) if they don't even get their name on that list. Hughes is the obvious current example, but it happens all the time. You don't even have to change it from week to week, in the case of someone like Gameiro: GAMEIRO (knee) - SEASON. Job done. A bit of openness/respect.

I've pretty much given up even looking at these "Thursday squads." The answer we got last time was that anyone not named was fit to play but hasn't been selected - presumably against CCM that was Hughes, Brown and Marino. However, Aunty Joy Murphy in her welcome speech said that Browny was injured. So who knows? Sometimes I think the club is too embarrassed by some of the long-term absences to even mention them.... Don't think things will change somehow.

[SF33]

1 minute ago, thisphantomfortress said:

Short answer to this is its not happening, its raised every meeting. The club physio's hate giving out the info. Not changing

So why is a half-arsed equivalent ok, in the physio's opinion (not trying to be a smart arse; I'm genuinely curious)?

Ignoring the fact that Andrew McKenzie would have had to get used to making such info available by Tuesday in his time at the Western Bulldogs (and that he or the club doctor would have also done a video for their club site by mid-week), I wouldn't even mind that much if everything longer than one week got a 'TBC'; I'd just like to know if Aaron Hughes is injured or not. Is that seriously too tough a question for him to answer? If it is, he can piss off, as far as I'm concerned. Find someone that will treat us with a bit more respect. It's not like we've got a stellar track record, with regard to managing injuries, is it?

[Dylan]

Perhaps we can make clear that we want to keep Fornaroli what ever the cost?

Perhaps we can make clear that we want to keep Fornaroli what ever the cost?

[HeartOfCity]

48 minutes ago, SF33 said:

I'd like to ask (or at least raise a point) about the injury news that arrives on Thursday, with the team selections. If a player was not available for selection the previous week, was a late withdrawal, or was subbed off with an injury, it should be mandatory that they appear on this list, even if it just says: KISNORBO (ankle) - AVAILABLE (as an example). As with players like Koren, it would clear up for us whether he's is being overlooked for selection, or he is genuinely carrying an injury. If a player is iffy as to whether he'll come up, he can be listed as TEST.

I understand that sometimes it is for the greater good to keep something like Mooy's ribs under wraps, but if a player has obviously been injured in the last game, or didn't play in the last game (or longer), due to injury, I think it's disrespectful to the supporters (and arguably, to the player too) if they don't even get their name on that list. Hughes is the obvious current example, but it happens all the time. You don't even have to change it from week to week, in the case of someone like Gameiro: GAMEIRO (knee) - SEASON. Job done. A bit of openness/respect.

 

Yeah I'm sick of it to, something the AFL does really well. They even do a segment with the physios explaining the injuries. I don't expect a segment just like you had as text next there name why theyre not available. Come and be member of this great club and we'll tell you stuff all! 

[jw1739]

6 minutes ago, HeartOfCity said:

Yeah I'm sick of it to, something the AFL does really well. They even do a segment with the physios explaining the injuries. I don't expect a segment just like you had as text next there name why theyre not available. Come and be member of this great club and we'll tell you stuff all! 

Yes, but are we sure that this is the club? Or is it the same right across all the clubs? Is this the "FFA template" in practice? I agree with the sentiments being expressed, but I just don't see change happening. 

[SF33]

3 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Yes, but are we sure that this is the club? Or is it the same right across all the clubs? Is this the "FFA template" in practice? I agree with the sentiments being expressed, but I just don't see change happening. 

I think it's because they can get away with it. If an AFL club did it with a first-team player, the supporters would be kicking up a huge stink about it until the club provided some answers. Ok, admittedly, AFL clubs (my one at least) will do it and get away with it from time to time with a fringe player, but you don't get away with it if you try it with a regular senior player. All the media focus on AFL teams probably holds the clubs to account as well, to be fair and allows A-League clubs to fly under the radar.

But if we can't rely on the club to throw us a bone there, I don't see what is stopping the FFA from sending a list of players that didn't play for the club (at any level) in the previous week and demanding that the club provides some basic details about the nature of the unavailability, whether the player is unavailable this week and, if so, what the expected period on the sidelines will be (if known).

[belaguttman]

30 minutes ago, SF33 said:

I think it's because they can get away with it. If an AFL club did it with a first-team player, the supporters would be kicking up a huge stink about it until the club provided some answers. Ok, admittedly, AFL clubs (my one at least) will do it and get away with it from time to time with a fringe player, but you don't get away with it if you try it with a regular senior player. All the media focus on AFL teams probably holds the clubs to account as well, to be fair and allows A-League clubs to fly under the radar.

But if we can't rely on the club to throw us a bone there, I don't see what is stopping the FFA from sending a list of players that didn't play for the club (at any level) in the previous week and demanding that the club provides some basic details about the nature of the unavailability, whether the player is unavailable this week and, if so, what the expected period on the sidelines will be (if known).

AFL clubs are clubs, we have franchises. Supporters can be members, hence are stakeholders, we are't owners of the franchise licence, we are customers. In the end it comes down to the nature of the relationship

[Murfy1]

Just on the injury announcements, a few things have been mentioned in meetings:

- Injuries are uncertain, and recovery times can't be predicted with 100% accuracy. The club has to say something, e.g. Chapman - 2 WEEKS (and I think we'd all agree that something is better than nothing), but the club doesn't commit to saying things like Chapman - 2 WEEKS UNTIL FULLY FIT, because of the vagaries of injuries. Every week after that date would be seen as "a setback", and probably interpreted an "another injury", so just from a practical standpoint I think it makes sense to give general predictions of recovery time rather than very specific recovery times

- The club doesn't want to put the boot into players, and it doesn't want to publicly shame them in ways either, which is the territory the club would get into if the club was even more specific about match-day selections-- e.g. Kuzmanovski - FULLY FIT BUT DROPPED, James Brown - FULLY FIT BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH. The latter's a joke, but it would be pretty implied if the club went into detail over players being selected and not selected

- If a player is no longer mentioned as injured on the weekly announcements (e.g. Zullo - Hamstring 1 week     then    nothing on Zullo the next week), assume the player is no longer injured. I've had my gripes with this system too, but that's the way things are done, perhaps over caution with the first 2 points. If the player has just got over their injury, and Zullo is a great case in point, then assume the player is no longer injured but not match fit/match ready. Again, the club doesn't want to be negative towards players so it doesn't want to go into the territory of saying things like Zullo - FULLY FIT BUT 3 WEEKS UNTIL MATCH FIT. So all up assume players aren't injured if they aren't mentioned on the injury list (hence right now is can be taken as fact that James Brown and Marc Marino are no longer injured).  

 

 

 

A good list of issues in this thread and they will be mentioned in the meeting later this week.

[HeartOfCity]

27 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

AFL clubs are clubs, we have franchises. Supporters can be members, hence are stakeholders, we are't owners of the franchise licence, we are customers. In the end it comes down to the nature of the relationship

So if that's the case I would have thought that you would go out of your way to make everyone feel like they're part of something, feel like you know what's happening with the squad come gameday. I understand a few injuries like mooys ribs but surely you can say player x has been cleared and now spending a couple of weeks getting game fit in the seconds. This is maybe a very European thing for all I know but if your trying to make a club strong within a country where football isn't the major sport then you would look at the way the other sports have been run and steal a few ideas from them. That's my opinion anyways.

[hedaik]

45 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

AFL clubs are clubs, we have franchises. Supporters can be members, hence are stakeholders, we are't owners of the franchise licence, we are customers. In the end it comes down to the nature of the relationship

I don't see how a small technical difference between how clubs are licenced explains why a club can explain injuries more openly than the other.

[HeartOfCity]

Actually while I'm on here ranting I would like to see the players come over to the away supporters that have spent there hard earned to go and see them, not many trips are cheap to see the boys play, even if they don't do so well on the pitch I don't care just come up and shake my hand. 

[SF33]

54 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

AFL clubs are clubs, we have franchises. Supporters can be members, hence are stakeholders, we are't owners of the franchise licence, we are customers. In the end it comes down to the nature of the relationship

I would argue then that we shouldn't be called members; we are essentially ticket holders. The club seems to want to pick and choose a bit too much when it wants to make us feel important (as in the case of these meetings, for an obvious example) and when it doesn't.

[jw1739]

6 minutes ago, HeartOfCity said:

Actually while I'm on here ranting I would like to see the players come over to the away supporters that have spent there hard earned to go and see them, not many trips are cheap to see the boys play, even if they don't do so well on the pitch I don't care just come up and shake my hand. 

Also at home, especially when we've had a good win, go round the ground to acknowledge all the supporters and not just the southern end and those sitting near the tunnel.

59 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

AFL clubs are clubs, we have franchises. Supporters can be members, hence are stakeholders, we are't owners of the franchise licence, we are customers. In the end it comes down to the nature of the relationship

I'm not even sure of this any more Bela. I know that we have a 20-year licence to field a team in the A-League, but I'd be surprised if the assets of Melbourne City are owned by anyone other than City Football Group.

[SF33]

55 minutes ago, Murfy1 said:

Just on the injury announcements, a few things have been mentioned in meetings:

- Injuries are uncertain, and recovery times can't be predicted with 100% accuracy. The club has to say something, e.g. Chapman - 2 WEEKS (and I think we'd all agree that something is better than nothing), but the club doesn't commit to saying things like Chapman - 2 WEEKS UNTIL FULLY FIT, because of the vagaries of injuries. Every week after that date would be seen as "a setback", and probably interpreted an "another injury", so just from a practical standpoint I think it makes sense to give general predictions of recovery time rather than very specific recovery times

- The club doesn't want to put the boot into players, and it doesn't want to publicly shame them in ways either, which is the territory the club would get into if the club was even more specific about match-day selections-- e.g. Kuzmanovski - FULLY FIT BUT DROPPED, James Brown - FULLY FIT BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH. The latter's a joke, but it would be pretty implied if the club went into detail over players being selected and not selected

- If a player is no longer mentioned as injured on the weekly announcements (e.g. Zullo - Hamstring 1 week     then    nothing on Zullo the next week), assume the player is no longer injured. I've had my gripes with this system too, but that's the way things are done, perhaps over caution with the first 2 points. If the player has just got over their injury, and Zullo is a great case in point, then assume the player is no longer injured but not match fit/match ready. Again, the club doesn't want to be negative towards players so it doesn't want to go into the territory of saying things like Zullo - FULLY FIT BUT 3 WEEKS UNTIL MATCH FIT. So all up assume players aren't injured if they aren't mentioned on the injury list (hence right now is can be taken as fact that James Brown and Marc Marino are no longer injured).  

 

 

 

A good list of issues in this thread and they will be mentioned in the meeting later this week.

I think the club could get around the second and third issue that you've raised by releasing the injury report a day or so before the selections, which is how the AFL clubs do it. And if there is doubt whether a player will come up, or it's always going to be a game-day decision (e.g. if a player has been concussed) you can just put 'Test': no need to make up stories, no need to mislead anyone. Simple.

The 'assume player is no longer injured' stuff is simply not good enough by the club. The people that go to these meetings and even the people on this forum aren't the entire Melbourne City supporter/member base. We would be skewed more towards the more dedicated supporters that would find the information (if it existed) elsewhere. We're the ones that have the time, or make the time, to spend an hour, or a couple of hours a week reading other people's opinions and agreeing or arguing with each other. Not everyone that is a City member will do that; they'd just go to the Melbourne City website and expect to get all the relevant info about the club. 

I think that Melbourne City members that would go to the club site expecting to get their news about the team (and that don't know that places like this exist) would certainly not just assume that a player that was injured the previous week and now doesn't appear anywhere is now fit to play. Since many of us are also keen AFL supporters, I'd say most of the Melbourne City supporters would expect a similar system to be in place and I'm not sure why the club would want to depart too drastically from that format.

As an example, I visit this site fairly regularly, but not every week, let alone every day. All this stuff about 'assume the player is no longer injured' is news to me. It's unclear and it would be very easy to clarify it.

Edited February 24, 2016 by SF33

[bt50]

Members, season ticket holders, who gives a shit!

 

[Torn Asunder]

Hey guys,

Just wanted to let everyone know that due to time / family commitments I have resigned from the FRG.

Over the years, there has been a lot of work involved with the group; setting it up and trying to make it useful to fans, and I leave happy in the knowledge that the FRG is a genuine platform for fans to engage with the club.  I have particularly enjoyed representing people on this forum and I know for a fact that things raised on these very pages have definitely influenced the club over the years.  Probably the highlight was being across the CFG purchase and meeting Simon Pearce.  I left that meeting knowing that the club was on the right path, and this continues to be the case.

Also, now Murphy is on the group, I can step off with confidence, knowing that he is absolutely capable of representing this forum (I wasn't going to leave until I knew the forum would continue to be represented).

Onward and upwards!

 

[jw1739]

Murf, it wouldn't be "shaming" anyone to say "not selected." Three categories - entitled "Selected Match Squad", "Not selected" and "Unavailable for selection" with qualifiers in the latter such as "International Duty for...", "Suspended", "Recovering from injury" etc. The latter to include anyone not match-fit.

Actually I would think that the present system of non-information about certain players (e.g. Aaron Hughes) is far worse than saying "Not selected" or "Unavailable for selection (recovering from injury)."

1 minute ago, Torn Asunder said:

Hey guys,

Just wanted to let everyone know that due to time / family commitments I have resigned from the FRG.

Over the years, there has been a lot of work involved with the group; setting it up and trying to make it useful to fans, and I leave happy in the knowledge that the FRG is a genuine platform for fans to engage with the club.  I have particularly enjoyed representing people on this forum and I know for a fact that things raised on these very pages have definitely influenced the club over the years.  Probably the highlight was being across the CFG purchase and meeting Simon Pearce.  I left that meeting knowing that the club was on the right path, and this continues to be the case.

Also, now Murphy is on the group, I can step off with confidence, knowing that he is absolutely capable of representing this forum (I wasn't going to leave until I knew the forum would continue to be represented).

Onward and upwards!

 

Many thanks for all your efforts. Appreciated by everyone, I'm sure.

[belaguttman]

1 hour ago, Murfy1 said:

Just on the injury announcements, a few things have been mentioned in meetings:

- Injuries are uncertain, and recovery times can't be predicted with 100% accuracy. The club has to say something, e.g. Chapman - 2 WEEKS (and I think we'd all agree that something is better than nothing), but the club doesn't commit to saying things like Chapman - 2 WEEKS UNTIL FULLY FIT, because of the vagaries of injuries. Every week after that date would be seen as "a setback", and probably interpreted an "another injury", so just from a practical standpoint I think it makes sense to give general predictions of recovery time rather than very specific recovery times

 

True, what the medical staff will do with the players is to give them a range, "you will take 4 to 6 weeks to recover depending on how things go" We don't need an exact prediction from them, just an indication in the form of a range. The exasperating thing now is you'll see something like 'Bela Guttman 2 weeks' and then the following week you'll see the same thing. Even 'at least 2 weeks' is more helpful as it sets a minimum expectation.

57 minutes ago, hedaik said:

I don't see how a small technical difference between how clubs are licenced explains why a club can explain injuries more openly than the other.

The franchise has a different responsibility to us as customers compared to shareholders/owners

[Jovan]

I don't think worrying about how the player perceives is actually relevant. 

He fully understands his situation. 

It's those trying to work out what's going on from the outside that need the clarity. 

It's a small thing but if it's done well consistently it would separate us from the rest.