In my opinion two major factors have changed since we all wrote off any interest in wooing Ben Cousins to our club.

1. The incredibly stringent testing regime announced by the AFL today means he can't POSSIBLY contemplate using drugs if he seriously wants to come back. If he did transgress again, it'd be detected immediately, before his influence could spread in the Club. It wouldn't be our fault....we'd be the good guys giving a guy with a health problem a chance.

2.We absolutely MUST win more games in 2009. At one stage, some supporters were suggesting another year of less than 5 wins would be great from a drafting point of view. However it is becoming apparent that we need better on-field results to aid in our battle for survival as a club... to attract sponsors,spectators, free-to-air TV appearances, and members.

Here's a guy who is an out and out champ. Not only would he be a winner on the field, he'd take pressure off Brocky etc., to say nothing of what he could teach them about footy(and winning flags!). How much publicity would our Club(and potential sponsors) get!!??

I'm not sure that I want him... I just think that we should take everything into consideration before writing him off completely.

Whilst I understand what you're saying, what I feel our club needs now is to put faith in our youngsters.

To back that they can take our club where we need to go in the long term, without the help of a 32 year old player to pull them through.

Was thinking about Cousins issue and seriously believe we should go for him. Who really cares if he was on the Uncle Dougs?

It is alright to talk about youth policy but you also require experience. He already has the experience to reach the top as shown with a grand final win with the Weagles only a couple of years ago and he is a brownlow medallist to boot. He will be able to show our youngsters how to train, how to prepare and more importantly how to win.

It is extremely easy to knock a person when he is down - it is harder to get behind them and support them.

Ben will not muck up - he wants to prove to the football world he is still a champion and he is only 30 years of age. FFS there were a [censored] load of members who thought Neita was a champion even after the game had passed him.

Think of the publicity he will bring to the club - the press when he first trains and first plays will be enormous. This is a fantastic opportunity for the Melbourne Football club to get publicity - as Barnum the Circus man said - there is no such thing as bad publicity.

And don't we need publicity at the minute.

Sponsors will not drop off - if Cousins is 'sold' correctly, companies will jump on board - just look at what J$dd has done at Carltank.

I am all for getting Cousins and believe the positives will far outweigh any negatives - and lets be serious, there will not be any other brownlow medallists/grand final winning players out there in the market.

Go Benny and Go Dees for 2009

He is only 30, and I have said befoe I would have him at the club.

good experiance

but he would take away the leadership from people like brock, who really wants to be a leader of this club and its no 1 midfielder...i see too many negatives

we do not need this as a club at the moment

In my opinion two major factors have changed since we all wrote off any interest in wooing Ben Cousins to our club.

No, nothing's changed. We're still committed to rebuilding the club with youth from the ground up.

I wouldn't mind us nabbing him, although it's a bit of a risk it'd be a chance to have some positive publicity for the club and he is known for his training regime. My feeling is that we have already counted ourselves out of it and we won't go back on that.

I don't want a drug addict at my club. Just like what several experienced people in the drug rehabilitation industry have stated, the celebrity environment and environment where alcohol and drugs are readily available is hardly the place for a recovering drug addict. And I doubt that he has 100%, fully recovered from addiction after only a year being banned, especially considering he left rehab after what, 3 weeks?

I'm not convinced he is good to go and I say good luck to any club that drafts him. I have no sympathy for drug addicts. People feel sorry for them because of their addiction, but remember, they take the first hit on their own accord. And it takes A LOT of hits to become an addict. Yes, I've had coke before. Yes, I've smoke marijuana before. Both several times. I'm not an addict and I haven't had either in over 2 years.

I expect Cousins to retire after a year or so. Don't be fooled by every other hack on the radio who claim he is in good health and on the right track.

I don't care what his experience is like or how good he is. I don't want a current/ex drug addict at my club. Even if he is recovered. How any of you can say that he is a good candidate for leadership is moronic. He's been mentioned alongside underworld figures, has a gang-style tat across his stomach, has admitted to taking coke/ice/whatever. I'm honestly sick of all these people feeling sorry for him and other addicts. He recovered (or say he says). So good luck to him. But don't praise him. Condemn him for having to recover in the first place.

Also, beyond the whole drug thing, he is in his 30s and the club needs to develop.

Seriously, what an utter disgrace that the AFL has allowed him back in. It's all marketing. Money Money Money. The day this league becomes like the NBA/NFL with a no tolerance stance will be the day this league gets some sense.

Next.

What a mean-spirited post - there are thousands upon thousands of drug addicts and their families who would be appalled at you moral high-ground and lack of compassion. Besides, I'd bet my knackers his 'problems' are no more serious than half the AFL. You talk about him as if he is some junkie lying in Flinders Lane asking you for cash - this is a bloke who was 6 time all-australian and one of the greatest players of the decade how much strife could he have really been in. Trust me I know what i'm talking about here with regard to this subject matter.

It's all moot anyway as Dean Bailey and others have stated countless times we are building our own side

BTW, alot of you seem to have changed your tune since

Where do you stand? Read the text first!

A&C-Bottom out but recruit older 'stars' [ 2 ] ** [2.13%]

A&D-Bottom out and build our own side [ 35 ] ** [37.23%]

B&C-Improve immediately and recruit opposition 'stars' [ 4 ] ** [4.26%]

B&D-Improve immediately but continue to build our own side [ 53 ] ** [56.38%]

http://forums.demonland.com/index.php?showtopic=12369

Supposedly 92% of us were in favour of building our own side over recruiting high profile players!

quote 'Whispering_Jack'

"committed to rebuilding the club with youth from the ground up."

A well known fact. But how much could the youths benefit from close exposure to one 30y.o. superstar?

What a pity we weren't more strict on the youth policy in '08. How much could we have saved by not paying Neitz,Yze and Holland last season? Perhaps we kept them on to influence the youngsters. But at what price!? The fact that they were contracted the year before emphasises the difficulty of such negotiations.

quote 'Whispering_Jack'

"committed to rebuilding the club with youth from the ground up."

A well known fact. But how much could the youths benefit from close exposure to one 30y.o. superstar?

Such exposure could be a two edged sword with no certainty of outcome either way. For a club that is strapped for resources, having Cousins on the list is going to necessarily suck a huge amount of management time ensuring Cousins meets the stringent demands. There is no surety Cousins wont re offend as there is no surety that he necessarily will. However there is that uncertainty and as Greg Baum said in the Age that a number of Clubs have done the "due diligence" on Cousins, so why aren't they interested in the "superstar"? Why is there only 1.5 clubs interested out of 16 clubs?

What a pity we weren't more strict on the youth policy in '08. How much could we have saved by not paying Neitz,Yze and Holland last season? Perhaps we kept them on to influence the youngsters. But at what price!? The fact that they were contracted the year before emphasises the difficulty of such negotiations.

I dont see how we could have been stricter under the circumstances. We cleared out Ferg, Bizzell, Brown and Godfrey and backed the younger players and even elevated 2 rookies!!!! I know where you are coming from though. Yze was on the final year of a 3 year contract and dont get me started on that. Holland was one year relatively cheap "insurance" for more preferred options. If we had better leadership in the Club, Neitz should have retired at the end of 2007.

Such exposure could be a two edged sword with no certainty of outcome either way. For a club that is strapped for resources, having Cousins on the list is going to necessarily suck a huge amount of management time ensuring Cousins meets the stringent demands. There is no surety Cousins wont re offend as there is no surety that he necessarily will. However there is that uncertainty and as Greg Baum said in the Age that a number of Clubs have done the "due diligence" on Cousins, so why aren't they interested in the "superstar"? Why is there only 1.5 clubs interested out of 16 clubs?

I dont see how we could have been stricter under the circumstances. We cleared out Ferg, Bizzell, Brown and Godfrey and backed the younger players and even elevated 2 rookies!!!! I know where you are coming from though. Yze was on the final year of a 3 year contract and dont get me started on that. Holland was one year relatively cheap "insurance" for more preferred options. If we had better leadership in the Club, Neitz should have retired at the end of 2007.

Benny's apparently not happy with the onerous conditions the AFL has placed on him being permitted to return. Yes, they are tough and they are onerous but I would suggest that if he really wanted to come back to the game then he first should be prepared to bite the bullet and prove to the world that he's clean. The fact that he's already whinging about the conditions without giving them a try speaks volumes for me about the attitude he's adopted to his rehabilitation.

Sorry Benny, but you've already failed as far as I'm concerned and I'm happy that you're not even a tiny blimp on the MFC radar.

What none of us know is what will slip through the net from the National Draft to the PSD. If, by chance, there is a kid that maybe a long term "project" player available and has the raw talent, then we should use our number 1 pick to take him.

If there is not, then I think BC is worth the punt, in terms of the experience he would bring to the young guys, his undoubted talent and the publicity it would bring to the club.

He will be out of the Perth "fish bowl", with better resources to support him here.

The derogatory term "drug addict" is all too easily thrown around to put someone down. Addiction is an illness like any other and can be treated. And let's not forget, while he put his hand up to admit to his problem, he has never tested positive to banned drugs. Contrast this to at least 2 other AFL players who have tested positive on 2 occassions, yet continue to play AFL football, without public scrutiny.

In short, depending on what's available in the PSD, BC might be worth a punt. In my view, the positives out weigh the negatives.

Whilst I understand what you're saying, what I feel our club needs now is to put faith in our youngsters.

To back that they can take our club where we need to go in the long term, without the help of a 32 year old player to pull them through.

Apart from the fact that he is 30yo, I totally agree. Next.

IMO his body will fail him from now on. That's IF he plays.

An aside: -

If Ben Cousins seriously wants to play AFL and resurrect his footy career, he should have no hesitation in abiding by the conditions put before him by the AFL as stipulated yesterday during the announcement by Mike Fitzpatrick and Alex Demetriou. Saying the conditions are 'too much' or 'too hard' are grounds for concern and must send a warning signal to perspective clubs wanting to pick Cousins up in the draft. If he assures those clubs he is now clean and intends to remain clean he should have no objection to the on going drug conditions, regardless of the fact there are 6 players out there on two strikes. As he is seen as a "special case".

He will be out of the Perth "fish bowl", with better resources to support him here.

The derogatory term "drug addict" is all too easily thrown around to put someone down. Addiction is an illness like any other and can be treated. And let's not forget, while he put his hand up to admit to his problem, he has never tested positive to banned drugs.

How do you know? Melbourne is just a bigger fish bowl. He cant escape the environment here and has made a goose of himself in public here before.

It isnt in this case. Addiction can be treated but not always overcome. His confession about a "drug problem" was the most unconvincing bit of TV spin you could see. And I guess when you frantically run from a booze bus when you allegedly had little to drink and other actions really makes the testing a secondary matter.

The nature of the audit and surveillance of Cousins means that any decision to select will not be a "punt". And given MFC's stated strategy I dont see this eventuating.

Apart from the fact that he is 30yo, I totally agree. Next.

IMO his body will fail him from now on. That's IF he plays.

Saying the conditions are 'too much' or 'too hard' are grounds for concern and must send a warning signal to perspective clubs wanting to pick Cousins up in the draft.

I think most Clubs have already seen that warning signal months ago.

Thinking outside the box, the recent statement on appointments being demons notwithstanding, if it turns out that BC decides not to play AFL I would love for the club to persue him for a full time 'trainer' position. Always with the boys at training, gut busting 100%, and allocated to individuals for various 1 on 1 activities. Perhaps this sort of challenge and responsibility would assist his rehab and personal development as well as benefitting the club. Shrug. Just a thought.

No thanks. If he is not playing at your Club then why take the risk with him?

No thanks. If he is not playing at your Club then why take the risk with him?

Everything the MFC does at present is subject to substantial risk. We simply cannot afford to be risk adverse.

If we continue to err on the side of caution we will disapper up our own "ought".

Just because Cousins trains hard does not mean he knows how to motivate others (especially if he's been rejected as a potential player from the club).

I think most Clubs have already seen that warning signal months ago.

Indeed. A year ago to the day.

Can someone explain the "strigent conditions?"

Is it don't do drugs?

Can someone explain the "strigent conditions?"

Is it don't do drugs?

It is really. But it is adhering to the conditions set out by the AFL. Ie. Three urine tests a week, 4 hair tests a year, etc.

AFL insists conditions for Ben Cousins' return are 'non-negotiable'

It is really. But it is adhering to the conditions set out by the AFL. Ie. Three urine tests a week, 4 hair tests a year, etc.

Which is all well and good, and probably necessary for PR purposes......

But this regimen is a massive way off the AFL actual drug code (which is weak in my opinion anyway) and what the other players in the comp, including the half dozen or so with two strikes next to their names have to abide by to keep playing. I understand the difference here and it is a very public one, but it is not up to the AFL to keep Cousins clean, especially when it seems to not really worry about the other players who haven't been so spectacularly outed.

As for him potentially playing for Melbourne, I would be perfectly fine with it, despite the obvious gamble involved, and I genuinely hope he is able to stay clean and goes well when he does get back to the game, but it is completely irrelevant because it isn't going to happen, so maybe we should move on !!!

Everything the MFC does at present is subject to substantial risk. We simply cannot afford to be risk adverse.

So if everything MFC does at present is subject to substantial risk then how can we be risk averse?

If we continue to err on the side of caution we will disapper up our own "ought".

But everything we do is subject to substantial risk???

FWIW, I dont think the current administration has been erriing on the side of caution since it came in.

Cousins is additional risk to any of the risks you are dealing with and if was not playing for you he would have to really impress at the interview to justify to taking him on in a football department role over other potential candidates. Furthermore, if he aint playing he would not be subject to AFL stringent rules and then its all down to the Club to manage him.

Its easy to say "roll the dice" when you are not accountable for the outcomes

RR,

You tend to make a habit of selectively quoting posts and then taking them out of their entire context.

In any event, I agree with QC's post. The matter is dealt with, time to move on.

He won't be coming to the MFC, so the point is moot.

I just hope we can pull the proverbial rabbit out of the hat soon, because as I said in a post on another topic, the competitive nature of the market, the dwindling pool of the marketing and sponsorship dollar, compounded by the GFC, means the football business world will not grant us the patience we perhaps think we deserve.

Smart marketers need to think below "the line" when it comes to marketing strategy.