AFL investigation

[Sir Why You Little 37,035]

Can anyone tell me anything about the background of Cameron Schwab/Caroline Wilson? I know she gets on her high horse when it comes to certain people and it makes absolutely no sense why (i.e. James Brayshaw) but she and CS have a shared background at Richmond. I have read somewhere there that CS didn't particularly appreciate the implications that were made in one of Caro's articles when his father passed on in Sydney. Is there any truth in that rumor? Is there also anything else that has happened that has strained their relationship?

the death of CS's father has always been a bit of a mystery. I think CW's main isue with Cam has to do with the sacking of Bartlett as coach. Others have told me about after hours liasons that CS had no interest in but i cannot confirm this.

I do know that they don't get on, like fueding families the Schwabs & Wilsons go back a long way...

[Dee Fan 3,247]

It's why I can't wait for Caro to get back because she will at least give us some insight into what the AFL is thinking on this issue. The factual accounts in the press tell us what's in the report but little else.

Frankie I think there is a second boot but I'm not sure it will fall. A very good view was put to me by another poster. He said that if the leaks are by MFC alone then it's unlikely there is a "smoking gun" and if the leaks are agreed between the AFL and MFC then it's a carefully orchestrated process to lead to a "no case to answer" scenario. This makes sense to me, particularly the second part as I doubt MFC would leak info whilst we are in negotiations with the AFL.

dee-tox very good and thoughtful posting treated the way most scared little bunnies react when they see something threatening - you just get attacked by the mob. I liked your comments on us not wanting to do things the hard way. It hit a cord with me but in fairness to those that instituted our tanking it was just following AFL approved best practice. That we were inept in the way we did it is another question but the reality is we've been inept in the way we've managed so much under this administration including tanking, dismissing Junior, selecting the coach and dismissing Bailey. All of these poorly managed administrative manners have hurt us apart from the appointment of Neeld IMO but the process of his appointment was shoddy.

Sorry but wasn't your mate Bailey selected by the previous administration, you know the one you think did a great job. Wasn't it your mate Bailey that dismissed Junior? Wasn't Bailey sacked because he had lost control of the playing group and was taking the club down the road to nowhere?

You say that the selection of Neeld was shoddy but you agree with his appointment; what would you have done, dotted the i's and crossed the t's then appointed him anyway?

What exactly has Wilson said that has shed light on the process to date; what information have you gleaned that has lead you closer to the end result of the investigation? Do you think that Wilson has helped Melbourne or blackened our name making it harder for us to gain further sponsorship?

Just what is it you want to come out of this investigation, apart from vengence?

Oh! do you hold your mate Bailey responsible for any of this; do you think he should have told the club "I won't do it" if asked to tank, he's a man of principle, isn't he?

[nutbean 8,838]

Connolly was also challenged on talkback on SEN, by a Dees supporter, regarding the reporting of so-called evidence of tanking in the media. in particular, the Dee's supporter rightly pointed out the absurd allegation that the we did not play Jack Watts enough that year. In response, Connolly told the supporter to not "shoot the messenger" and that the reporter concerned was only reporting the facts. Unfortunately, all too often these days, journalists rely on the shoot the messenger retort, to justify shoddy reporting. I long for the days of a more prolific investigative media, which does not simply take as read, media releases or quotes from protagonists as being fact. In this case, the Dee's supporter concerned was right. Don't take as Gospel, what is trotted out by the AFL minions. Sure, Rohan, you may see it as preserving your meal ticket, by kowtowing to the AFL, but such conduct undermines the integrity of every journalist that engages in such activity. There is no more ample evidence of this than your colleague, Ms. Wilson.

I want to shoot some messengers for the following simple reasons.

Where there has been some evidence or actions that has rightly been open to interpretation ( rotations, comments made and even some player positioning) the "messengers" have gone in boots and all with opinions that have cast the MFC as villains of the highest order.

When there has been some evidence or actions that defy logic and common sense such as fumbling or Jack Watts there has been a complete absense of any opinion attached to what can only be described as farcical lines of enquiry.

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

I want to shoot some messengers for the following simple reasons.

Where there has been some evidence or actions that has rightly been open to interpretation ( rotations, comments made and even some player positioning) the "messengers" have gone in boots and all with opinions that have cast the MFC as villains of the highest order.

When there has been some evidence or actions that defy logic and common sense such as fumbling or Jack Watts there has been a complete absense of any opinion attached to what can only be described as farcical lines of enquiry.

Entirely understandable sentiments. The problem with the 'don't shoot the messenger' defence is that the media aren't messengers. They're the media, they mediate messages, which runs the gamut from interpreting them in wise and helpful ways (rare now, I admit) to interfering with them in all sorts of other ways.

'I'm only the messenger' mightn't be the first refuge of the scoundrel, but it's pretty close.

[GM11 776]

#2. I was a vociferous advocate of tanking. What was the point of winning 5 matches ? Why win one more pointless match and miss out on a potential gun running around the G for 10 years (or more) all for the sake of one extra meaningless win ? It didn't make sense. And we needed the help anyway. The PP system was designed to help clubs like us that were chained to the bottom of the ladder. In fact, if we had won that extra game and missed out on the PP we would have been the AFL's laughing stock. These were some of my beliefs and arguments. Many posters have only joined this forum since 2010 and may not be privy to some of the robust debate at the time. I posted under a different username then.

I needed to explain my previous position in order to clarify it now. I was wrong. And while there are no absolutes in life and as I've often said, "there are degrees of everything", I believe that our systematic and calculated decision early in the year to ensure the PP was majorly detrimental to the club and its culture.

That said, I agree that the club needs to bunker down and fight the good fight. And I support them in doing that, as my many robust posts on another site attests. But I think it's unfair to abuse posters that may have a different take on all of this. This is one issue that isn't cut and dried. Even those questioning what the club did fully support them in this fight.

I think you are wrong in thinking you were wrong.

Mainly because I don't believe your assertion re 'early in the year'.

Looking at line ups early, they didn't change too much.

When the priority changed was later, after some mixed results and no chance of finals.

And this is the period that seems to be in focus, not early in the year.

Having said that I have no argument against the negative cultural impact of list management and I don't think too many others do either.

[Hannibal 5,814]

I think you are wrong in thinking you were wrong.

Mainly because I don't believe your assertion re 'early in the year'.

Looking at line ups early, they didn't change too much.

When the priority changed was later, after some mixed results and no chance of finals.

And this is the period that seems to be in focus, not early in the year.

Having said that I have no argument against the negative cultural impact of list management and I don't think too many others do either.

We'll agree to differ.

I believe the club had the PP in sight from very early in the year.

[Slartibartfast 17,273]

Sorry but wasn't your mate Bailey selected by the previous administration, you know the one you think did a great job. Wasn't it your mate Bailey that dismissed Junior? Wasn't Bailey sacked because he had lost control of the playing group and was taking the club down the road to nowhere?

You say that the selection of Neeld was shoddy but you agree with his appointment; what would you have done, dotted the i's and crossed the t's then appointed him anyway?

What exactly has Wilson said that has shed light on the process to date; what information have you gleaned that has lead you closer to the end result of the investigation? Do you think that Wilson has helped Melbourne or blackened our name making it harder for us to gain further sponsorship?

Just what is it you want to come out of this investigation, apart from vengence?

Oh! do you hold your mate Bailey responsible for any of this; do you think he should have told the club "I won't do it" if asked to tank, he's a man of principle, isn't he?

You're a worry Robbie, I genuinely think you've got a problem with diversity of view and are so racked with prejudice you can't see the argument for the person.

Yes, Bailey was appointed by the Gardner Board in 2008 after a though interview process involving people from outside the club and from within it. Bailey then was reappointed in 2010 by the Stynes Board after two years "form". Unlike the Gardner Board who were appointing a person with no experience as senior coach the Stynes Board appointed someone with two years experience and who they had had the benefit of working with for two years. They had much more information to work with than Gardner. If you argue that Bailey was a poor coach then how much worse was the Stynes Board's decision to extend his contract? On your grounds the decision was terrible and yet you want to sheet the blame to Gardner.

Bailey clearly made mistakes and Junior's dismissal was one of them. I've no problem recognizing his weaknesses and faults and I've said on many occasions I agree that he should have been replaced at the end of 2012.

When replacing him I think the Board should have interviewed people like Sanderson, they should have asked Lyon if he was interested in the job, I'd have expected them to do a though job looking at all possible candidates. But they didn't and when appointing Neeld there wasn't one person on the selection panel who had coached a game of AFL footy. You might be happy with that but I'm not because it's shoddy and so far below best practice it's frightening. I've not included Neeld in the same group as Junior, Bailey's dismissal etc because I haven't formed a view on his ability as an AFL coach. There is much to like and much to question and I'll wait and see whether that turns out to be a good decision. But regardless we should have at least picked up the phone and spoken to other coaching candidates because while Neeld may prove to be good we'll never know if we could have got better.

I can't be bothered answering for the hundredth time you're questions on Caro because you have you're view and I have mine and you don't listen.

What I find quite amusing is your divisiveness on this forum when you seek to belittle others with a different view and criticise them for their agenda's and accuse them of hurting the club. You're in the same boat Robbie because it should be clear to you that all who post here have nothing but the best interest of the club at heart. Sadly you're guilty of exactly what you accuse others of doing.

[Soidee 1,496]

HELLS BELLS!!!!! wow am I sick to death of this shyte leaking out every day about the football club I love. Egos Egos damn Egos!...everywhere!!

The bloody AFL and MFC need to sort this Khrap out NOWWWWWWWWWWW.......

[H_T 3,047]

I thought about starting a new thread, but for now I'll put it here. It's point 2. which was going to be the topic.

#1. I'm bemused that some don't think we tanked. While I agree that it's not easy to prove I'm wondering whether the "no we didn't" brigade really believe the club didn't try to manipulate the results of certain matches, or whether they're putting everything under the umbrella of "list management" and "experimentation". Maybe they privately acknowledge the club's aims in 2009 and are merely toeing the company line and arguing definitions.

The MFC in 2009 deliberately tried to lose matches. They did this under the guise of "experimentation", but it's clear to most that through drastically reduced interchange rotations, unusual match-ups, players put in foreign positions, and the extended "benching" of certain players, that their aim was to lose select matches. Dean Bailey admitted as much during his departing press conference - I had no hesitation at all in the first two years of ensuring this club was well placed for draft picks, Bailey said. I was asked to do the best thing by the Melbourne Football Club, and I did it. Yes, it's hard to prove and yes, you may have a different definition, but this club tried to deliberately lose matches. Under my definition that's "tanking".

And that is all you had to say, it's the definition you stand by. Others differ, like me and honorable Andy (the AFL) and whilst I privately acknowledge the experimentation and list management that took place - that does not and should not come under tanking. The Richmond game is the perfect example. You had a team of players who were playing to win and were winning at the final siren. If they were pulling up short deliberately that would be in my eyes tanking. Since that day people have been arguing was it or was it not tanking only because there was no clear definition. But there was with dear Andy.

Let's hope there is never another situation like this again.

No one wins out of this period of sh!t.

[Hannibal 5,814]

And that is all you had to say, it's the definition you stand by. Others differ, like me

I don't know how you can. When a coach, at the behest of his club, tries to manipulate a loss it's "tanking".

We tanked.

[bush demon 2,040]

Connolly was also challenged on talkback on SEN, by a Dees supporter, regarding the reporting of so-called evidence of tanking in the media. in particular, the Dee's supporter rightly pointed out the absurd allegation that the we did not play Jack Watts enough that year. In response, Connolly told the supporter to not "shoot the messenger" and that the reporter concerned was only reporting the facts. Unfortunately, all too often these days, journalists rely on the shoot the messenger retort, to justify shoddy reporting. I long for the days of a more prolific investigative media, which does not simply take as read, media releases or quotes from protagonists as being fact. In this case, the Dee's supporter concerned was right. Don't take as Gospel, what is trotted out by the AFL minions. Sure, Rohan, you may see it as preserving your meal ticket, by kowtowing to the AFL, but such conduct undermines the integrity of every journalist that engages in such activity. There is no more ample evidence of this than your colleague, Ms. Wilson.

When The Age puts 'exclusive' at the beginning of their updates it is implying that some kind of investigative journalism is underway adding a touch of gravitas to their speculations.

[Redleg 40,914]

If Vlad and Gill find there is "no case to answer" does the matter get referred to the Commission? Or is it the Commission who find "no case to answer". If it's Andy who decides the announcement will be made late Friday before the Tennis finals.

I recall Andy saying that he would decide if the matter was to go before the Commission or be dismissed by himself.

[Redleg 40,914]

Just got this in an email from a mate of mine.

I happened to speak with some one inside the club on Friday about the tanking situation. This is how he perceives the situation;

• The focus will be on match day moves rather than the meetings or any of the comments or directions the club allegedly delivered.

• They are looking at player commitment which I find just incredible

• Because of this the club feels that the advantage has swung our way in the past week

• Meetings were called without notice and often involved table thumping and stand over tactics.

• Bailey was interviewed 5 times just to try and find an inconsistency

• There is no way information was leaked from inside the club to Caro.

• AFL commission want this over and done with and out of the papers asap.

Anyway the sender is not one to talk crap so this sounds encouraging.

Extremely interesting if accurate as it means the investigation is purely on Rule 19 or as we have come to know it as " tanking". As I have said before in that case a bailey denial nearly kills it.

We then would not have to worry about " bringing the game into disrepute" and " draft tampering" which would die with a no tanking finding.

Positive news indeed if accurate.

[Macca 16,967]

Well, whatever we did at the time, whether we want to call it tanking, list management or whatever we want to call it, it was accepted practice at the time. All under the watchful eye of the AFL. Why, if it was such a heinous crime, didn't the AFL do something about it then? The fact that the AFL are acting now doesn't change the fact that they turned a blind eye back in '09. And that's where we will eventually end up. The retrospective nature of this inquiry is it's own achilles' heel.

Many clubs had embarked on this 'accepted practice' before our team did and in fact, last year the very same 'accepted practice' was undertaken by GWS. The AFL's own love child. Will the AFL turn the blowtorch on Allan, Williams, Sheedy and GWS?

We are meandering through a lot of unmarked roads and in the end we will reach a dead end. At some stage an impasse will be reached and it will fall into the 'Too hard basket' .

Edit: spelling

Edited January 14, 2013 by Macca

[rpfc 28,416]

BH has me ignored for some reason so I will throw this the community as a whole.

We didn't tank.

We tried to not win more than 4 games and did everything short of telling players to lose to ensure that. But everything short of telling players to lose is within the rules as the actions involved are - without proof of motive - generic moves in an AFL game (experimentation, rotations) and an AFL season (early surgeries, development).

I would have agreed that we 'tanked,' and said as much when we were doing it, but a narrow definition is required if you would like to see punishment attached to actions.

Demetriou has had it right all along with his very narrow interpretation based around telling players to lose.

So in conclusion - if 'tanking' to the AFL is, and it should be and will be if AD gets his way, telling players to lose...

We didn't tank.

As for the sh!touse culture - that has been around a great deal longer than 2008 and 2009 when we jettisoned older players, brought in an inordinate amount of youth, and refused to have winning against Richmond as a high priority.

I refuse to accept that our troubles begin and end with our 'bottoming out.' All those players that 'could see what was going on' are not contained in a vacuum - they partly brought it on themselves by being as inept, soft, and easily satisfied as they were.

[rpfc 28,416]

Well, whatever we did at the time, whether we want to call it tanking, list management or whatever we want to call it, it was accepted practice at the time. All under the watchful eye of the AFL. Why, if it was such a heinous crime, didn't the AFL do something about it then? The fact that the AFL are acting now doesn't change the fact that they turned a blind eye back in '09. And that's where we will eventually end up. The retrospective nature of this inquiry is it's own achilles' heal.

Many clubs had embarked on this 'accepted practice' before our team did and in fact, last year the very same 'accepted practice' was undertaken by GWS. The AFL's own love child. Will the AFL turn the blowtorch on Allan, Williams, Sheedy and GWS?

We are meandering through a lot of unmarked roads and in the end we will reach a dead end. At some stage an impasse will be reached and it will fall into the 'Too hard basket' .

What we did was what losing teams do in a draft regulated sport.

The 18 players on the ground tried their best and that is as much duty of care to the integrity of the sport a team needs to give on game day.

Why?

Because trying to prove otherwise is as futile and pointless as trying to convince the AFL Commission that PJ was a 'lumbering ruckman,' that Watts would have helped us win games in 2009, and arguing the toss over whether Miller and Bate should be playing in the middle.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

You're a worry Robbie, I genuinely think you've got a problem with diversity of view and are so racked with prejudice you can't see the argument for the person.

Yes, Bailey was appointed by the Gardner Board in 2008 after a though interview process involving people from outside the club and from within it. Bailey then was reappointed in 2010 by the Stynes Board after two years "form". Unlike the Gardner Board who were appointing a person with no experience as senior coach the Stynes Board appointed someone with two years experience and who they had had the benefit of working with for two years. They had much more information to work with than Gardner. If you argue that Bailey was a poor coach then how much worse was the Stynes Board's decision to extend his contract? On your grounds the decision was terrible and yet you want to sheet the blame to Gardner.

Bailey clearly made mistakes and Junior's dismissal was one of them. I've no problem recognizing his weaknesses and faults and I've said on many occasions I agree that he should have been replaced at the end of 2012.

When replacing him I think the Board should have interviewed people like Sanderson, they should have asked Lyon if he was interested in the job, I'd have expected them to do a though job looking at all possible candidates. But they didn't and when appointing Neeld there wasn't one person on the selection panel who had coached a game of AFL footy. You might be happy with that but I'm not because it's shoddy and so far below best practice it's frightening. I've not included Neeld in the same group as Junior, Bailey's dismissal etc because I haven't formed a view on his ability as an AFL coach. There is much to like and much to question and I'll wait and see whether that turns out to be a good decision. But regardless we should have at least picked up the phone and spoken to other coaching candidates because while Neeld may prove to be good we'll never know if we could have got better.

I can't be bothered answering for the hundredth time you're questions on Caro because you have you're view and I have mine and you don't listen.

What I find quite amusing is your divisiveness on this forum when you seek to belittle others with a different view and criticise them for their agenda's and accuse them of hurting the club. You're in the same boat Robbie because it should be clear to you that all who post here have nothing but the best interest of the club at heart. Sadly you're guilty of exactly what you accuse others of doing.

So let me get this right; I have a problem with diversity of opinion because I disagree with you and a few other nuff nuffs on here? I take it then that you agree with everyone; is that correct? I hate to put that as a question as I know you hate answering them.

Bailey was reappointed by the Stynes Board and I thought that it was a mistake at the time as did a lot of other MFC supporters; my belief was that Stynes was not really in a position at that time to make decisions like that and shouldn’t have, particularly at the time it was done.

So now you confirm it was Bailey and not the Board/Administration that sacked Junior, that’s a change from your original post.

I’m not sure whether Neeld will be a good coach or not but he has cleaned out the deadwood and instilled more hardness in the playing group in one year than the last couple of coaches ever would; will he be better or worse than any of the others available, only time will tell. It’s amazing to see all the smarties come out now and suggest Lyon; well remember at the time his manager said he wasn’t going anywhere and even he didn’t know what his plans were. Furthermore could we afford to pay him the $1m per year salary? Why do you think our last few coaches have been second or third tier?

You won’t answer the question about Wilson will you, apart from your generic “I reckon we get good information from her”, it doesn’t seem to worry you about the collateral damage we suffer.

Divisiveness; my only interest is the MFC and if that’s divisive then I’m on the wrong board.

[H_T 3,047]

BH has me ignored for some reason so I will throw this the community as a whole.

We didn't tank.

We tried to not win more than 4 games and did everything short of telling players to lose to ensure that. But everything short of telling players to lose is within the rules as the actions involved are - without proof of motive - generic moves in an AFL game (experimentation, rotations) and an AFL season (early surgeries, development).

I would have agreed that we 'tanked,' and said as much when we were doing it, but a narrow definition is required if you would like to see punishment attached to actions.

Demetriou has had it right all along with his very narrow interpretation based around telling players to lose.

So in conclusion - if 'tanking' to the AFL is, and it should be and will be if AD gets his way, telling players to lose...

We didn't tank.

As for the sh!touse culture - that has been around a great deal longer than 2008 and 2009 when we jettisoned older players, brought in an inordinate amount of youth, and refused to have winning against Richmond as a high priority.

I refuse to accept that our troubles begin and end with our 'bottoming out.' All those players that 'could see what was going on' are not contained in a vacuum - they partly brought it on themselves by being as inept, soft, and easily satisfied as they were.

Agree. And it's not toe-ing the club (company line)....it's toe-ing the AFL's line.

Why would he have you on ignore? Difference of opinion? Not enough Christmas pudding over the Christmas break perhaps; or too much..?

He'll come around. Send him a love letter...

[rpfc 28,416]

Bailey was reappointed by the Stynes Board and I thought that it was a mistake at the time as did a lot of other MFC supporters; my belief was that Stynes was not really in a position at that time to make decisions like that and shouldn’t have, particularly at the time it was done.

Just a quick one - that one year extension after 2009 was brilliant.

It gave Bailey an extra year to show what he could do after jumping on the 'bottoming out' grenade and if he was OOC after 2010 he would have got another 3 years.

He'd still be coach.

[pitchfork 181]

Were we tanking - of course.

Should it be punished and is it provable - of course not.

All sports that share a similar draft system find that poor teams participate in uncompetitive practices once there is no hope left other than the future. This is actually a good thing for all, youngs get blooded etc. etc.

No sport other than the AFL incentivises such behaviour so clearly. By offering priority picks they skewed the draft. Drafts allow all teams fair access to the recruiting pool. The priority picks changed this. 4 wins meant (prior to trades) Melbourne had pick 1,2,18... 5 wins would have resulted in 1, 17......There is no way that anyone in their right mind doesn't lose games to get the free pick.

The AFL made a huge error, they should admit as much and move on.

[DemonWA 3,934]

What we did was what losing teams do in a draft regulated sport.

The 18 players on the ground tried their best and that is as much duty of care to the integrity of the sport a team needs to give on game day.

Why?

Because trying to prove otherwise is as futile and pointless as trying to convince the AFL Commission that PJ was a 'lumbering ruckman,' that Watts would have helped us win games in 2009, and arguing the toss over whether Miller and Bate should be playing in the middle.

RPFC, we 'tanked'. I agree with Ben Hur, the club wanted the priority pick and positioned itself to get it. It might not sit well with you but we Tanked.

Did we break any AFL rules in doing so? No. Did the players picked give their all, Probably. Have countess other teams done the same thing? Yes. Infact, in 2012 the GWS giants tanked to get Lachie W and i believe West Coast probably Tanked better than any other side to get Gaff & Darling.

We dont deserve to be punished, but we did 'tank'

[Macca 16,967]

What we did was what losing teams do in a draft regulated sport.

The 18 players on the ground tried their best and that is as much duty of care to the integrity of the sport a team needs to give on game day.

Why?

Because trying to prove otherwise is as futile and pointless as trying to convince the AFL Commission that PJ was a 'lumbering ruckman,' that Watts would have helped us win games in 2009, and arguing the toss over whether Miller and Bate should be playing in the middle.

If tanking is the Coach telling the players to lay down and the players following those instructions then we didn't tank . Is this Vlad's definition of tanking? If it is, then his definition in the end could well help our cause.

Obviously a lot of this whole inquiry may depend on the definition of tanking - and there isn't a clear definition. It's a vague term which includes vague practice's.

1 - We tanked = list management etc

2 - We didn't tank = we didn't fix games (Vlad's version?)

Edited January 15, 2013 by Macca

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

Its amazing to see all the smarties come out now and suggest Lyon; well remember at the time his manager said he wasnt going anywhere and even he didnt know what his plans were. Furthermore could we afford to pay him the $1m per year salary? Why do you think our last few coaches have been second or third tier?

Also it's a bit much to suggest Lyon and be critical of our process to appoint Neeld not being rigorous enough because if we had of gone with Lyon it would not have been though a competitive process, rather it would have been a direct appointment like Freo had done. Edited January 14, 2013 by s-t-i-n-g-a

[Slartibartfast 17,273]

So let me get this right; I have a problem with diversity of opinion because I disagree with you and a few other nuff nuffs on here?

My comment to you weeks ago was that I thought you were a good supporter because of your passion and generosity. That I disagree with your views is of no concern. It's a shame you can't do the same because when you disagreed with mine you suggest the club would be better off without me. That is actually not supporting the club but you don't get that.

I'm glad you agree that Stynes reappointed Bailey therefore endorsing Gardner's decision. As it turns out it was another of their poor decisions but I'll not blame them for it as I agreed at the time as well.

[Courtney_Fish 183]

Just a word about playing guys out of position like some think is evidence of tanking - I wish it happened more often, eg Garland in 2012. Great coaches know just when and who to do this with.

Also our failure keeps being blamed on our culture. I have no idea about this and I guess most of the people using this reason wouldn't really know either. But what I suspect contributed in a big way is Daniher's holding on to players who were beyond their best. I think he did this because he thought premiership teams had a spread of ages in the team. As a result, after ND's departure, we ended up with a team with no middle aged players. (Geeze I hope everyone understands what I mean by "middle aged". Some people take stuff so literally.)

One thing I love about the current regime; if a player has had no nasty injuries, is not a junior and does not perform over the season then they are out. Petterd, Gisberts & Martin are examples. Davey seems to be an exception and I imagine he has some sort of injury he has been plagued with. (I will say though, re previous regimes, that the dropping of Woewodin was spot on.)