On 06/06/2013 at 14:55, P_Man said:

Are you serious? I thought it was widely acknowledged that debuting Watts in that manner was the wrong decision. It was like watching a lamb get slaughtered. He was clearly a target for them to make a statement. His first touch he was smashed from all sides by about four Collingwood players. Alot of people formed their opinion of Watts in that game and haven't wavered since.

This is fantastic of Jackson. We need to retain Watts. The kids love him for one thing (I know that doesn't seem to rate as very important in the minds of some which I find odd to say the least), but if we ever become a good team, he'll have a big role to play. Slowly but surely I've noticed his physicality improving as well. Small but positive steps.

Playing him was bad enough but the disgraceful marketing leading up to the game was what did him in.

  On 06/06/2013 at 23:15, Jarka said:

Playing him was bad enough but the disgraceful marketing leading up to the game was what did him in.

Exactly, announcing him as the 'number one draft pick' on the day was ridiculous.

  On 06/06/2013 at 20:25, hogans_heroes said:

Peter Jackson has done more in 5 weeks than Schwab did in 5 years

I will start by saying that I'm happy he has taken on the CEO role, but what exactly has he done in the last 5 weeks that leads you to make that comment? He has introduced Watts to Watson (great initiative by the way) and he has helped the board achieve a stay of execution for Mark Neeld (while I am very happy with that, I would have thought that would have not sat well with you). Apart from those two acts, what else has he actually achieved? He has been in the process of identifying weaknesses in the current system and he has, I assume, been piecing together a report as a result...but those are things anyone being brought into a club that is struggling, would be expected to do; and we are yet to hear the results and what actions will be taken.

Once he starts acting on his assessments and once he starts bringing in the sponsors (something Schwab did well considering the poor performances the club was producing), then I will start to judge his performance.

  On 06/06/2013 at 20:21, SidVicious said:

Oh dear.

The CEO involving himself in football matters.

That's a no no, surely?

Where are the crackleheads calling for him to be sacked for poor governance?

You really don't get it do you.

  On 06/06/2013 at 20:21, SidVicious said:

Oh dear.

The CEO involving himself in football matters.

That's a no no, surely?

Where are the crackleheads calling for him to be sacked for poor governance?

Cut it out Jack. If you are going to say something, then at least be yourself.

I assumed that Jackson would only have done this after consulting with the footy dept. Given that Jackson himself came out and was pretty clear about the divisions he sees between CEO and FD, it is kinda obvious what would have gone on.

  On 06/06/2013 at 23:55, timD said:

Cut it out Jack. If you are going to say something, then at least be yourself.

I assumed that Jackson would only have done this after consulting with the footy dept. Given that Jackson himself came out and was pretty clear about the divisions he sees between CEO and FD, it is kinda obvious what would have gone on.

Jack?

And, yeah, one thing is the same as the other.

Getting Jobe to talk to Jack is not meddling in the FD, nor is it having 4 people reporting to you on the 'goings-on' in the FD.

The guy hasn't got the heart or desire, trade for midfielder.

  On 07/06/2013 at 00:00, rpfc said:

Jack?

And, yeah, one thing is the same as the other.

Getting Jobe to talk to Jack is not meddling in the FD, nor is it having 4 people reporting to you on the 'goings-on' in the FD.

No it's not, it's actually running the FD not meddling in it.

  On 07/06/2013 at 00:19, rjay said:

No it's not, it's actually running the FD not meddling in it.

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand - I am saying that getting Jobe to talk to Jack is not the same as Schwabs' meddling which was not helped by having 4 parallel lines of communication/authority coming to him from the FD.

Jackson has already said their needs to be 1 boss of the FD.

Apologies if you were agreeing with my statement.

  On 06/06/2013 at 23:22, hardtack said:

I will start by saying that I'm happy he has taken on the CEO role, but what exactly has he done in the last 5 weeks that leads you to make that comment? He has introduced Watts to Watson (great initiative by the way) and he has helped the board achieve a stay of execution for Mark Neeld (while I am very happy with that, I would have thought that would have not sat well with you). Apart from those two acts, what else has he actually achieved? He has been in the process of identifying weaknesses in the current system and he has, I assume, been piecing together a report as a result...but those are things anyone being brought into a club that is struggling, would be expected to do; and we are yet to hear the results and what actions will be taken.

Once he starts acting on his assessments and once he starts bringing in the sponsors (something Schwab did well considering the poor performances the club was producing), then I will start to judge his performance.

Fair point, but he cant evaluate the club in 5 weeks. Take the time to make the right decisions, not half-baked reactive decisions that continue to get us in the .... year after year.

  On 06/06/2013 at 13:44, Ben-Hur said:

Yes. Terribly important.

My God your avatars, who cares what you say.

  On 07/06/2013 at 00:24, rpfc said:

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand - I am saying that getting Jobe to talk to Jack is not the same as Schwabs' meddling which was not helped by having 4 parallel lines of communication/authority coming to him from the FD.

Jackson has already said their needs to be 1 boss of the FD.

Apologies if you were agreeing with my statement.

Cheers... missed the "it".

  On 07/06/2013 at 00:48, Redleg said:

My God your avatars, who cares what you say.

He doesn't necessarily need the avatars.

  On 06/06/2013 at 13:44, Ben-Hur said:

Yes. Terribly important.

  On 07/06/2013 at 00:48, Redleg said:

My God your avatars, who cares what you say.

  On 07/06/2013 at 01:12, hardtack said:

He doesn't necessarily need the avatars.

  On 06/06/2013 at 13:09, tonatopia said:

I like pj more and more every day.

Let's see how he can manipulate our current board structure.

Same here! It's obvious what a better board and a better FD can do. The effects they can have on the whole playing group and their development is extraordinary. Now we're starting to see what a good board actually does.

  On 06/06/2013 at 14:55, P_Man said:

Are you serious? I thought it was widely acknowledged that debuting Watts in that manner was the wrong decision. It was like watching a lamb get slaughtered. He was clearly a target for them to make a statement. His first touch he was smashed from all sides by about four Collingwood players. Alot of people formed their opinion of Watts in that game and haven't wavered since.

This is fantastic of Jackson. We need to retain Watts. The kids love him for one thing (I know that doesn't seem to rate as very important in the minds of some which I find odd to say the least), but if we ever become a good team, he'll have a big role to play. Slowly but surely I've noticed his physicality improving as well. Small but positive steps.

he got tackled, bounced straight up to receive a free kick.. you call that getting 'smashed' ? what game were you watching? perfect example of the utter tripe peddled by the media which is inexplicably and ashamedly attested to by our own supporters for some horrible reason

  On 06/06/2013 at 23:20, Django said:

Exactly, announcing him as the 'number one draft pick' on the day was ridiculous.

more revisionist BS, show me your post from around that time that did not approve of it

keyboard warriors around here get everything right years after it happens

and BTW Watts is a footballer, you don't play a game of footy and get traumatized for life because of it, what kind of idiot believes that

oh the opposition tackled me, better not play good footy again ever

you people blow my mind sometimes

and BTW the censored word there was a 5 letter one starting with I.. yeah that really naughty one.. you must be having a laugh DLAnd

  On 07/06/2013 at 07:58, Curry & Beer said:

he got tackled, bounced straight up to receive a free kick.. you call that getting 'smashed' ? what game were you watching? perfect example of the utter tripe peddled by the media which is inexplicably and ashamedly attested to by our own supporters for some horrible reason

Agree 'Curry', the rubbish that's talked about this has become an urban myth. He got tackled by a few payers, big deal. I can't believe people still come out with this as an excuse for the poor development of Watts and others. There are a lot of reasons why Watts and some of our players have not developed, one of them is they just weren't or aren't good enough.

Look at Joe Danniher tonight, big Friday night game, traditional rivals, skinny underdeveloped kid, you don't think his club is pushing the marketing angle there, you don't think they played the media with his debut. How abut Mitchell last week for the Swans, they let him quietly sneak into his first game without any media fan fare, I don't think so.

2 different coaches, Malthouse as a mentor, now Watson? Anyone else wanna have a crack at firing this kid up?

  On 07/06/2013 at 08:31, Curry & Beer said:

and BTW the censored word there was a 5 letter one starting with I.. yeah that really naughty one.. you must be having a laugh DLAnd

You're an angry, angry man.

And I doubt anyone is saying his entire career was dictated by one tackle. I am merely saying that the BIG REVEAL of our No.1 draft pick (read skinny school kid) on the biggest stage our club has probably wasn't the best decision at the time, and I think that was reflected in the game, although you seem to have a very different recollection of his debut. Either that or you're just having fun disagreeing with people.

  On 07/06/2013 at 09:54, P_Man said:

You're an angry, angry man.

And I doubt anyone is saying his entire career was dictated by one tackle. I am merely saying that the BIG REVEAL of our No.1 draft pick (read skinny school kid) on the biggest stage our club has probably wasn't the best decision at the time, and I think that was reflected in the game, although you seem to have a very different recollection of his debut. Either that or you're just having fun disagreeing with people.

I assure you I don't find it fun at all. There are so many fabricated garbage opinions fed to us by the media and opposition clubs.. that is one thing. What I can't stand is our own supporters adopting these "myths" (correct rjay) as if they were facts and potting the club for them.Watts' debut was an attempt by Stynes to generate some publicity and passion for the club, and was engineered by the revered Jimmy Stynes.

There is nothing wrong with that, it is us trying to raise our pitiful profile in the public arena, something every person on this board would agree is an important things for us to do. The way it was handled does not have the slightest thing to do with where Watts is at now, to say otherwise just shows a lack of common sense and logic.

What else? Neeld's recruiting? Yeah that's right let's just join the media and pot his so-called 'moneyball' strategy that apparently hasn't worked. Never mind the fact that he gave up almost nothing and has brought a handful of decent assets to the club, and in one draft we secured Viney, Toumpas, Hogan and Barry. It is the same garbage about bagging Prendergast because of Morton, even though picking him at 4 was an auto-pick that every single club in the comp would have done. I've already mentioned this 'alienating the senior players' rubbish, this is the group of players that have been universally blamed for our woes for years. Most backed this approach at the time, but now we are on the bottom of the ladder everyone looks back and goes 'gee that was the wrong thing to do'. These myths go on forever.

Look I am obviously not blindly defending Neeld or the past and present club in general, how can I with the rubbish they are serving up. I am just saying it helps nothing to perpetuate these fairy tales about was and is going on at the club.

Just watching the Dons vs Carlton. Watching Daniher. Don't ever want to hear about young talls taking longer. Young Daniher has had more physical contact in one game than Watts in one season.

  On 07/06/2013 at 11:34, frankie_d said:

Just watching the Dons vs Carlton. Watching Daniher. Don't ever want to hear about young talls taking longer. Young Daniher has had more physical contact in one game than Watts in one season.

He's been poor, are you actually watching?

Watts start to hit some form in the forward line under Bailey in 10' and 11. Despite the slow start this would still be on track given the 3-4 year development phase we allow for KP's. When Neeld arrived, Watts was give. 5 or 6 games in a fully dysfunctional side before being uprooted to the backline. Since he's been played on the wing, again down back and a little forward.

I'm stating the obvious but how can we expect Jack to develop and really own a position if he's not given the chance to do so. This year is about development now so i implore Neeld to leave Jack in the forward line. With Clark returning, Dawes down there and Howey as well, Jack getting the third best defender won't be a bad thing for the kid.