Mark 'suntanned as all [censored]' Evans makes me sick to the stomach. His initial comments re the pp were a clear message to the commission as to what he wanted. As for Gil, I'm convinced he is nothing but an impersonator of AD. His Brownlow call was a carbon copy, from the voice to the speeding up of the call. He will prove a horrible, horrible choice IMO.

You need to address the things related to being a Dees supporter you can control and those you can't. You can't control outside perceptions and you can't control the decisions made internally. You can control the way in which you choose to react. I simply have decided not to lament on the past because it's a waste of my energy. I'm not going to waste my emotionally energy worrying about the AFL and their decision making processes. I can't control that.

That's a measured response and (assuming that your support of the team is the equal of mine) I am envious of your ability to disassociate yourself with the incredibly poor results the club has served up over the last 8 years.

Although my post quoted yours it was not an attack on you, rather a venting of the frustration pent up at the countless people who say "it's our fault/ we brought this on ourselves/ he labelled us as a basket case" placing us (the supporters) in the same basket as the people who put us in this situation. It's not the 17,218 supporters that turned up to watch us get belted by GWS that are the issue, it was never them and it never will be.

Unfortunately, as a supporter, what I can control is very, very limited when compared to what I can't and unfortunately, it's what I can't control that frustrates me the most.

I don't lament the past or the machinations of the AFL. The AFL I can accept, the past I cannot. It frustrates me beyond belief to say that I have seen more 10+goal beltings over the last 8 years than a Geelong supporter has seen losses. How are we different to Geelong supporters? I was (and many of you were too) born in to supporting this club. That's it. That's the only difference.

Writing that prompted me to ignore the documents on my desk and do this analysis (self-flagellating I know):

geelong loss more than 10 goals

2014 5 5

2013 4 12

2012 7 6

2011 3 4

2010 5 0

2009 4 2

2008 1 7

2007 4 3

33 39

EDIT: the table didn't transfer across from excel properly...

I wasn't being condescending. I've seen what can happen when people make some noise on a footy forum. I think Gutnick's demise owed much to those campaigning strongly against him on the internet. I'm all for people bringing about change through the power of their convictions and their ability to move other people. My point centres more on the ability to remain constructive as opposed to becoming overly cynical, particularly about past administrations and the AFL. If we as a supporter group become overly cynical, we'll never bring about change again because by definition we'll think it's all in vain and that self-interest will ensure Melbourne never again has the opportunity to realistically challenge for a flag.

Cynical is not good, agreed and sorry by the way, I accept you were not being condescending.

I'm quite happy to call them out on it when I hear BS being talked and in this case it was in the truckloads. I don't think they should put out a statement of crystal balling facts, I would rather they put the truth on the table. In this case they didn't want to go against the wishes of the other clubs rather than state stuff about what could have been and what might be. Integrity is a big buzz word in the AFL, they just continually fail to deliver on it.

So, I'm not being cynical when I say that DH Evans is doing such a bad job he makes Anderson look the best football boss ever. Love his new work of bringing Whately and Johnny Ralph on board to sort out the match review system by the way. Hell, he might as well bring in Joffa & Trout whilst he's at it.

I think Dill is a hand wringer and has no real nuts, I think Mike Fitzpatrick has a couple of massive conflicts of interest, one which saved Carlton from a tanking enquiry and another that keeps us playing footy on the worst ground in the competition and I think if the standard of the notification from, A Dill, a supposed lawyer sent to the club on the priority pick is anything to go by then he is not up to scratch either. 'Dr Gonzo' has already noted most of the flaws in that silly document.

We are in a good position to know poor management when we see it, we've seen it before.

Mark 'suntanned as all [censored]' Evans makes me sick to the stomach. His initial comments re the pp were a clear message to the commission as to what he wanted. As for Gil, I'm convinced he is nothing but an impersonator of AD. His Brownlow call was a carbon copy, from the voice to the speeding up of the call. He will prove a horrible, horrible choice IMO.

Yes, no doubt his original comments were just a precurser so that he could reject the submission out of hand without ever really considering its merits.

Probably HL if he is happy to play with us.

The Pies along with the Bombers are known as very difficult to deal with.

However, considering they want MC and want to get rid of HL, I would play hardball and seek something else be it player or pick.

Neale Daniher called on the club to become ruthless when he was Coach. I am still waiting to see it. Now would be a good time to start.

My view is ask for HL and a draft pick if the Pies are the only bidders and wont play ball on that deal let him go into the draft and run the risk of the saints or GWS picking him.

We would end with nothing which is what we have now but at least we would set a precedent of not being push overs as in the past.

interesting that I heard Ralph on SEN saying the MFC are going to be ruthless with the list this trade period.

JW and Toumpas had been offered but no takers, take it for what it is worth but I think on this occasion smoke probably suggests fire.

My view is ask for HL and a draft pick if the Pies are the only bidders and wont play ball on that deal let him go into the draft and run the risk of the saints or GWS picking him.

We would end with nothing which is what we have now but at least we would set a precedent of not being push overs as in the past.

interesting that I heard Ralph on SEN saying the MFC are going to be ruthless with the list this trade period.

JW and Toumpas had been offered but no takers, take it for what it is worth but I think on this occasion smoke probably suggests fire.

I'm big on being vindictive, and based on what has come to light in the MC story so far, feel that it would be a justified response. However, history says that won't work. Luke Ball couldn't get a trade to the pies and went in to the draft. He pretty much refused to go to any other club and wound up at the pies with pick 32(?). Nick Stevens is a slightly different example, but an example none the less.

Unfortunately we need every bit of help we can get, whether it be Harry O or a 4th round draft pick. If Mitch Clark goes to another club we need something in return.

I'd like to see the club try and block Clarks move or explore legal avenues surrounding the issue.

We mightn't get an outcome, but it will signal to the AFL that we won't just be bent over.

Losing Frawley, Clark and Rivers through FA has set the club back.

I'm big on being vindictive, and based on what has come to light in the MC story so far, feel that it would be a justified response. However, history says that won't work. Luke Ball couldn't get a trade to the pies and went in to the draft. He pretty much refused to go to any other club and wound up at the pies with pick 32(?). Nick Stevens is a slightly different example, but an example none the less.

Unfortunately we need every bit of help we can get, whether it be Harry O or a 4th round draft pick. If Mitch Clark goes to another club we need something in return.

I dont disagree Beats but it would be nice all the same.

If push came to shove I would take HL in exchange at least we know his legs are ok.

I'm big on being vindictive, and based on what has come to light in the MC story so far, feel that it would be a justified response. However, history says that won't work. Luke Ball couldn't get a trade to the pies and went in to the draft. He pretty much refused to go to any other club and wound up at the pies with pick 32(?). Nick Stevens is a slightly different example, but an example none the less.

Unfortunately we need every bit of help we can get, whether it be Harry O or a 4th round draft pick. If Mitch Clark goes to another club we need something in return.

The difference with Ball is he went in the National Draft not PSD. Clubs would be more likely to take a risk in the PSD lime the Blues did with Stevens.

I'm big on being vindictive, and based on what has come to light in the MC story so far, feel that it would be a justified response. However, history says that won't work. Luke Ball couldn't get a trade to the pies and went in to the draft. He pretty much refused to go to any other club and wound up at the pies with pick 32(?). Nick Stevens is a slightly different example, but an example none the less.

Unfortunately we need every bit of help we can get, whether it be Harry O or a 4th round draft pick. If Mitch Clark goes to another club we need something in return.

May end up a swap of 2nd (Pies) and 3rd (Dees) round picks, if this comes to fruition.

May end up a swap of 2nd (Pies) and 3rd (Dees) round picks, if this comes to fruition.

We lose a pick 12, match winner if fit, for an 11 place improvement from our 3rd round pick. Don't think so.

We lose a pick 12, match winner if fit, for a 7 place improvement from our 3rd round pick. Don't think so.

its not about what was...but about what is

its not about what was...but about what is

Trouble is we don't know what is, only what might be.

The difference with Ball is he went in the National Draft not PSD. Clubs would be more likely to take a risk in the PSD lime the Blues did with Stevens.

There's no difference? Players can nominate to be in one or both. Luke Ball chose to go in to the ND, he had the option of the PSD as well, but because the ND is before the PSD it didn't matter. The same option is available to Mitch Clark. As you point out, clubs are more likely to take a risk in the PSD, which is probably the reason that Ball went through the ND instead.

There's no difference? Players can nominate to be in one or both. Luke Ball chose to go in to the ND, he had the option of the PSD as well, but because the ND is before the PSD it didn't matter. The same option is available to Mitch Clark. As you point out, clubs are more likely to take a risk in the PSD, which is probably the reason that Ball went through the ND instead.

I'm not sure Clark has that option.

I'm not sure Clark has that option.

"If Melbourne delists Clark, his options would then depend on the terms of his release that were negotiated in April:

• If Clark had officially retired as part of his release from Melbourne, he must make his way to another club via either the draft or pre-season draft.

• If he did not retire then he could become a delisted free agent and be picked up by a club of his choice. "

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2014-09-07/dees-want-say-in-clarks-plans-for-2015

Pretty sure it's been reported that he retired, rather than us delisting him.

There's no difference? Players can nominate to be in one or both. Luke Ball chose to go in to the ND, he had the option of the PSD as well, but because the ND is before the PSD it didn't matter. The same option is available to Mitch Clark. As you point out, clubs are more likely to take a risk in the PSD, which is probably the reason that Ball went through the ND instead.

Yeah but then it means Collingwood have to waste a pick on him they otherwise wouldn't have to.

So when do we appeal this? Before or after we get pick 22 for losing our All Australian key defender? Perhaps after the Cats give us pick 36 for Clark?

Why was the AFL decision on assitance wrong.

1. In 12 months we have lost our key tall forward and key tall back, both leaders at the club and both in the top 8-10 players at the club. Take out Roughead and Lake from Hawthorn and it would have a big effect let alone on ide without a decent midfield.

2. We have less experience in the list than just about everyone else in the comp

3. Our backline depth is questionable without chip

4. We have 4 AFL standard midfielders (Jones, Cross, Tyson and Vince), and a couple of youndsters who may make it

5. We dont have a forward line other than Dawes and an untried youngster

6. One decent ruckman due to retire in a year or so (Hopefully Gawn comes on).

6. There is no one banging the door down in the Magoos coming through.

This list cannot and will not be fixed this draft/trade period. We are not in the position to attract players without paying overs and are not in the financial position to do that. That also ensures that existing players have to accept less and then get better offers elsewhere. The club is already negotiating with Chunk but he and Garland are out of contract and eligble as RFA's and the end of next year. The same pressures will be on them as was on Chip and given recent history at least or one or both will walk. Hawthorn, Geelong, Collingwood, hell eveyone will be banging Chunks door down. he is statistically A grade and in his prime.

The AFL continues its conservative approach and is influenced by other clubs in an attempt to placate the equalisation tax but in the process will condem us to years in the dulldrums.