14 minutes ago, stuie said:

 

Yes, how "brash" of me to compliment your posts and explain it wasn't you I was having a go at....

 

 

 

 

 

You missed the post in question, it comes in after your second post and takes a swipe straight out of the bat. As I said, a bit brash. 

I accept what you have said, it is a miscommunication. 

1 hour ago, Chris said:

You forgot to include consequence in your assessment of the risk level. As he is not a superstar and is just an honest role player and therefore replaceable the consequence to the team of his suspensions is very low, hence the overall risk is low as well.

 

chris, disagree that the consequences if low reduce the risk. they just mean the reward is low, the risk is unchanged

so with melksham we have high risk, low reward (imo the risk is 50% or higher)

a high risk, low reward is generally something to be avoided. in addition the cost side (mid 20s pick, and 4x$400k)) was imo on the expensive side

at the end of the day if we lose him for a year it's not the end of the world, but the issue i have is the decision to trade him in the first place was dubious given our current on-field position.

goodwin i agree, seems to be quite low risk

Edited December 7, 20159 yr by daisycutter
added contract cost

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

chris, disagree that the consequences if low reduce the risk. they just mean the reward is low, the risk is unchanged

so with melksham we have high risk, low reward (imo the risk is 50% or higher)

a high risk, low reward is generally something to be avoided. in addition the cost side (mid 20s pick) was imo on the expensive side

at the end of the day if we lose him for a year it's not the end of the world, but the issue i have is the decision to trade him in the first place was dubious given our current on-field position.

goodwin i agree, seems to be quite low risk

someone gets it

11 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

chris, disagree that the consequences if low reduce the risk. they just mean the reward is low, the risk is unchanged

so with melksham we have high risk, low reward (imo the risk is 50% or higher)

a high risk, low reward is generally something to be avoided. in addition the cost side (mid 20s pick) was imo on the expensive side

at the end of the day if we lose him for a year it's not the end of the world, but the issue i have is the decision to trade him in the first place was dubious given our current on-field position.

goodwin i agree, seems to be quite low risk

Your logic is sound so one has to assume that those who traded him in see Melksham as low risk. Whether they are right or wrong remains to be seen. I'd like to think, though, that the decision to trade in Melksham was subjected to some rigorous risk assessment (or justification, if you like) by others independent of the recruiting team. Too often sporting clubs allow their passion to overwhelm logic. Whether the decision turns out to be inspired or lunacy, what matters most to me is that we went through a proper process. Even with a proper process, mistakes can be made. But they will be fewer in number and usually less damaging.

 

 

Edited December 7, 20159 yr by La Dee-vina Comedia
Spelling

12 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

chris, disagree that the consequences if low reduce the risk. they just mean the reward is low, the risk is unchanged

so with melksham we have high risk, low reward (imo the risk is 50% or higher)

a high risk, low reward is generally something to be avoided. in addition the cost side (mid 20s pick) was imo on the expensive side

at the end of the day if we lose him for a year it's not the end of the world, but the issue i have is the decision to trade him in the first place was dubious given our current on-field position.

goodwin i agree, seems to be quite low risk

The risk of what? Melksham being suspended is not in itself the risk, the risk is the effect the suspension has on the club. 

On another note, if the reward is low then surely the loss is also low?

Edited December 7, 20159 yr by Chris
spelling, grammar, argument, basically the whole comment needed work.

8 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

chris, disagree that the consequences if low reduce the risk. they just mean the reward is low, the risk is unchanged

so with melksham we have high risk, low reward (imo the risk is 50% or higher)

a high risk, low reward is generally something to be avoided. in addition the cost side (mid 20s pick) was imo on the expensive side

at the end of the day if we lose him for a year it's not the end of the world, but the issue i have is the decision to trade him in the first place was dubious given our current on-field position.

goodwin i agree, seems to be quite low risk

It is probable that the decision makers see Melksham as high reward and low risk. I see him as medium reward medium to high risk.

A lot of emotional positions taken in this thread recently based on few facts.  As I see it there are so many things we don't know that  cutting wrists or potting the club or otherwise is just fanciful.  (Some of the many) things we don't know:

1. what is in Milkshake's contract

2. what assurances about compensation for clubs which take potentially rubbed out players has the AFL made

3. how the club evaluated the possibility of losing Milkshake vs the benefits of getting him long term.  Maybe they see a lot more in him than those on here who think he was not worth the risk or the trade.

Just guessing but I think Mandee's view as medium reward medium to high risk is probably nearest the pin. Not a key player, so in short, nothing for us to lose sleep over.  And not enough justification for potting the club. 

As for Goodwin, I suspect the probability of him being targeted is low. But I can't see that it is zero.  So if I wanted to lose sleep (I don't), I'd focus my angst there.   And we can only guess what the club did about due diligence in appointing him taking into account risks vs benefits, plan B etc.

7 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Your logic is sound so one has to assume that those who traded him in see Melksham as low risk. Whether they are right or wrong remains to be seen. I'd like to think, though, that the decision to trade in Melksham was subjected to some rrigorous risk assessment (or justification, if you like) by others independent of the recruiting team. Too often sporting clubs allow their passion to overwhelm logic. Whether the decision turns out to be inspired or lunacy, what matters most to me is that we went through a proper process. Even with a proper process, mistakes can be made. But they will be fewer in number and usually less damaging.

or they saw it as high reward, thus justifying high risk?

the point is we don't know. we also can't just assume they went through a "rigorous risk assessment" or a "proper process". for all we know it could have been  gut feeling and emotion of reward that swayed the decision.....it does happen often in this business

Edited December 7, 20159 yr by daisycutter

5 minutes ago, sue said:

A lot of emotional positions taken in this thread recently based on few facts.  As I see it there are so many things we don't know that  cutting wrists or potting the club or otherwise is just fanciful.  (Some of the many) things we don't know:

1. what is in Milkshake's contract

2. what assurances about compensation for clubs which take potentially rubbed out players has the AFL made

3. how the club evaluated the possibility of losing Milkshake vs the benefits of getting him long term.  Maybe they see a lot more in him than those on here who think he was not worth the risk or the trade.

Just guessing but I think Mandee's view as medium reward medium to high risk is probably nearest the pin. Not a key player, so in short, nothing for us to lose sleep over.  And not enough justification for potting the club. 

As for Goodwin, I suspect the probability of him being targeted is low. But I can't see that it is zero.  So if I wanted to lose sleep (I don't), I'd focus my angst there.   And we can only guess what the club did about due diligence in appointing him taking into account risks vs benefits, plan B etc.

1. Club won't have to pay anything while he is suspended.

2. Do you mean money or permission to access extra players.  See 1 above and I doubt they would take on an extra player who would deny another young long term Demon an early game if that space opens up.

3. Good question. I didn't rate Bernie V much more highly than Milkshake. Mainly because I didn't know him that well. Boy am I glad to be enlightened on that one. Goodwin & McCarthy seem to see something in Milkshake that a lot of the rest of us don't. I'm happy to bow to their knowledge. Only time will tell. Possibly more time than we would have hoped. 

10 minutes ago, sue said:

Just guessing but I think Mandee's view as medium reward medium to high risk is probably nearest the pin. Not a key player, so in short, nothing for us to lose sleep over.  And not enough justification for potting the club.  High Risk , Low benefit. So why even bother with him ?  

As for Goodwin, I suspect the probability of him being targeted is low. But I can't see that it is zero.  So if I wanted to lose sleep (I don't), I'd focus my angst there.   And we can only guess what the club did about due diligence in appointing him taking into account risks vs benefits, plan B etc. Fair enough Lower risk  Higher Benefit, a rolling of dice

As I think it was Dees2014 who suggested  it might be a stretch too far to warrant much being thrown at Goody  ( if any ) that he might come away unscathed...might ( that's called luck )

Melksham reminds me of buying a Ute with no reg and no rwc but the salesman assures me its a good working goer

Why would I not be looking at the other utes available with better underwriting ?

3 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

As I think it was Dees2014 who suggested  it might be a stretch too far to warrant much being thrown at Goody  ( if any ) that he might come away unscathed...might ( that's called luck )

Melksham reminds me of buying a Ute with no reg and no rwc but the salesman assures me its a good working goer

Why would I not be looking at the other utes available with better underwriting ?

Because the salesmen are Goody and the Great McCarthy.

Because on the basis of their recommendation, we might all think he's a ute but they think he's a Monaro. 

Depends on how much you rate the salesmen. I rate them more highly than my opinion or anyone else on here. They both tinkered under the bonnet for a couple of years.

Edited December 7, 20159 yr by It's Time

7 minutes ago, It's Time said:

Because the salesmen are Goody and the Great McCarthy.

Because on the basis of their recommendation, we might all think he's a ute but they think he's a Monaro. 

Depends on how much you rate the salesmen. I rate them more highly than my opinion or anyone else on here. They both tinkered under the bonnet for a couple of years.

As the Fonz might have said ... exacatamoondo.

Not only do i rate their opinion (on this topic) more than that of my fellow DL posters (no offence meant) they also are privy to a hel of a lot more info than us (eg contract info, personal relationship, better understanding of impact of drugs scandal, any discussion with AFL about possible compensation in the event of suspensions, MFC contingency palnning etc etc)

Edited December 7, 20159 yr by binman

12 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

As I think it was Dees2014 who suggested  it might be a stretch too far to warrant much being thrown at Goody  ( if any ) that he might come away unscathed...might ( that's called luck )

Melksham reminds me of buying a Ute with no reg and no rwc but the salesman assures me its a good working goer

Why would I not be looking at the other utes available with better underwriting ?

 

9 minutes ago, It's Time said:

Because the salesmen are Goody and the Great McCarthy.

Because on the basis of their recommendation, we might all think he's a ute but they think he's a Monaro. 

Depends on how much you rate the salesmen. I rate them more highly than my opinion or anyone else on here. They both tinkered under the bonnet for a couple of years.

Maybe it's time we changed the name of this Forum from Demonland to "Analogies Are Us"

9 minutes ago, It's Time said:

Because the salesmen are Goody and the Great McCarthy.

Because on the basis of their recommendation, we might all think he's a ute but they think he's a Monaro. 

Depends on how much you rate the salesmen. I rate them more highly than my opinion or anyone else on here. They both tinkered under the bonnet for a couple of years.

Goody and Macca might be the Saleman...but they arent issuing the  RWC or registration. CAS and the AFL are.

3 minutes ago, binman said:

As the Fonz might have said ... exacatamoondo.

Not only do i rate their opinion (on this topic) more than that of my fellow DL posters (no offence meant) they also are privy to a hel of a lot more info than us (eg contract info, personal relationship, better understanding of impact of drugs scandal, any discussion with AFL about possible compensation in the event of suspensions, MFC contingency palnning etc etc)

Bang.

5 minutes ago, binman said:

As the Fonz might have said ... exacatamoondo.

Not only do i rate their opinion (on this topic) more than that of my fellow DL posters (no offence meant) they also are privy to a hel of a lot more info than us (eg contract info, personal relationship, better understanding of impact of drugs scandal, any discussion with AFL about possible compensation in the event of suspensions, MFC contingency palnning etc etc)

Surely you jest! I am yet to see one person in AFL land have any really appreciation of the impact the drug scandal may have. 

2 minutes ago, Chris said:

Surely you jest! I am yet to see one person in AFL land have any really appreciation of the impact the drug scandal may have. 

So you actually think posters on Demonland have a better understanding of the drug scandal than two AFL professionals who have been at EFC?

On 6 December 2015 at 1:00:28 PM, Macca said:

Couldn't those in charge at Essendon be pursued by WADA after the CAS case is over and done with? ... and might one of those in charge include Goodwin?

WADA Publishes List Of Banned Coaches And Support Staff For Doping Violations

Surely at least Hird, Charters, Alavi & Robinson would be charged at a later date if the players are found guilty ... even if the players are found not guilty then WADA should still go after the perpetrators (if WADA are confident that they can place the PED's at the EFC)

 

Macca, if they are found guilty I think it is more than likely the coaching, medical and some administrative staff will be issued with infraction notices by ASADA. Their (ASADA/WADA) main game are the perpetrators, but they have to establish that banned drugs were taken (ie by the players) before they can move against the main culprits. 

This is just the first round.

2 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Goody and Macca might be the Saleman...but they arent issuing the  RWC or registration. CAS and the AFL are.

To quote Sue...  "3. how the club evaluated the possibility of losing Milkshake vs the benefits of getting him long term."

I assume he's taken a provisional suspension again this summer on top of the one they all took last summer. That would add up to nearly 12 mths provisional suspension by the beginning of next season. If he gets the max 2 years. It means he misses a year. Bing 181 might be able to confirm whether those provisional suspensions will apply here or whether the clock only starts ticking once CAS hands down its decision. If its the former it might be worth the punt to miss a year at worst versus the benefit of getting him long term. If it's the latter and he's out for 2 years. It won't have been worth the gamble no matter how much they think he's worth.

7 minutes ago, Chris said:

Surely you jest! I am yet to see one person in AFL land have any really appreciation of the impact the drug scandal may have. 

Sorry i wasn't clear. I meant the impact the scandal might have had on Melksham. For example he had a terrific year in 2013 but fell away a bit in 2014 and 2015. Perhaps a factor was the ongoing drugs saga. Because of his personal relationship with Melksham Goodwin would likely have an intimate understanding of the impact, where as i and other DL posters (unless they knew the Melk personally) wouldn't. As i understand it the Melk and Goodwin have remained close after Goodwin left EFC

Edited December 7, 20159 yr by binman

10 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

 

Maybe it's time we changed the name of this Forum from Demonland to "Analogies Are Us"

 

9 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Goody and Macca might be the Saleman...but they arent issuing the  RWC or registration. CAS and the AFL are.

Quick LDC, get it changed before it becomes like Analogy Inception in here....

Hmm another thread of squabbling.

Looks familiar.

12 minutes ago, Chris said:

Surely you jest! I am yet to see one person in AFL land have any really appreciation of the impact the drug scandal may have. 

exactly

and on the reward side of professionals knowing more about melksham's ability than us, i just like to remember dawes and lumumba. there are others too, but you get my point.

it boils down to the intangibles. can melksham turn back the clock a couple of years and build on the potential he had or is he damaged goods now

it's a punt that only time will tell. it's a punt that we are all entitled to have a reasonable opinion on based on past knowledge

p.s. i'd like to think/hope melksham can turn out to be good player (when he plays) but i'd still have to rate him low or low/medium return at the moment

Edited December 7, 20159 yr by daisycutter

8 minutes ago, stuie said:

So you actually think posters on Demonland have a better understanding of the drug scandal than two AFL professionals who have been at EFC?

Yes. EFC were surprised by the appeal for crying out loud. The AFL have this whole grander than thou attitude that normally works but they didn't realise WADA don't give a stuff and will barge in where they see fit, as they have. 

In short the AFL are a joke when it comes to drugs in sport, the evidence of their ineptitude is everywhere to be seen and goes to all levels from the top admin staff to the juniors at AusKick. 

10 minutes ago, It's Time said:

To quote Sue...  "3. how the club evaluated the possibility of losing Milkshake vs the benefits of getting him long term."

I assume he's taken a provisional suspension again this summer on top of the one they all took last summer. That would add up to nearly 12 mths provisional suspension by the beginning of next season. If he gets the max 2 years. It means he misses a year. Bing 181 might be able to confirm whether those provisional suspensions will apply here or whether the clock only starts ticking once CAS hands down its decision. If its the former it might be worth the punt to miss a year at worst versus the benefit of getting him long term. If it's the latter and he's out for 2 years. It won't have been worth the gamble no matter how much they think he's worth.

you cant take another provisonal...thats a furphy Im affraid. There has been a finding.. Now there's an appeal. Only up to the orignal tribunal would suspensions have counted.

 

Melksham has been at training