We need a cleanout

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Do you have any association or connection with the MFC board?

You are slow. You have asked me that before and I have answered it.

I have also stated that elsewhere on this Forum what my association is.

Once more it is No. Read No.

Geez, you miss so much for someone who makes categorical assessments of public figures.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

"1. Bate was taken as a junior age footballer in the draft and was expected to take longer than normal to develop "

Exactly my point. We were fixed in our belief that , because he was young,he'd take ages to be ready. If he'd been given a go in '05(which would have been a gutsy move), he wouldn't be having 2nd yr blues now! But don't worry, I've a feeling it'll be a short-lived case of the blues!

We were fixed in our belief that Scottie Thomson could only play 50min,and we were fixed in our belief that Arma wasn't good enough.

My point is that we don't show courage in our selection,or in allocation of game-time,resulting in a lack of faith in our youngsters. The same applies to our game tactics.

Do YOU think ,if he was on our list,we'd have given Krakouer a go as early as they did?

He took time to develop because he just a boy playing a man's game. He did the ready development at Sandy and was debuted with success last year. It validates the success of his development. When he first started at Sandy he struggled. So how ws he going to cut it at AFL level. The days of playing 15yo Timmy Watsons in the top league are gone. Some people think that you can just take a young bloke say hey presto and just add water and you have an immediate AFL footballer. Its the rare, highly talented player that can bridge that enormous gap between U17s and AFL. Many of the cream struggle. Bate was taken 12 months younger than the typical top recruit.

And that's bulltish about Scott Thomson who had a chequered fitness career at MFC and finshed his final year injured after being the No 1 midfielder we had.

Armas is still a fringe player in a better team. Who is competing with on WCE list for the crumber role? I am sure you will say he's got a membership medallion to prove it. Good on him. Shannon Motlop has one too. I dont rate him.

Have a look at the teams we fielded last year and count the number of 3 year or less players we had in the team. Look at how MFC young players have featured in rising star award. Lack of courage.....Bollocks. But keep pushing the myth.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

RR probably doesnt', but that doesn't stop him being 100% correct.

The first test for the Board has been passed with flying colours, providing the Demons with some self-respect off the ground, and a stable platfrom for the Football Dept.

Second test comes at the end of THIS season. Decide what's acceptable and what isn't regading On-field performance.

I've met my alter ego, the President. If he doesn't have a strong view and get it done, then I'll change my Moniker.

Fair dinkum - do you want Beverly O'Connor out there playing CHF.

Hang on a minute......

Common Sense is a rare commodity in this neck of the woods TPGS.

Well done.

Careful they might pair Bev at CHF with Saunter at FF.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

You are slow. You have asked me that before and I have answered it.

I have also stated that elsewhere on this Forum what my association is.

Once more it is No. Read No.

Geez, you miss so much for someone who makes categorical assessments of public figures.

Last time I asked you if you were associated with the football department, not the board.

All I can say is "Geez, you miss so much for someone who makes categorical assessments of public figures."

I obviously have not seen where you stated your association.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Last time I asked you if you were associated with the football department, not the board.

All I can say is "Geez, you miss so much for someone who makes categorical assessments of public figures."

I obviously have not seen where you stated your association.

I said I was not associated with the Football Department when you asked.

If I was on the Board I would be responsible for the ultimate apppointment and conduct of the football department.

So how could I be on MFC Board if I am not associated with the MFC Football Dept?

Marvellous. You dont read the posts after you ask the question.

You must have seen it you replied to it!

http://demonland.nozzs.org/forum/index.php...c=4981&st=0

Post 20.

Before you ask I am not involved in any other dept of MFC.

[Guest dee'viator]

I said I was not associated with the Football Department when you asked.

If I was on the Board I would be responsible for the ultimate apppointment and conduct of the football department.

So how could I be on MFC Board if I am not associated with the MFC Football Dept?

Marvellous. You dont read the posts after you ask the question.

You must have seen it you replied to it!

http://demonland.nozzs.org/forum/index.php...c=4981&st=0

Post 20.

Before you ask I am not involved in any other dept of MFC.

Thank christ for that, you wouldn't last long.

[occo 2]

key positions have always been a problem, especially down back. But thier is real quality in those 8 midfielders, often its not the individuals but the combination of players. throw judd, and Borgoyne in with any 6 of our boys and away we go! just an example .

Yeah i guess the issue is we havnt had a Judd or Borgoyne for a while. Infact most teams have a great great player:

Adel: Roo

Bris: Power, Black, Voss

Port: Cournes

WB: Scotty West

WCE: Judd, Kerr, Cousins

Freo: Bell, Pav

etc etc etc

I guess what i mean is we need to recruit lots of midfielders so our chances of a sensational midfielder are increased. Yes Brock will be good, i can here u say. Perhaps my 8 was a little over exadurated, 5 would be more approaprate. KPP are the crutial area like FB, CHB, Ruck, CHF and FF

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I said I was not associated with the Football Department when you asked.

If I was on the Board I would be responsible for the ultimate apppointment and conduct of the football department.

So how could I be on MFC Board if I am not associated with the MFC Football Dept?

Marvellous. You dont read the posts after you ask the question.

You must have seen it you replied to it!

http://demonland.nozzs.org/forum/index.php...c=4981&st=0

Post 20.

Before you ask I am not involved in any other dept of MFC.

I was asking whether you were associated with people who are part of the football department / on the board...

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I was asking whether you were associated with people who are part of the football department / on the board...

You dont read or cant comprehend.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

You dont read or cant comprehend.

I asked if you know people in the football department.

I then asked if you know people on the board.

They are two separate things. I never asked if you were on the board.

Like you pointed out, if you were on the board then obviously you would have an association with the football department. But I never asked that.

I did not intend for that initial question about the board to sound like I was asking if you were on it. Rather if you were associated with the people on the board. I can see where there may be confusion.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Being associated and knowing people are not the same thing. You can know people in the MFC Footy Dept and the Board without having an association with either group.

And before you ask......Its No to both categories.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Being associated and knowing people are not the same thing. You can know people in the MFC Footy Dept and the Board without having an association with either group.

Fair enough.

[grazman 6,414]

key positions have always been a problem, especially down back. But thier is real quality in those 8 midfielders, often its not the individuals but the combination of players. throw judd, and Borgoyne in with any 6 of our boys and away we go! just an example .

I'm very keen to throw Judd in with our midfielders.

[phoenix 32]

I asked if you know people in the football department.

What's the relevance?

Rather than trying to shoot down his arguments based on the fact that he's in some way associated with the club you should try and shoot down his arguments based on their substance. At the moment your approach is doing nothing other than convincing readers you have no counter to offer and are now trying to discredit the poster. You'd be perfectly suited to politics.

In my opinion RR is one of the few who go beyond the emotional swill that characterizes many of the offerings of posters as he tries to rationally assess the situation.

Thanks Rhino. That you show the energy to debate in the way you do is amazing. That so few listen to you is even more so.

[steve_f 40]

Re " Few, if any are tradeable"

I only want to save the TPP and spots on the list so we can pick up a Judd or an Alwyn Davies.

Re "We can only realistic get rid of 5 to six players each year."

Yep, as they come out of contract.

Re "What is critical is what is happening to your critical players who are vital to your success and are the backbone of your side..."

But we still have more quality mid-fielders than when we just had Chell, A MacDonald, and then ?? in the early naughties. The Umpies have it right when voting for the Brownlow; it is all about strong mid-fielders. You can make do with Rucks, defenders and Forwards who play (eg. lead) in the way expected and put in (therefore, Newton not Jamar at FF).

Re "They are the players that win and lose you games. Not the fringe players"

But a few months ago, you spent a number of posts canning my idea that depth was over-rated.

Re "Before you have a ping at the Board do you actually understand their strategy and the decisions they have put in place?

It appears not. But dont let that stop yo citing Motlop's gut being a reason for failing. When was he critical last year? Pickett for his lack of fitness last year was actually important to us in 2006.

My opinion as a professional project manager is that there are a number of areas of incompetence. I.E. other people plan stuf and it happens. E.g. Pickett's gut should been identified as an obvious risk and contingency plans (ha! ha! as if it were not going to happen) been implemented in Feb 06 and Feb 07. The players for years, do not implement on the field a plan that they can manage and serves the purpose (if any) of the coach.

Re 'But you are complaining about the Board and Pickett's gut and you want to give him another year?

I want him to play another year about 6 - 8 kgs lighter than he turned up last year. If he were contracted to me, he would. Or he would go. Either way works for me. I would [censored] in his pocket and try and find out why, but bottom line; ta-ta gut with or without Byron attached. Ditto, Motlop last year. and 3 kgs worth for Robbo.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

What's the relevance?

Rather than trying to shoot down his arguments based on the fact that he's in some way associated with the club you should try and shoot down his arguments based on their substance. At the moment your approach is doing nothing other than convincing readers you have no counter to offer and are now trying to discredit the poster. You'd be perfectly suited to politics.

In my opinion RR is one of the few who go beyond the emotional swill that characterizes many of the offerings of posters as he tries to rationally assess the situation.

Thanks Rhino. That you show the energy to debate in the way you do is amazing. That so few listen to you is even more so.

I just asked the question if he knew people on the board because he seems to know a lot about what they do / have done (compared to most people anyway). And seeing as not many people have such knowledge it's interesting to hear from the perspective of those who may know and don't just speculate.

Just like how it is always interesting to hear what CAC has to say when he writes on here.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

"But we still have more quality mid-fielders than when we just had Chell, A MacDonald, and then ?? in the early naughties. The Umpies have it right when voting for the Brownlow; it is all about strong mid-fielders. You can make do with Rucks, defenders and Forwards who play (eg. lead) in the way expected and put in (therefore, Newton not Jamar at FF)."

Its more than just midfielders but not having McLean and a fit Pickett in the mix are just big irreplaceable holes. The umpires dont necessarily. Why is TJ our biggest vote getter?. Actually you cant do without your best rucks,forwards or defence. MFC evidence this. My top 10 above are big losses even if only one or two are down. We have seven of them out and two more are miserably out of touch. I dont understand the Newton for Jamar conclusion. It is not supported by your comments.

"But a few months ago, you spent a number of posts canning my idea that depth was over-rated."

My post above supports that notion by substantiate where the Club list succeeds or fails.

Depth has a role in the team to fill holes temporarily that appear. You may be able to cover 1 or 2 keys players out at a stretch for a match or two but not long term and not with the numbr of top players we have out. So I am mystified why you focus on the importance of mass clearing out depth as the solution. You can only replace them with draft picks dependent on ladder position and more depth if you can trade them.

My constant argument is when we have a couple of wins, many misguided posters naively brag how much depth we have and how good it is. When the truth is it takes two losses in a row to prove it's a mirage. All Clubs are struck the same way with the lists where they all contain varying strengths and weaknesses. No Club list is complete. The salary cap and draft effectively create a modicum of evenness amongst the teams in the disbursement of available talent.

"My opinion as a professional project manager is that there are a number of areas of incompetence. I.E. other people plan stuf and it happens. E.g. Pickett's gut should been identified as an obvious risk and contingency plans (ha! ha! as if it were not going to happen) been implemented in Feb 06 and Feb 07. The players for years, do not implement on the field a plan that they can manage and serves the purpose (if any) of the coach."

He has training and fitness commitments like any other player. You cannot make a player commit fully to them. Pickett has had a variable off field record at three clubs. We took him knowing that but also what he can do. He was a revelation in 2006 for us make no mistake. However, his failure to fulfil his commitment is a warning that at 30 yo with a poor training regime why would you give him another year. Its hardly an incompetency when its the player. And if it is an incompetency of the Club it has to be the football department that should take responsibility for that. Surely as a professional project manager you would clearly define who your stake holders were and what their responsibilities are before citing incompetency. Wouldn't you?

"I want him to play another year about 6 - 8 kgs lighter than he turned up last year. If he were contracted to me, he would. Or he would go. Either way works for me. I would [censored] in his pocket and try and find out why, but bottom line; ta-ta gut with or without Byron attached. Ditto, Motlop last year. and 3 kgs worth for Robbo. "

You cant make a player do that. So great he does not and so you sack him. That creates a hole in your list and PR disaster in the press. You lose out both ways. You give away a place on your list to player with a high risk of making the contractual conditions then you sack him. If MFC Board did that I would put the heat on them for incompetence. Motlop had a two year contract out of desperation when Broadridge died. He was a punt and he did not work out. No issue there. Robbo carried a knee injury last year and could not train as often between games.

For a professional project manager you focus too much on the small stuff which in the end is not significant to the fortunes of the Club

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I just asked the question if he knew people on the board because he seems to know a lot about what they do / have done (compared to most people anyway). And seeing as not many people have such knowledge it's interesting to hear from the perspective of those who may know and don't just speculate.

Just like how it is always interesting to hear what CAC has to say when he writes on here.

For the record, I have made rare and general comments about the Board in passing. I have never spoken specifically about any Board members on this forum.

Its hardly interesting to you as you have shown a repeated failure to read my comments on matter even when they are specifically answering your questions and you replied to the post.

Phoenix is absolutely spot on about your motives.

A complete lack of substance and credibility.

[Rogue 585]

It's the same with our tactics.....we're too scared to try anything new ourselves,we just try to hook on when we see a successful tactic being used. By then counter measures are already being used by the pro-active clubs(ge Sydney and Adelaide)

I think that's the same of most clubs though, and really of any industry.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

I don't mean to bump the thread, but I needed to borrow the title.

If we have a rough year then yes, we will have a good old-fashioned clear-out to make room for either trades or 6 shiny new draft picks. If we come, say, 15th with 4 wins, we get 2, 18, 20, 36, 52 and 68.

But who goes? If we got rid of, say, Ward, Godfrey, Brown, Bizzell, Ferguson, Holland, Jamar, Neville, Warnock, Wheatley, plus rookies Hayes and Bode. Add to those a few other maybes (PJ, Ooze, Neaves, Hughes), we'd need twice the draft picks to just fill the list up!!!!

So what are we left with? Of the 10 above, probably 4 must remain on the list.... How depressing is that? Either we keep a few 30-year-old has-beens or never-really-weres OR we keep a few young guys that have been proven to not have what it takes at the highest level!!!

And that's assuming we use ALL our draft picks... That means using pick 68 in a non-superdraft year... odds are we'll end up drafting another guy who plays 3 games or something....

[occo 2]

I don't mean to bump the thread, but I needed to borrow the title.

If we have a rough year then yes, we will have a good old-fashioned clear-out to make room for either trades or 6 shiny new draft picks. If we come, say, 15th with 4 wins, we get 2, 18, 20, 36, 52 and 68.

But who goes? If we got rid of, say, Ward, Godfrey, Brown, Bizzell, Ferguson, Holland, Jamar, Neville, Warnock, Wheatley, plus rookies Hayes and Bode. Add to those a few other maybes (PJ, Ooze, Neaves, Hughes), we'd need twice the draft picks to just fill the list up!!!!

So what are we left with? Of the 10 above, probably 4 must remain on the list.... How depressing is that? Either we keep a few 30-year-old has-beens or never-really-weres OR we keep a few young guys that have been proven to not have what it takes at the highest level!!!

Dont remove Warnock. He has potentual. Godfrey is ok at depth. Ward isnt worth removing and i see potentual in fergs if we played him more. Holland was good B pockett last year so he is still worth keeping. I would throw in a couple of middle aged players. Im thinking Bruce + Johnstone. I know u have all gone crazy over this but think, noone in their right mind would want Wheatley, brown, biz, neville. Bruce + Johnstone for pick 2nd and 4th round pick. I wanna see 10 good years of melb and feel the draft picks we get for them could turn to be better players than thoes 2.

Johnstone, my fav player is OK but he will never be a superstar. Too up himself and feels above the class.

I would remove: Brown, Biz, Wheatley and Neville

[beelzebub 22,225]

it will come back to contracts as to who can go at the end of this year.

[occo 2]

If we look at hawks, they have a good list now. Sewell, a rookie has come leaps and bounds. WB have gone bad for some time, recruited well and gone firing. I honestly cant see how we will play finals next year. I mean at our best i still think Freo, WCE, Sydney, Adel, Pt Ad, Brisbane, StKilda, Geelong, Essendon are better than us...even if we were at our best.

We need to look long term. Not richmond style but 2 years bottoming out and then rebuild. Dont trade too many players but likes of Johnstone and Bruce could be healthy in draft picks. Lets get some depth to out midfield. Lets recruit or get a ruckman from the trade. Lets look at CHF issue and recruit a quick, good marking forward who can kick and has half the body already. Lets look at FF with our playing list and see if we can get Newton some time. And lets look at our defence.

I would be really happy and excited to bottom out 2 years. I would be very excited and would be prepared to buy membership and assist finantually if i saw we were looking at the future. I am not kidding - i am not a large earner of income but i would be happy to donate membership + $1000 or so if i saw we were looking at kids.

If we were to trade bruce and Johnstone we would have : 2, 18, 20, 36, 52 and 68 + 2? and 4?

Thats pritty good i recon. Theres a bloke called Matt Kreuzer. 199 centermetres and a very good ruckman. Watched him a bit and he is very good around the ground. He doesent have the height of sandilands but can play ruck, forward, and back.

Matt Kreuzer http://www.starnewsgroup.com.au/story/1519 - Possible draft pick 2 (ruckman done)

CHF - Well we should possible look at either draft or tradeing. Possibly Bruce + Johnstone will get someone good. But matty looks the goods

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Dont remove Warnock. He has potentual. Godfrey is ok at depth. Ward isnt worth removing and i see potentual in fergs if we played him more. Holland was good B pockett last year so he is still worth keeping. I would throw in a couple of middle aged players. Im thinking Bruce + Johnstone. I know u have all gone crazy over this but think, noone in their right mind would want Wheatley, brown, biz, neville. Bruce + Johnstone for pick 2nd and 4th round pick. I wanna see 10 good years of melb and feel the draft picks we get for them could turn to be better players than thoes 2.

Johnstone, my fav player is OK but he will never be a superstar. Too up himself and feels above the class.

I would remove: Brown, Biz, Wheatley and Neville

Madness, occo, madness. I like the general idea you have there, but I reckon you're selling us up the river. Everyone seems to think that in order to achieve success all you need to do is bottom out for a few years to get the best talent available over the space of those years. This has NEVER been proven. What if the way to win a flag is by having good players who can inspire and teach the younger ones to become the best in the land? If that's the case then I'd like to hang onto the Cam Bruces to see if they can't educate the younger guys on how to train yourself to be a better endurance player.

I do respect the position of some posters who claim that our better players are the ones we must trade. You have to lose something to gain something, and unless you're trading GENIUSES like the Hawks (Hay, Rawlings) you're going to have to put up with losing someone you see a future in to get high draft picks. That said, trading our best players away isn't just a simple, clean deal. You trade away some of your future when you do that...

Also, I reckon it makes sense if you can get rid of a Tarrant and end up with 2 first round picks in a superdraft. But to trade away all your juicy players to get a few early picks in ONE draft is incredibly risky. What if the draft ends up like 2002? We end up with 4 early picks in a dodgy draft. What if we drop Bruce and pick up another Fioraw ith the pick we get? We haven't really got any Woewodins, who's selling price is more than they're worth, so really there's no-one "good" screaming out to be traded.

The solution? Well there really isn't one. We have only very few tall players. Even IF Dunny and Newton went on to completely replace Neita and Robbo (which they won't) that still doesn't give us a full compliment of tall forwards. When Jeff retires, I reckon we'll have exactly 0 ruckmen. So there's another 3 tall drafting spots needing to be filled. Worse than all this is that these tall players will most likely need time to develop. It could be 5 years before they all become the players we need them to be, at which time we will have had 5 years of pain... I reckon your 2 year plan will turn into my 5 year plan.

And on those players...

- From what I've seen Warnock will be lucky to make 100 games. I could be wrong, it is early days. But since I'm trying to be comprehensive, Warnock is a guy I'd prefer not to be FORCED to retain.

- I admire Gooders for how he's gone about it this year so far. But we will never be anyting if this guys plays heaps of games, even at depth.

- Ditto Ward. Not premiership material, even as your 22nd selected.

- Ferg is VERY limited. Will probably be retained, but only because there's no-one else to take his spot.

- I love big Dutchy, but he's too old to be part of any MFC plans beyond 2008.

So in short, I just reckon you're asking to keep 4 very average and/or old players there and trading away your quality. The idea of a cleanout is that you drop all your dead wood, and players who will be forced into retirement within the next 2 or so years. You appear to want to do the EXACT opposite of "clean-out".

[steve_f 40]

Re "Its more than just midfielders but not having McLean and a fit Pickett in the mix are just big irreplaceable holes. ....you cant do without your best rucks,forwards or defence. MFC evidence this. My top 10 above are big losses even if only one or two are down. We have seven of them out and two more are miserably out of touch."

Our remaining mid-fielders did OK. We got more clearances. I will concede the need for a forward. Our forward line was often open but the clearances just whistled back over our heads.

Re "I dont understand the Newton for Jamar conclusion. It is not supported by your comments."

Hopefully, a real forward would have capitalised on the open froward lines and clearances. I thought Clogs was one but on the basis of the weekend; no longer.

Re "So I am mystified why you focus on the importance of mass clearing out depth as the solution. You can only replace them with draft picks dependent on ladder position and more depth if you can trade them."

No, I said as their contracts expire. We gained our over-supply of third-tall defenders over a number of years and it will take 2 -3 to reduce them to reasonable numbers. Regarding recruitinf, we pass many times in the various drafts.

Re "many misguided posters naively brag how much depth we have and how good it is."

Depth = waste. To some extent.

Re '(Pickett) has training and fitness commitments like any other player. You cannot make a player commit fully to them. Pickett has had a variable off field record at three clubs. We took him knowing that but also what he can do. He was a revelation in 2006 for us make no mistake. However, his failure to fulfil his commitment is a warning that at 30 yo with a poor training regime why would you give him another year. Its hardly an incompetency when its the player. You cant make a player do that. So great he does not and so you sack him. That creates a hole in your list and PR disaster in the press. You lose out both ways."

In this context, the jock are equivalent to nerds with muscles. Both have highly valued skills and very portable skills but the nerds are constrained by being comfortable where they are and appeals to a team spirit. I suspect but of course do not know that the players likewise wouldn't walk. It ain't homan nature.

Re 'And if it is an incompetency of the Club it has to be the football department that should take responsibility for that. Surely as a professional project manager you would clearly define who your stake holders were and what their responsibilities are before citing incompetency. Wouldn't you?"

Stakeholder is usually used to denote the paying or non-paying clients of the process. So I am MFC client and stakeholder not vice versa.

As I have said before, I and the MFC members have no direct relationship with the Footy Dept including the coach therein. The Board has claimed and promised that they would manage that. They have for the finances and memberships but the on-field performances evidnce planning failures and a breakdown of control of the work process. So we are reliant on the Board extracting the paridigm and growing the synergy.

Or better ensuring that the Football Dept has control of what happens on the field. I actually thought Sunday was acceptable in that aspect.

We must not muddy this responsibilty. The Board is responsible for the performance of all aspects of the club and need to take steps to assure themselves that the processes of MFC are planned and under control.

Re " You give away a place on your list to player with a high risk of making the contractual conditions then you sack him. If MFC Board did that I would put the heat on them for incompetence. "

Funny. I do not recall Pickett gatting many possies this year. We should not accept for the first time, players cheating on their contracts (ever again).

Re 'For a professional project manager you focus too much on the small stuff which in the end is not significant to the fortunes of the Club"

Depth fixation is a moderate issue on which I focus because it is just me at the moment howling acapella in the wilderness.

Pickett's gut is a symptom of a major issue which is that the Football Deptartment does not have control of what the players do. The runandcarry fiasco is just another symptom of the same problem. Similarly, 1999, 2001 amd 2003.

So you think, there are small issues!?!? Speak not to me of priorities as I berate the people at work, You decide what you are going to do and what you are not going to do. You then do or don't do. You get to make decisions are the small level whereas diretly considering whether you want win the next four flags is a given.