Leaderboard

Really?

This is a team that came out and smashed other teams with their physicality. Ratten and Carlton were gobsmacked at how they transformed their bodies over one summer. They even complained to the AFL. This stinking carcass of a club tried to get an advantage and they have ben caught out. No sympathy. Not now, not then, not ever. To say the players are innocent is the biggest load of crap to come out of this saga. Apparently not one player checked with their manager, parents, doctor etc etc about what they were taking. Sayonara fools. Oh yeah but its media propaganda. The end is near for Hird. He'd go well in Greece. They like delusional people there.

This absolute rot that the players are innocent victims needs to stop ... it's a crock of ... They agreed to be injected thousands of times and it was up to every single player to know what was being injected into their bodies - no excuses. I've believed from day 1 that the players are complicit and there's been nothing said or done to change my mind - maybe if it was 1 or 2 injections but thousands of injections? (outside of the club, across the road at a dodgy anti-aging clinic) Everything points towards guilt in my opinion. The lack of records should have made things worse but somehow become their ally. If this was an overseas club in another code that club would have very little support in Australia. Of course, the love of the code of footy in this country has also been a strong ally for the Bombers as well (also from day 1) I believe there's a very good chance that the players will be found guilty but the penalties may not be all that draconian. 12 months maximum is my best guess. I do have sympathy for their supporters however - they're stuck in a no-win situation with regards to their own opinions - pronounce innocence and they look delusional ... pronounce guilt and they'd struggle to continue to support their club in a normal way. Blaming their supporters is unnecessary and in many ways, wrong - it's not like their fans ever made the choice for the players to transgress the drug code. They are trying to deal with the aftermath like many fans of any other club would.

Only way Col leaves is as a Free Agent people, why would anyone trade for a FA? As for compo we'll get a 2nd rounder after our own at best (pick 23 at the moment in a shallow draft pool, could be a bit higher by end of year) as he won't get more than 500k elsewhere no matter what Roos says in his mid season report to talk him up (which I think is a BS suggestion anyway). In any case, we can match any offer on him if we want & I don't see anyone breaking the bank to poach him, more likely it's the promise of finals that'll be the big lure....... To those who say most supporters wouldn't care if he left, you couldn't be more wrong in my case so don't speak on my behalf you idiots, a shittie pick in the mid 20's for a bloke our premiership couch considers a walk up best 22 player is not going to cut it for me, this is nothing like getting a Brayshaw for Frawley.

once a k.hunt, always a k.hunt

A second round draft pick or the like is what we're looking at. We got KOTD by turning Sylvia in to Vince and that was shrewd work by the club, but it could have just as easily turned to poo. It would almost never be my preferred option to lose a versatile, experienced, clear best 22 player for a draft pick in the second round. I'd also be really disappointed to see Garland go on a personal level.

Royal commission time. This whole episode has been a disgrace to australian sport and australia as a whole. Systematic doping Protection from governing body Government interference and protection A failure by worksafe to do anything It is the sort of thing we expect from the east germans.

He is a much better and more important player than most on Demonland think. Thankfully the club opinion is somewhat better informed. He's def a keeper, and I can't see the club letting him go, or him wanting to go.

No ,he said Mitchell was "naive". Like engaging in a 34 man drug binge and expecting to get away with it. Poor Jim.

I am one of those supporters who 'wouldn't care' if he left. For me it's a really simple equation: What are our list needs? Let's look at our backline. Would it be fair to say and would posters agree that we've had a number of defenders at 190cm + who's strengths are one-on-one defending? T-Mac, Dunn, Garland, Frawley, Frost. Of course Frawley is now gone as Dunn and McDonald have proven that they are just as capable in on-on-one defending. Posters were crying out at the thought of losing a 'one time AA defender' claiming that the team would 'suffer' from his loss. I'm sure they've changed their tune. What has Garland offered in years previous that we haven't had? Versatility as a defender. He's been able to play tall and small and that was his value to the side. Frawley and McDonald taking the talls and Garland taking either the dangerous small or if the opposition went tall in their forwardline he'd take the third tall. With the acquisition of Frost, (a key position player who is extremely competitive on-on-one with unbelievable pace and agility and a player the club see as a long term defender) and a newly found position for Jetta, (who is now playing on the dangerous smalls every week and more often than not coming out on top) I ask this: What does Garland offer the backline that isn't already being offered? Not a whole lot is the way I see it. The versatility argument is now non-existent as we have coverage for extra talls or dangerous smalls. What our backline needs most is another defender with elite kicking skills. Our scores against for turnovers and our inability to move the ball efficiently and effectively from the backline to forward-line (as well as having a poor midfield) are two hugely significant reasons why our on-field performances have been indeed comical at times. Now if Garland leaving via FA nets us a second round pick, I'm not sure why 'thevil1', you think that the only option we'd have is to go to the draft with it. You do understand how trading works don't you? If the recent trading, recruiting and developing of our club hasn't inspired some sort of confidence that we'd be netting 'something or someone' who will offer something more than what Garland offers our club then you're turning a blind eye. The same shite was being written about the potential loss of Frawley and Sylvia at the time and look how they both turned out. Garland is similar in that he doesn't have the skills our backline needs and we have coverage for the skills that he does offer. He doesn't have any real leadership qualities that scream for continued change at the club and like Frawley and Sylvia before him, he's not someone who has the capacity to inspire change. Supporters need to start recognising the importance of list regeneration at our club. We are completely unique in that we've had so many sub-par senior players playing terribly inconsistent footy for so long. We're trying to change the face of our club and that means letting go of some of the guys who have been NQR's for years now. Open your eyes to what's outside the box. We're in good hands!

Mr Hird has claimed the illegal substances claims are all a media propaganda campaign against the Essendon FC. Can he explain why the media would run such a campaig against the Essendon FC. Can you tell us what substances were given to the 2011/2012 Essendon FC players? Can he explain why Mr Danks had previously made statements that he injected illegal substances in to his players? Can he explain why his Captain confessed to using illegal substances in the year he won a Brownlow Medal?

He can only be punished if the AFL thought police can be comfortably satisfied that the substance he was pretending to inject himself with is on the WADA list of banned substances. Hard to prove if the supplier refuses to give evidence.

The AFL has the most ludicrous advantage rule in professional sport. In most sports, if there is a free, the ump will signify it with a raised arm and let play go, if there is an advantage (and they get a chance to assess it this way) play on. No advantage, blow the whistle and pay the free. Implementing it in the AFL would lead to less confusion and a more free flowing game.

glad that's all cleared up

You can equate the two situations if you want to but not the two Colin's. They are miles apart from each other in terms of consistency over their career and illustrated and demonstrated leadership. Garland emerged during our doom years as a bright spot that over shadowed higher pedigreed 'stars' like the aforementioned Sylvia. He has been consistent for the majority of his career as a player who can play tall, small, quick, or rangey. If you are happy for Nathan Jones that we are moving out of the mire then spare a smile or two for the bloke we all wrote off after Rd 2, 2008, and who turned himself into an excellent defender and leader during our worst times. While decisions on your list can't be made with emotion, forgive me if I remind you all that emotion plays a part in football and THAT can be affected by list decisions.

Makes more sense when I read it backwards...

If you decriminalise everything you could wipe out crime overnight.

Why would you stop hating them?

How about that - I hate the Blues again! Lovely fans who take the time out of celebrating to boo the last kick of the game, and bronx it when it hit the post.

If you think this is only a Gold Coast issue you're fooling yourself. It's just that they have done the worst job of hiding it. There's a fair few very well known names in Victorian football circles that are rolling the dice as we speak.

Bennell= NO Prestia= YES

Don't want to de-rail the thread, so this is the last i'll post on this point. But the ABC are an independent broadcaster. Fox News owned and run by Rupert Murdoch, the same guy who controls Herald Sun, the Essendon FC apologists. Just saying.

It reads like a warning shot to me.

You have to hand it to them. It's like a burglar being convicted and then having someone suggest he should get off because his mother brought him up well but neglected to read him the penal code as a child even though she told him not to steal.

Our performances over the past 7 years has seen us allocated "home" games against interstate sides, and neglibible "home" games against Victorian sides. We "scored" 7 of those this year! And only 4 home games against Victorian sides...St.Kilda, North, Collingwood and Bulldogs....3 of which will draw low crowds! A home game against Fremantle, GWS, Suns, Port, or WCE would be lucky to see $25K attend the game at the MCG. The financial break even is about this number. If it is a twilight game or a day of lousy weather, as happens in winter, the Club loses money. We make a profit of at least $500k playing in Darwin. It is the only viable option for the club, until it gets a draw which will make money at the gate for us at home. And it's not about members. They can't provide the same amount of money that the government of the NT pays us annually. And Hawthorn has a good number of "members" in Tassie, because with the small ground at Launceston, unless you have a membership, you don't get in the gate.

Those imagining that Col Garland will not be picked this week are delusional. Next to Nathan Jones, this year he would be the second name inked on the team sheet.

I don't think there is one to be honest. Col Garland is the sort of player we NEED to keep at this point in our development as a team. He brings experience to a side that is still lacking a bit of it, and he is an important part of a back 6 that is looking very settled. We seem to get caught up in this idea that another second round pick would be great, but that was then, and this is now. We are improving and we need some continuity in the side as much as possible, plus I don't think there is a ready made replacement lurking in the bushes to take Garland's spot. Losing Chip was something we could cover. Losing Garland at the end of this year would be tough to handle for our backline. A must keep for me.

exactamundo

Excuse!..How could you watch Melbourne and not drink?

Clubs have the ability to set standards of behaviour and have excellent compliance from their players on all manner of issues. Look back to the 60's and 70's and smoking and drinking footballers were not uncommon. I think it was Brent Crosswell who had a tete a tete with Ron Barassi over his mandatory halftime smoke. Gold Coast clearly don't have inside tabs on what their players are doing off the field, but a huge part of this problem is the criminality of the substances they've taken (cocaine, as K.Hunt is spilling the beans over). They're already underground, and thus an industry of concealment already exists. In this way, I think football clubs show something of society in general. Some people want to take drugs, then do and continue, or stop completely, or with certain drugs become casual users. No drug is exceptional to this. They will ALWAYS be available, and there will ALWAYS be a market for them. Prohibition DOES NOT work, and never will. De-criminalise all drugs, and the problem is approached in a whole new, more realistic, and constructive way. It seems a radical idea only because drugs are associated with criminality/moral breakdown, and none of us have known anything else. The idea provokes such wild reactions of horror from some that it's yet to be seriously discussed in this country. There is a very smart and growing list of people advocating for it now, so it will happen, but not for a while methinks. Most importantly, for young moneyed footballers, drugs will lose the lure of the illicit, the dangers of criminal association, and introduce an acceptance of the reality which clubs can address more openly, such as with alcohol.

Yeah, the title of this thread should be "western society drug culture", because that's what this is. The Gold Coast club have handled the situation badly, sure, but the fact is that our society as a whole has to have a sensible conversation about mind-altering drugs, because our present policies are a complete failure.

Cool, lets take advantage of the mess and get our filthy paws on Prestia and Bennell.

I don't rate Garland. He has ok skills and is a decent kick, but I believe we look a much better team without him playing. One of our biggest issues is our lack of drive off half back. Whenever there is a bit of momentum coming off half back and the ball lands in his hands, the whole game grinds to a halt. Many of our younger players turn quickly and look to move it on. Lumumba also does this (albeit, not particularly well at times), but Garland just seems to freeze, letting the opposition reorganise. It's very frustrating, especially when we start to lose our sting and begin to turn it over. This might have something to do with the "mental scarring" or however Roos wants to label it, but I think Frost or someone with a similar skill set who looks to take the game on is a better option for the team structure. I wouldn't be disappointed if we looked to trade out. Hopefully we can nab a high second rounder.

The whole defence has been based on delaying tactics, and technicalities. Maximum bans for everyone. That stinking cesspit of a club makes my guts churn.

Sp the unfailingly even-handed, never arbitrary, and non-vindictive AFL ought not do this?

Many seem to share this view as though it's the only outcome. I can't understand it. Who says, (even if we did obtain a second-rounder) that we'd be going to the draft with it? It would give us a much higher chance of being able to trade for something great if bundled together with another player/pick. Here's a hypothetical. What if it netted us someone like Yarran? Frost takes Garland's place and would perform just as well and we add to our backline with running ability and elite kicking skills. I have no hesitation in saying that I believe Roos and co would easily be able to get Yarran playing at his best in a new environment. And his best offers the team a lot more than what Garland's best does. Especially when we have a bloke who can slot straight in and take his spot in Frost. A player like that ticks all the boxes in terms of what our team needs. And that is what this is about. Not keeping a player based on emotional attachment.

Melbourne is not rated by the AFL and we are given a fixture that is primarily low supporter drawing matches. There is a minimum number of matches required to be played at the Docklands and unfortunately the MCG based clubs are forced to fill the gap. The more clubs like Essendon and now Carlton want to play at the G these matches need to be made up. It appears MCG based clibs that paly home games interstsate have a reduction of make up home games at Docklands. Hence play games at Docklands against interstate clubs that will not draw a crowd and pay a huge loss or play in Darwin and make a Huge profit. We do not win at the Docklands any way.

I'm not one of the many! He's too good to lose!

Rubbish. Of course he is. We lack guys in his age bracket. He's a good player and is definitely worth keeping if we can.

I understand his value to the team, however he's not really pivotal to our defence anymore. "High quality AFL defender" kind of conjures that up

From someone whose opinion is likely to carry considerably more weight: "Colin Garland: Col’s been super consistent and arguably our most consistent player. He’s done a role every single week, but unfortunately he broke his hand and missed a couple of games before the bye. He’s a high-quality AFL defender. Sounds like he's talking about someone he'd like to keep. Not at all costs, of course, but he knows Col's value to the team. Roos isn't Neeld. Or to put it another way: Col's had his share of niggly injuries over the past 2 or 3 seasons. But when he comes back, he's always straight back in. (how long since he's played a game for Casey?) That's another indicator of how he's valued currently.

No he hasn't.Far from it.

As a Melbourne supporter I hope he lurks here.

Tom Boyd is the new Jack Watts. He'll cop it all the time unless he's an out and out superster. BTand Daaaaaaaaaaaaaarce are the worst commentary combo imaginable.

Sadly, a long way from delusional. It's all quite disturbingly orchestrated.

Foxtel just showed the hird post match. Hird saying maybe people are believing the media's propaganda about the drug issue, crossed back to the studio and dwayne came up with this ripper: "Hird fighting the medias propaganda with his own. Maybe there were no injections after all?" Haha He is still delusional about it! Called Sam idiotic! The nerve of the man!

Gotta be joking... Judd isn't a leaders [censored].

Sam mitchell made an injection motion at the essendon players at 3/4 time.... New favorite non dees player

Brutal truth.

I love this bring the ball to the ground. It is as if gravity didn't exist. They are stopping an opposition mark, that is all or in Dawes case dropping a mark and the ball falls using gravity to the ground. AMAZING!