Leaderboard

How exciting will it be to do a best 23 instead of a best 22. It's got the tent up.

I'd rather he went to The Goal Kicking Performance Centre

Resolution passed 3907 voted 84.1%

I'm waiting for the coaches to start wingeing about how unfair it is if they get an injury early on and are one man down. ...so then we will get a 5 man bench and injury sub. ...but then the cry will be about how some are abusing it and it's not fair. ...then we will go to a 6 man bench. ....but then. Anyway, you get the idea.

Really like the way this Petracca bloke moves, treadmill or no treadmill. Looks like he's been going at it for a while in this session, and isn't it great to see him operating this way - hammer and tongs - at this stage of the next season. This bloke does not compete with his mate Clarrie, he just ensures that he is in the best possible condition that he can be and takes it all on (including the physical testing) from his own inspiration and volition. Gotta admire his inputs to our Club; professional endeavour and focus. Onyer, Tracca!

Putting aside any opinion about the actions of Peter Lawrence and Deemocracy, this is my justification of voting yes to the constitutional changes: - as pointed out earlier, this is not a vote between two constitutional models, this is a vote between the model put forward by the current board after several months of consultation between stakeholders (ie members) and the status quo. The current constitution is outdated and is not relevant or appropriate, as it does not take into account contemporary practices of operation - the club has evolved, the constitution needs to be changed to catch up. - the main reason for the change of the constitution is to allow for digital voting by members - at the moment the current constitution does not allow for it, and it costs the club tens of thousands in postal votes to our members. Allowing digital votes will save the club a significant amount of money. The club is a not for profit organisation, so if any expenditure can be saved, I'm all for it, not to mention making the voting system equitable and accessible. - One of Peter Lawrence's grievances is his objection to the need for a nominee to the board to have 20 nominators instead of 2 - if it was a local suburban club I would say he's got a point. However, it's not, it's a multi million dollar operation with 66,000 members, and needs a board with board members committed to the role. If a member who wants to nominate can't find 20 people to support their nomination, then is the board of the football club really for them? - Another bugbear of his is ensuring the board is made up of 33% female representation. Some comments I've seen on social media about this is they don't want to support a "boy's club" mentality. My argument to that is, has the current constitution prevented eligible and high quality board members in the past? Did Kate Roffey get on the board because of a quota? No, she didn't. If a board member, male or female, is passionate about the club, they would be able to state their case on merit. The club is one of the most progressive clubs in the league - we pioneered AFLW, we have instilled inclusive measures, we were one of the first to have an Indigenous Reconciliation Plan, we have Ruby Demons and other supporter groups representing diverse members. This has occurred through having representative board members acting on merit. I don't want to see a situation where someone who is a high calibre candidate missing out on being on the board because of a quota. - many of the inclusions he wants added are not necessarily constitutional inclusions, more ones that belong on a mission or vision statement. And they're there already. Not worth voting no over. In short, get the constitutional changes that are desperately needed done now, because a no vote will not get in Peter Lawrence's proposals, it will merely delay the process and cost the club a hell of a lot of money.

Tuning in tonight in the hope of some verbal biff. After all those years of AGMs when we were rubbish and nobody went off their nut I'm hoping this is the night.

Poor Jake severely challenged by injury throughout 2022, his stats were way down on his usual form but still managed to play a role in defence. He looked so sore at the end of games. One tough cookie is our “Rick”, looking forward to seeing him fit, healthy and back to his deadly best in 2023.!!!

Just in case the Australian Taxation Office is monitoring Demonland, clearly Petracca was not on a holiday at all. His travel costs were entirely directed toward high performance training with this photo the proof.

So, one option being suggested is that the "concussion sub" be replaced with someone called a "tactical sub". Apart from the change of name, how would a tactical sub be any different from the red vest/green vest sub used a few years ago which essentially everyone didn't like? I suspect the 5 man interchange will be the decision because it's what the coaches have always wanted. What matters more, though, is whether there is an increase in the total number of interchanges allowed (is it 75 at the moment?) If the AFL keeps the number of rotations at whatever the number is now (or even reduces that number), I don't really see much harm in replacing the sub with a fifth interchange. Having said that, though, I'm still in favour of massive reductions in rotations overall. Something like 20 per game would be better. It should open up the game and leave the best players on the ground longer. It should also provide forwards with better chances (because there will be less likelihood of onballers be able to defend space as effectively in front of the forwards). We might even see the return of the 100 goal a year key forward.

The failure of straight sets will drive this group and coaching staff to never experience that feeling again.

84% is pretty comprehensive. Hopefully no more board related distraction for a while. The focus should be on our teams

Nope Very much on point, as directed and as appropriate for the special meeting

I don't agree with @george_on_the_outer about this topic but was still starstruck by seeing him live.

i'd keep 4 interchange, no subs and reduce interchanges to 50 this would reduce 2-way running and congestion, opening the game up more and allowing the more skilful players to entertain us with their skills. ball ups would be reduced. tackling reduced and scoring increased. the game would be a better spectacle. coaches would initially hate it but they'd soon change and embrace it.

I hate the sub rule, so this is a good change. I still think we will need to plan for Gawn and Grundy to play a high percentage of game time on the ground at the same time.

You told a cautionary tale about how your email was hacked and it caused you a great deal of damage, in the context of a thread discussing a member having access to your email address. I drew an inference that you saw this as being a risk here. I'm not misrepresenting you, I think that inference is reasonable. If it's not what you were trying to communicate, then I can't draw any other link between what you've posted and the topic at hand. You said this: "This joker has got front page publicity in national newspapers about getting all our personal data". He has not got yours or anyone's personal data. Optus and Medibank have your personal data. To be honest I think a request for documentation on how they are going to manage the list of email addresses they have been given going forward, is quite reasonable. I just don't think there's any plausible threat or danger to have come from him/them having my email address, and I think people are being a bit selective about their concerns when in reality, your email address is likely everywhere.

James Jordon to become the answer to quiz questions in future.

How does having your email address equate to an increase risk of having your email hacked? Rhetorical question; it doesn't. It equates to an increased risk of receiving some emails - that's it. Your email address is everywhere. You used it to register your Demonland account. As an admin, I could click on your profile right now, see it, and email you. It's completely ridiculous to compare this to the Optus and Medibank breaches. He doesn't have all your personal data. He has your name, your address (which he already had, incidentally), and now your email address. The Optus and Medibank breaches gave enough personal data that in the wrong hands, could result in mass identity theft. That's not a plausible concern here.

I'm assuming we tried over the trade period with no buyers. If we can't get a top 5 pick with a swap of futures then there is absolutely no point, especially in this draft. It was harder this year to achieve a move up into the top 5 given the Jackson deal happened relatively late so we didn't know what we were dealing with and by that time oppo clubs would have been busy making plans of their own. Next year we'll be on the front foot from the start of trade period with any bottom dwelling sides who need points for academy players/father sons. Gold Coast for instance have multiple high-end academy prospects coming through so they'd be a good club to deal with. One draft haul can change the future and fortunes of your club and I can really see us using next year's draft period to bring in another crop of super high end talent.

I think Charlie suffered from our lack of tall forwards this year. With our forward line performing poorly, Charlie (and ANB) were up the ground much more often, and therefore delivering into the 50 not kicking as many goals. On paper he actually had a "better year" statistically. More disposals, pressure acts, meters gained. More "shots at goal plus inside 50s" in 2022 than 2021. 2022: 11.8 disposals, 2.8 i50, 1.1 shots at goal, 4.2 score involvements, 2.4 tackles (1.0 i50), 4.0 marks (0.4 i50), 11.5 PAs, 195 m gained 2021 11.5 disposals, 2.2 i50, 1.6 shots at goal, 4.4 score involvements, 2.4 tackles (1.0 i50), 3.4 marks (0.7 i50), 10.8 PAs, 187 m gained

I deserve a lifetime membership to Dan Murphy’s after my contribution to their bottom line that evening

well 16% of about 10% is really only about 1.6% this assumes the other 90% weren't dissenters or they would have voted. So the 90% were either happy with the proposal and assumed it would be passed or were just disinterested

Almost related to that is my nephew's footy experiences when he was 11 years old. Each kid in the team was made feel welcome, was encouraged to do their best (no matter how bad their respective footballing skills might have been), and many other accolades of good sportsmanship and responsible adult coaching - that included well-behaved mums and dads, and other family members who came along to watch 'Neddy' play in the team. For example, barracking amongst the parents was not encouraged lest an outcry or two 'hurt' someone's feelings, and family spectators were reminded that verbal abuse to opponents and the umpires set poor examples for the children involved in what was in most cases, their first 'team' and competitive venture into sport of any kind. So, one of the worthy traditions of the club was that each week, three of the players 'won' a small trophy each to compliment a good performance and excellent behaviours, as encouraged. It was a gesture deep in the realms of sociological good manners and effective participation in a meaningful, disciplined engagement with sport (in this case, it encouraged good sportsmanship and respect for others no matter what were the circumstances on the day. This rotated around the team across the full fixture for the year; every player won 'a trophy'. When my nephew won his trophy for 'excellence' on the sporting field, the team actually won the game. The only problem was he had a bad cold, a consequence of which his mum and dad kept him at home that Saturday morning. In other words, he won the trophy without being in the team and not even turning up at the ground!

In an open election there is never 98% one way. Not even Putin gets 98% I thought the vote would be carried but didn't really have a sense by how much other than thinking it was unlikely to get more than 90% in favour I think there are always contrarians who will vote against. And to be fair there have been some valid concerns raised by dissenters in this thread. Some of their points I would agree with but not enough for me to vote against. I don't think 16% against is significant or is anywhere close enough to suggest a general lack of faith in the board. Or enough to undermine or de-stabilise.

All the questions from the floor were good I thought. Didn't count numbers, but would say 7-8 people With maybe 4-5 specifically focussed on the Nominations 20+ number, 1 around the presence of the preamble, 1 on electioneering, 1 on all/nothing vs options, 1 on voting procedure I was surprised to hear the working group added the Nominations amendments after member input - would love to know some stats as to how many gave feedback in either direction as thats clearly the divisive point... My gut tells me they heard what they wanted to hear

Bring back the 19th and 20th man. These were my specialist positions in under 12s.

the combination of email address linked to a physical address and name can be quite powerful i could be quite anonymous with just a name and/or email address. nobody could easily find me. i could be anywhere in australia or even the world. but now someone who wants to harm me (physically or otherwise), for some slight either current or in the deep past, can possibly track me down, all without leaving their keyboard, by just knowing those three items. any and all info about you when put together exposes you. email address, name and home address might seem relatively minor but it is the thin edge of the sword that enables a starting point to build on for someone who doesn't think like you.

Nasher all respect to you but please if you're going to respond to my Posts please represent them accurately. In my post I explained that the damage I suffered was caused by the hackers hijacking my email address and sending emails out using my email address. That was what caused all the problems not them sending emails to me. I don't know how it is done but it is a well known hack. It's clear from my post I talked about Optus and Medibank and Lawrence in the context of each ones cyber security. I didn't compare the type of data that is exposed. I also didn't say all my data. My grammar was poor when I said all our data what I meant was the data of all 66,000 of us. This is starting to go around in circles. In summary some people like you and Tim and Dr G evidently don't care at all about the risk of this data being in the hands of Lawrence and his faceless group. Others like me do care. I've asked for their details and a description of their cyber security. They ignored the requests. They are faceless and practice being unaccountable. There's plenty of other risks of having personal addresses and emails hacked. Maybe in a community of 66,000 there's domestic abuse sufferers who don't want their details exposed. Maybe people with personal security risks. Maybe these people like most of us didn't know that an MFC membership exposes their details to someone like Lawrence. He was given the option at the end of the court case for the club to send out his emails so our data wouldn't be at risk from him. He insisted on getting our data for himself. Why? Don't you think we should have a democratic right to decide where our data gets used and that right is greater than his right to pursue his personal agendas for the Club.

For me, the difference is where I choose to supply my email address. I chose to supply my email address, including which one, to Demonland when signing up - I did not choose to supply my email address to 'Deemocracy'. Demonland has a really clear privacy policy where it even outlines how it protects and stores user data - 'Deemocracy' have provided no such information and everything I've seen from them relating to technology has looked pretty shonky tbh. If 'Deemocracy' actually lived up to their 'transparency' mantra then perhaps they would have supplied the obviously concerned members with the information regarding how they plan to use, store and then destroy the data.

100% agree that injury really took it's toll on Lever. How many games did he go off injured only to hobble out the remainder of the game? Tearing his plantar fascia on the eve of the season didn't exactly set him up for success either. A key barometer to our defence. I can't recall too many good wins when he's had a poor game, and vice versa - rare that he's had a terrific game in a loss compared to say a May who has played really well in losses (Sydney final on Buddy) The highlight of his season was that central kick against Carlton with 30 seconds left which was too hot for Motlop to handle and then led to the Kozzie winning goal. Showed genuine football smarts in a severely pressurised situation.

Nothing wrong with a 4 man bench (or 3 man bench for that matter). It's a tough game - injuries happen - bad luck. Less players on the bench means that players need to be more versatile and coaches more innovative, which is a good thing in my eyes. The alternative is that we go to the extremes of the NFL and dress a player and his direct replacement every game.

Viv Stanshall was a genius!! I was fortunate enough to see him a few times when he had a residency at a pub in London’s Fulham in 1975. 50p entry and he had musicians like Steve Winwood and the sax player from the Dark Side of the Moon album (can’t recall his name), playing with him. He would begin his show by opening a French horn case full of bottles of cider, that he would consume over the course of the evening at which point he’d be on the verge of collapse. Sadly, a few years later in 1995, he died in a fire aged just 51. There is a movie in which he appears, that is based on one of his writings that had been serialised on radio, called Sir Henry At Rawlinson End… it’s a brilliant piece of absurdist humour. The Bonzos also appeared briefly in the Beatles Magical Mystery Tour movie, performing their song Death Cab For Cutie.

But schnitzel is Austrian...make it bratwurst sautéed in onions and horseradish with a little Dusseldorf mustard to accompany. :-)

The Red Bull nutritionist recommends schnitzel und strudel.

The Hard Ons are still going around, now with Tim Rodgers on vocals. One of the guitarists in my band, Ged Corben, was originally with the Lime Spiders and later, with his brother, formed the Cruel Sea. I’ve never been much into metal, but have a lot of time for Ministry. Over the years I’d got to see Lemmy with Hawkwind (awful band), the Sensational Alex Harvey Band, the 101ers (Joe Strummers first band before The Clash), Kilburn and the High Roads (Ian Drury’s first band) and numerous others, but the show that stands out most for me, was getting to see Tim Buckley live at Knebworth in the UK… on a bill with The Allman Brothers and others.

Ok. Some responses to your comments just for clarification. I call him a joker because he pretends to say he is about democracy transparency and accountability but is joking. His email was faceless as are all the other people in his group. I emailed him to discuss. He did not respond and obviously isn't interested in discussing. I call him that bloke because his email doesn't use his name or anyone else's. One of the articles in the press advised the club had told them at that point they had received over 350 complaints. Have a read of this OP for a lot more. Everyone I have spoken to unanimously are furious he could get their details for this purpose and they are at risk. He wants to change the entire Constitution to the one he wants. Every single word. He has stretched the purpose from the Constitution to include dirty smearing electioneering. Deleting data doesn't destroy it. You have to do much more. I very much doubt he knows how to do this. Fido is the name of a dog and Daffy a duck. I was ironically implying his dog and duck are the other members of his group. I wasn't disparaging any humans. I'm sorry but I don't understand your point about the election. He stood for election and lost twice. I'm afraid I don't agree with your philosophy that just because someone stands for election they shouldn't be condemned if you think what they are doing is damaging not helping. Yes my post was about my cautionary tale of what happened to me. It is an important warning to 66,000 people who's data he has taken and has potentially exposed. And he has failed to reply to tell me or anyone what he's done to protect it. That does define him. It doesn't define me.

Like he said as an 18 yo, I want to be the best in the league.!!

Hair line fracture must be ok 🤞

Dr G normally love your work. But this is not your finest. I'll tell you a cautionary tale. I got my email address hacked a couple of years ago. The hackers used my email address to send out automated emails to 30,000 plus addresses every hour all over the world. This lead to my email address being registered on international registries as a spam address and being permanently blocked. That leads to it being rejected everywhere and everyone of those emails that goes out generates a detailed anti spam warning back to your email system. It literally means you're getting up to 100,000 email rejection notices per day. And it's impossible to stop. It goes on for weeks. This jammed our work email system and caused it to shut down so the entire business lost it's emails for some days. I was forced to quarantine and shutdown my email address. Have a think about how many places you use your email address. All had to be scraped and started again. I can't begin to tell you how many hours were lost over many many days for me and our whole business. Plus it damaged our corporate and personal credibility with people getting hundreds of these emails. They don't care it's from a hacker not you. You might think that's hilarious but I can assure you my business and I didn't. We've just seen the devastating impact of hackers getting hold of people's information at Optus and Medibank. It's turning into 10's if not 100's of millions of dollars of damages. Both these companies had excellent cyber security. This joker has got front page publicity in national newspapers about getting all our personal data and how unhappy a lot of members are about it. What cyber security do you think he has to stop the scenario above from happening especially as he has made himself a target with his publicity. I have contacted them twice asking for their details so I can contact them and to find out what cyber security steps they are taking to protect our data. I have not had the basic courtesy of a reply on either topic. I am extremely concerned about this. Don't be fooled by this bloke and his faceless group. They might claim Democracy, transparency and accountability but they practice the opposite. They won't even tell you who they are, how many of them there are or their details so we can contact them. But they have litigated to get that information from all of us. If there were enough to be relevant they would have said so. I'd be very confident it's just a couple of people he's drummed up. A couple probably called Fido and Daffy. This is not an election. It's not a campaign with a couple of policies, it's a Constitution with hundreds of paragraphs and he wants to change them all. Do we get hundreds and hundreds of emails from all members voicing their opinions about what they want or don't want on each paragraph of his new Constitution. I could have done that. So could have other people I know who submitted suggestions that didn't make it. How do you go about doing this practically. You are never going to get everyone agreeing to the same thing. I accepted the process the Board set up with a Committee of experienced qualified people. We all got the opportunity to respond to changes that were sent through to us. If this gets stopped whats next. I don't agree with virtually all his amendments. Some I strongly disagree with. So what negotiations are going to go on. How do we ever move forward. I find most of the proposed amendments important and necessary. When you go on to his email which is supposed to be about responding to the Constitution you find content referring to Bartlett's legal actions as some sort of blight on the Board members he is suing. In my opinion that is a dirty political smear campaign which has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution but everything to do with his naked ambition to get elected after he's been rejected twice. I urge people to get out there and send in their Proxy's to vote Yes. And to be clear I've got no ambitions to get on the Board. I have had no contact with anyone on the Board or the Admin about this process other than sending in my suggestion. My only agenda is having the Club in a position to do it's best work. I believe a stable Board is essential for that and this bloke is actively working to do the opposite. I'm appalled he's got my private details and won't tell me who his group is or what he's doing to protect my details. This bloke and group need to be kept as far away from our Club as we can get him.

ROUND 2 21. GWS - Harry Barnett - Ruck - 202cm 93kg The best ruck in the pool, Barnett is an impressive athlete and strong contested grab, showing potential as a Key defender. 22. West Coast - Darcy Jones - Mid - 175cm 67kg Explosive midfeilder who, despite his size, has a strong contested game and is good in traffic. May start his career as a small forward before getting midfield time at AFL level. 23. Bulldogs - Jacob Konstanty - Small Forward - 176cm 70kg High pressure forward who applies great defensive pressure while constantly hitting the scoreboard. Should pair up well with Weightman who is more of a lead up small. 24. Essendon - Henry Hustwaite - Tall Mid - 194cm 84kf Essendon finally acquire a big bodied midfielder. While not a quick or powerful player, Hustwaite finds time and space and has great agility for a player his size and has neat disposal. 25. North - Max Gruzewski -193cm 84kg One of the big question marks of the draft for me. Shows enormous potential with amazing overhead marking ability. Has played a mix of back and forward and think the Kangaroos will need to look at a tall consider a tall here given their recent drafting. 26. Essedon - Alwyn Davey - Small Forward - 181cm 77kg - (matched f/s bid) - Essendon get a gift and happily match a bid with Davey sneaking past their first pick. 27. Hawthorn - Lachlan Cowen - Medium defender - 188cm 81kg Running half back that has a booming kick and good defensive traits. Hawks have taken multiple mid/forwards in recent draft so have gone for the defender here. 28. Collingwood - Charlie Clarke - Mid/forward - 182cm 75kg A player I wouldn't be surprised to see taken in the first round. Strong contested forward with speed. 29. West Coast - Coby Burgial - Mid/forward - 183cm 80kg Would have happily taken Burgial earlier in the draft but couldn't find a spot I was happy with. Yet another mid forward with speed. 30. Collingwood - Adam D'Aloia - Mid - 186cm 86kg Adam is as credentialed and consistent as they come as a contested inside mid with solid defensive traits. Appeared 7 times at SANFL reserves level including finals where he acquitted himself well. 31. St Kilda - Mitch Szybkowski - Mid - 186cm 86kg Contested inside mid that may help ease the load on Steele. 32. Adelaide - Max Michaelanney - 190cm 78kg - (matched f/s bid) Adelaide commited to matching a bid for the 192cm defender. 33. Carlton - James Van Es - Key Defender - 197cm 99kg Don't rate Carltons key defensive stocks outside of Weitering. Van Es provides strong intercept ability as well as stregth in the contest one on one. 34. Freemantle - Isaac Keeler - Ruck/Forward - 198cm 88kg After loosing some talls in Lobb Louge and Meek, Freemantle could opt for a a developing ruck/forward that has some of the most upside potential in the draft. Question marks over his contested ability. 35. GWS - Harry Rowston - Mid - 182cm 78kg Suspect this will be their last selection and have gone with their NGA product who can develop as another midfielder. 36. St Kilda - Cooper Vickery - Medium Defender - 181cm 72kg Has great speed and intercept ability and uses the ball well and racks up large numbers, covering the ground well with plenty of run from defense. 37. Port - Jaidon Magor - Mid/forward - 184cm 75kg Will admit I haven't seen much of this player, but have read plenty and is getting huge wraps as a powerful mid forward that hits the scoreboard. kicked 21 goals in 10 games. Power may see a spot for the local product in the forward half with Butters to spend more midfield time, Gray retiring and Dylan Williams not coming on as expected and now delisted. 38. Melbourne - Sam Gilbey - Medium Defender - 187cm 73kg What to do with the Dees last pick. I have ended up siding with the Medium defender with exceptional footskills out of WA. A broken leg has ended his season early and may impact his start to pre-season. Will add depth to the defenders department that has lost Hunt and with Hibberd in presumably his final year. Other players I considered in the mix at some point in the first 2 rounds. Blake Drury, Jakob Ryan, Hugh Bond, Toby McMullin, Phoenix Foster, Kobe Ryan, Harvey Gallagher, Luke Teal, Ted Clohesy, Jonti Schuback, Jackson Binns, Archie Lovelock, Max Knobel, Harry Lemmey

Not sure why you're face palming this comment @Rhino Richards considering how it's an actual known fact.

Oliver Hollands is the one for me - likely to be around about when we make our first selection at pick 14.

Why? The purpose of the sub was so club's weren't disadvantaged if a player was concussed. Then they just changed it to if a player was injured. Now it will just be an additional interchange so we're back to where we started but with a 5 man interchange. Next they'll need a sub for concussed/injured players so will be a 5 man interchange + 1 sub. And on and on it goes. It's ridiculous, they should be limiting the interchange not expanding it.

That is a pretty good summary of events - not sure anyone is trying to rewrite history based on the fact that LJ has left the building Even before he left many people on this board would have differing views on how much or how little his influence was in the 3rd quarter of the GF Based on your summary and my own observations I think it's fair to say he was one of a number of players that lifted us to a level we haven't seen before. Was he the most influential - I'd say definitely not but he was good like a lot of his mates during that period I'm still really disappointed he left and personally I can't see Grundy offering us more than LJ could in seasons to come. No doubt Grundy is a good footballer, particularly if he can overcome any ongoing injury concerns but if I had a choice, I'd certainly stick with LJ for his ability to jump, his mobility to get to contests, compete as an extra midfielder and his "potential" as a dangerous tall forward. I've been watching a few games of Grundy as a pie, and he seems to really struggle to jump off the ground and his agility/mobility generally is nowhere near as good as LJ

Congrats to Gillard, well deserved Another milestone: That brings Kate into the top 5 alongside and ahead of some players who get lots more kudos. Check out 17th - Duffy! Very respectable average. And 18th, our old friend Scott - she's revived form to kick 7 for Geelong this season, good for her. .