Red and Blue realist

Not as simple as just dumping the funds into the bank and getting a 3% return if we're lucky, it'll be about what they use those funds to invest/build so that we either replace the lost revenue or alternatively be able to reduce down costs overall - for instance removing some/all of the leasing we are currently paying (which was around $1.8m last year - but the financial report doesn't break down what that covers).

The more I think about this, the more it seems like a pure business decision. The Age article has been updated to show we sold out of Leighaok for $11 million, noting that we've still got Bentleigh for 3 years then have that asset to deal with (which you'd expect a better return). While having a 'feel good' element about the deal, there's every chance that due to the continual changing nature of the gaming industry and the increase in costs associated, it was just the best time to get out. Generate a return on the sale of the assets, and then use them to invest into other income generating assets (although they haven't said what they are). If those funds are used to help fund a new admin/training facility which might also be used in a commercial sense and we stop having to pay rent for our existing spaces, then this could be the most important move this administration has made.

The article really only mentioned that the funds from the sale of Leighoak will be invested in other areas - there's actually no cash coming in from not renewing the entitlement on the Bentleigh pokies in 2022. From what I understand most/all the debt we have relates to the purchase of the Bentleigh club outright, so they must be comfortable to hold that until they deal with what they do with that venue/land once the pokies cease to operate. I can't see the club holding onto a social club on such a big land holding, so they might look at either selling or a development project at that stage, which should cover the debt and more. I to think there might have been a bit of "assistance" offered by the AFL and Govt's that if we get out of pokies they'll help with home base model.

Really depends on what they could use those funds on? They seem to have a plan in place to replace that revenue, because they've said it won't be to repay debt.

Some more info in the Age article, gaming only makes up 10% of overall revenue, also Jackson said we wouldn't be repaying debt from the sale, as they expect the $5 million debt to naturally be repaid in the next 3-4 years. https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/demons-announce-gaming-industry-exit-20180404-p4z7p7.html

Few people jumping to conclusions, around lost revenue etc. without knowing, what the exact revenue and profits were for each venue, what sale proceeds they expect and what they will use those funds for. So far this administration has been pretty spot on with most of their moves (that's publicly visible) so happy to back them in until further info is provided. Have heard some talk that the venue in Bentleigh would be worth a whole lot more if bulldozed and housing/units built. Maybe they'll enter into some sort of property development opportunity?

Would love to go again DV, team name was DoubleDigitMayhem

Very happy he got another gig, would love it if he got back to being a regular AFL player again.

Great list and talking point, I will say that while I agree a lot of our improvement will come from those yet to reach there potential, part of the optimism has to lie with so of those who have "reached their potential" actually doing so again. I'd argue that in 2017 Jones, Viney and Gawn had interrupted seasons which meant they only rarely reached their potential, so we'll also gain plenty from them. I'd also move TMac to the 'haven't yet reached potential' area, if including him as a forward (or even swing-man), we know what he brings as a defender but I think they've only just started to explore his forward capabilities and with Hogan being fit his forward role would develop even further.

At a guess if we gave pick 64 or whatever or 4th is, then pick 46 will be used to upgrade J Smith, so in the grand scheme it doesn't matter which pick we use

I don't mind that idea, such as giving the Tigers our pick 10 and maybe a 2nd next year and then getting their 1st and also the 1st they've got from Geelong and handing that off, if Adelaide get fixated on two 1sts. At least that's what I'd present to Adelaide as the only way we'll come up with the two 1st, they might panic and think there better off just taking 10 and next years 2nd themselves.

Geelong don't have a first this year, Richmond hold that. Plus Menzel is a free agent. Still don't think we'll give up anything near 2 firsts for Lever, maybe a 1st and 2nd, or 1st and other arrangement.

The majority of trades get done with picks instead of players, but I can understand why the Crows would throw out the hail-mary trade of Tracc or Oliver. If you look at who's been traded over the last few years in a similar situation, Treloar, TMitchell, O'Meara, Danger and Beams, they've all nearly been done with 1 first rounder and something else (2nd) or 2 firsts but with a something else coming back as well as the player (either pick or decentish player). Most of the suggestions have been pick 10 plus a second this year or next, or next years first plus this years 2nd, or even 2 firsts plus we get Lever and a 2nd or fringe player, I think that'll be the way it plays out. Good on Adelaide for trying to get more, but if they really valued Lever then offer him a decent deal to begin with and he might not have wanted to walk away.

Hard to get a read on that, and I'll be waiting for the "love the place was never going to leave" if he stays or "just wanted to be back closer to family and friends" if he goes. I think his partner might have a lot to do with the decision, but then his younger brother plays with the Crows SANFL team so that might be another consideration. I wonder if he does come, if his brother ends up at Casey?

Adelaide don't really have much of a choice here though, Lever is un-contracted so in theory if he really wanted out he can go via the PSD - he won't - but the salary cap doesn't come into play from Adelaide's point of view, unless he wants to stay. However I agree we need to ensure that getting Lever won't cause the loss of a required player in a year or 2 due to salary cap pressure. We've got Gawn, Tracc, Oliver and Hogan who'll all command very decent coin plus Brayshaw, the Macs etc. who'll also want to be paid reasonably well. Hopefully the club has planned for this and front loaded Jones, Viney, Watts, Hunt and even Hogan now so that if we get Level he's salary just gets absorbed so not to disrupt the team long term.

Very interesting if true, I did think we all of a sudden looked very tired again in the last 3 or 4 games, which we did last year. Could also explain why we suddenly seemed to drop off the drive we had from defense early in the season. I wonder if this was done with the intention of preparation for finals where the games seem to go a lot more man on man? Although we didn't make it, hopefully it might help over the next few years if players are again required to adapt with finals in mind.

I'd see Lever playing the role Frost should have until he became a bit lost in the last half dozen games or so. My backline would be below: Jetta OMac Lever Hunt TMac Hibberd That means TMac stays back, which I think he is better suited too anyway, and if during a game we need to switch things up he can always go forward for a cameo or 2. Lewis, Salem, Jones and maybe Vince (but I don't like him down there) would then rotate through when the others are either having a break or have moved down the ground. Lever and Lewis would be in charge of organsing the backline, with hopefully one of TMac or OMac picking up the skills to do that (alongside Lever) once Lewis is gone. One of the mids to go back to take the kick ins - in no circumstances are TMac or OMac ever to do it again.

Agree completely, I do think Lever would automatically make OMac and Tmac better players, and also make Hibberd even more dangerous. OMac and TMac wouldn't get caught in no-mans land as often as they do if we have a reliable 3rd tall who sticks more-or-less to the back half. We all know both the Macs do have a tendency to run down the field a little, not that that's always bad but doing it with Lever in the team carries so much less risk than say Frost who again can run forward with little regard to who's left behind - makes for exciting play but can also make us too easy to score against on the rebound. Hopefully then OMac and TMac combined can take care of those taller forwards.

I don't see the Lever and OMac comparison as fair or correct, given that they do play different roles, and the way we play as a team being much different to the way Adelaide play. If OMac was playing for Adealide he'd be taking Hartigan/Keith's role, whereas if Lever was with us he'd be taking Frost's role (I know he's not playing at the moment) as the 3rd tall with Hibberd returning to a 4th tall/primary interceptor/re-bounder role. The Lever discussion should be about what he can bring to the team rather than who/what he could replace at the moment. I think he'd actually make guys like TMac and OMac considerably better players as they can both take the game on and might find a better balance when rebounding from Def50. At the moment some of the frustration is that Tmac, OMac and Frost seem to get caught out with their run forward, where Lever seems to have a better ability to read the play and would bring better leadership and structure to the backline.

Not sure why this has turned into a Lever vs Oscar thread, they would play in the same team if Lever came to us. With Adelaide, Lever plays with Talia and Hartigan/Keith as the 2 'bigger' guys and also has Jake Kelly in the mix. Ideally we'd have Lever, TMac, OMac and Hibberd, which I think would be an even better combination than Adelaide's. OMac incidentally average's around the same intercepts as both Talia and Hartigan.

I assume you've got access to Champion Data stats that aren't readily found? I imagine that unfortunately one of our biggest culprits in losing one-on-one's would be Nev Jetta. The argument would be that yes Ben Brown should out mark him because he's 30cm taller, but that's too simplistic, why is Jetta trying to man up on someone way taller (it happens a fair bit) and the answer would be what GD67 was talking about. Unless you've got stats to say who our back 6 have lost their one-on-one's too (direct opponent or covering player etc.) then the OP having a shot at OMac and Frost may have little basis. Like others have done on here I think it's better to prevent the wound rather than focus on stopping the bleeding.

I think people are now discussing is that weakness because of our defenders or because of the way the team plays? For mine nearly every team would have the same weaknesses if the opposition is allowed to move the ball as quickly away from stoppages/the center and we've allowed lately.

I think it's a bit too simplistic to blame the defenders (not all have I agree) without looking at the whole picture. It's much like when the Australian Cricket team kept 'rotating' the fast bowlers when they were beaten and leaving the batsmen alone. There's another article on afl.com.au today about where we've dropped off lately, and it probably shows some of the reasons why it's so easy for teams to score against us. In a nutshell, in rounds 1 - 13 we averaged over 7 more contested possessions a game, 2.7 more points from stoppages and 4.2 more points from center clearances. Since round 14 that's changed so we average 3.8 less contested possessions, concede 9.8 more points from stoppages and 10.3 less from center clearances. Put basically we're allowing the oppositions to get their hands on the ball too easy, which then results in getting the ball quicker and better into their forward line, so it's easier for their forwards (and harder for us to defend). If we win the ball in the middle and around stoppages, it's harder for the opposition to score because they can't move it as quickly. No coincidence that Jonesy has been out for all those games and Viney also missed 2.5 of them.

I think the majority would have Lever in a heartbeat, it's just that most are now debating his cost/value. Realistically we can't sell the farm for one player because we're still going to have to pay guys like Tracc, Hogan, Gawn, Salem, the Macs and Oliver either by the end of next year or 2019. So we need ensure that we not only have enough to keep them, but also continue to invest in the future as well.

They should have been up and about as well - they were in a game they had no right to be - we'd just returned from Darwin, had 4 guys returning from injury who were going to tire and they'd just been gifted 2 goals, on top of this Gawn had rolled his ankle. I'd like to think that other teams watching our last quarter efforts would have more fear of their ability to get back into a game with us that if we had of just ran out winners by 10 goals. What we did to kill their momentum and win the game (while slammed by some as boring???) shows we do have the ability to put the contest beyond reach even under trying circumstances.