Red and Blue realist

It kind of felt like the commentators were told to talk up St Kilda today, maybe they thought if they did that they'd be entitled to an easier whack when the wheels fell off? Although in general how bad was BT, didn't know about Tracc's finger, said numerous times that Webster caused the 50 meter penalty which went to the saints (even argued with the others when they pointed out it couldn't have been a teammate the ran through the protected area. Was the guy drunk, or is he just that stupid?

He seemed to cramp up in the goal square in the last, but this was in the hamstrings/lower leg, which is pretty normal for most guys playing their first game for the season. Hopefully that was the reason behind the soreness. With his flexibility and Hoges running wild this season, I think it makes us much much more dangerous going forward, swinging capable guys around who need direct opponents must be a nightmare for oppositions to match up on.

Might explain some of the mistakes and lack of effort on Sunday. Still has a valuable role to play, but wouldn't mind at all if we got to the end of the season and he'd only played 15/16 games.

This deserves more recognition, means he's not just running around headless, his impacting the play without needed possessions (the opposite of what many of our players looked like yesterday).

I've got confidence that Hibberd and Jetta in particular will find form and this will be less of an issue, but at the moment it seems like the back-line has no leadership. Not that we don't have leaders down there, it just seems like some confusion as to who should be directing the group, which means we've got guys out of position all the time. Last year we had Hibberd, TMac (when there) and Jetta directing the back-line. This year it seems more like Lewis, Vince and Lever. While Lewis and Vince are experienced, they are not pure defenders and I think are still trying to be too aggressive which lead to most of our guys playing in front yesterday, on a wet day it was easy for the Hawks to send it over the back for easy goals. The only one who has improved is OMac who has done a great job, and while some might point to Ben Brown getting a few on him, there was probably only 1 of his goals that you could directly attribute to him. However, he's not yet a leader back there, more the foot soldier, give him a job and he's doing it. I can't say I see any of the others being given a job and doing just that, they all at various stages seem to be swapping and changing what their job back there is, pure defender, shut down, interceptor or spoiler - not that they shouldn't do more than 1 thing, but it's knowing when to go and when to hold back. That's the job of the on field leaders but they'll all seem a bit confused at the moment.

Given we've got a 9 day break followed by a 5 day break, I doubt they'll make mass changes, as we'll need to keep some fresh for the Dons. I don't think we need Frost this week, but will against Essendon, so drop him for Hunt to provide the speed in the backline. We need a capable second ruck, Harmes looks lost, not his fault and I wouldn't drop him for playing the role he has the last 2 weeks. I'd love Lewis to be dropped but I think they'll keep him and maybe rest him for the Dons.Vince I doubt is needed, unless he tags, and Richmond have shown that whoever gets tagged goes deep forward, and Vince is a liability there. My changes would be out: Frost, Vince and Melksham In: Peds, Tyson and Hannan. Against Essendon, I'd be looking at resting Lewis, Jetta, Wagner, and one of Bugg or Garlett. Then bringing back Frost, Vince and then hope J Smith is ready to go and maybe Weid.

I think we've got to get better at strategically resting guys, as you said Vince and Lewis are prime candidates. I'd like to see Hannan, hunt and stretch brought in for at least 1 of the games, just to give more run and energy

Wonder how many we'll hold over for Tuesday and even the Essendon game. Given the short turn around I wouldn't mind if we made 4 or 5 unforced changes over the next 2 weeks, cause it seems like we've got a few in form at Casey

Sometimes the pure membership number doesn't mean a heap, some clubs include 3 game, dog memberships etc. Be interested to see the breakdown of our membership compared to other clubs, naturally I'd think we'd have a higher MCC crossover membership.

Can you be both ruckman and tagger at the same time?

I thought they adjusted pretty well around the middle of the second quarter and started to lower their eyes, early in the game North picked off a few higher balls that came in (and if you listened to the commentators Magic Door was the greatest player on earth for a couple of seconds). Once we did adjust, Hogan then spent more time higher up the ground although Garlett & co, dropped a few easy marks that should have been shots on goal. That long bomb seemed to be reserved for the 'get out' or pure congestion kicks, which due to our ability to hold the ball in the forward 50 happened a fair bit. As we managed to retain the ball, it meant our forward 50 was crowded more often than not, so it was harder to find that free target. I noticed in the second half Hogan and Petracca even directing the small forward who was matched up to Daw, Bugg, Harmes, ANB or Garlett, to stand around 25 out directly in front at center square bounces, then they themselves moved to one side of the f50. Seemed to be to ensure we didn't do the long bomb, but also seemed to confuse the hell out of Daw who had no idea where to go if he didn't have a big player to lead him to the ball.

We've just got to hope it stays like that towards the pointy end, the Tigs only had 1 player from memory on the injury list come late last season/finals and I don't think he was anywhere near best 22. Pity that Viney and TMac are part of our 4 injured, as they are automatic best 22. Can't ever recall a start to the season where we've had 40 players to chose from?

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.

We needed the experience at the time, so can only see this as a good trade. Yes long term Adelaide have won the trade, but given the unpredictable nature of 2nd round picks, the next year Pat McKenna was taken at pick 23 - he's now on our list and hasn't played a single game yet. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but we picked up a best and fairest winner who has played over 80 games for us. Think he'll play on next year, but honestly hope he only gets 15 games (max) and he's forced out of the team by younger guys.