mo64

How can McNamee's comments be construed as "vindictive sour grapes" when you have no facts to disprove them? And I've come to the defence of McNamee because I believe that his sense of immediacy and urgency of our on-field situation was the right way to go. Whilst I've been supportive of Stynes, and believe that he was one of the few people capable of driving the Debt Demolition Fund, his views on how we should progress on-field are contributing to our off-field woes.

True, but how many "significant discussions with potential sponsors" have we heard lately that have eventuated to nothing? Maybe McNamee waiting for the deal to be signed before any fanfare. I admit that's it's not the norm for the CEO to withhold sponsorship discussions from the board, but McNamee probably realised that he was unwanted by the Stynes board regardless of any sponsorship deals he could wrangle.

In a normal working environment, you'd expect the CEO to report to the board on impending sponsorships. But this wasn't a normal working environment. The relationship between McNamee and Stynes was strained from day 1, and we are talking about a short period of time here, so it's conceivable that he was working independent of the board, in the knowledge that he was under the gun.

Are you saying that he couldn't be in contact with the outside world because he was at Wimbledon?

In McNamee's defence, Stynes has stated that he didn't agree with the appointment of McNamee by the previous board, but never specified what the issue was. It's fair to say that McNamee was a dead man walking once Stynes got into power, so we don't really know what working relationship the pair had during McNamee's brief stint in office.

OK, I shouldn't jump to conclusions that the leak came from within the MFC, but I assumed that ITGRB was referring to the football world with his reference to "certain circles". And my reference to haggling was tongue in cheek. I just find it annoying that somebody would be spruiking that things are progressing well if the sponsorship wasn't a done deal, and they were just waiting for the ink to dry.

Excuse my ignorance, but how does a sponsorship deal fall through if it's progressing well? Surely there's no haggling done by the MFC to squeeze the last dollar out of the potential sponsor. And who is the moron at the MFC who is leaking this information? They should keep their trap shut until the deal is finalised and save us additional bad press.

If supporters expectations count for anything, Sylvia wouldn't be on our list. Thankfully the football dept. takes no notice of supporter expectations of individual players. And if Jack Watts gives his utmost but doesn't live up to the hype, Barry Prendergast will be out of a job. But Jack Watts will still be playing AFL football because he would still be a servicable AFL footballer.

Disagree. There shouldn't be any greater expectation or pressure on a player just because he was drafted earlier. The only expectation that a recruit should have is that they make the most of their ability. If a 1st round pick doesn't turn out to be a star, maybe that's the fault of the recruiting manager. Why burden the player with the expectation? You don't delist a player like Dunn because he hasn't lived up to the expectation of a 1st round pick. He is still capable of playing an important role within the team.

Correct. Once a player is drafted, it's irrelevent whether he's a 1st round pick or a 4th rounder. Dunn was drafted as a key forward or 3rd forward. In his first 3 seasons, he had Neitz, Robertson, Miller and Holland ahead of him. I thought he showed something in his 1st season, but unlike Miller, wasn't given 4 seasons to establish himself as a key forward. Last season he added another string to his bow by becoming a successful tagger. If given time to develop, he has the skill set to add an attacking side to his game.

In terms of importance, Jamar would probably rank in the top 10. I don't rate him as a footballer, but he's clearly our most competitive ruckman. PJ is overrated in my opinion. People get caught up with his physical attributes, but he has yet to dominate a game as either a ruckman or a key forward. Meesen and Spencer are unknown quantities, and that's being kind, hence Jamar becomes extremely important to the make up of our side.

If he's so in love with his school footy, why didn't he nominate for the draft next year? Once you sign up as an AFL footballer, that's where your football priorities and loyalties lie.

Good point. He's better off playing VFL footy against men than schoolboy footy.

I'm afraid the "big picture" is out of the equation given our current financial state. We need to be producing results now. I stand corrected. We were absolutely flying during last years' preseason.

Spot on. And we should take the same approach in the practice matches. Last season we didn't win a quarter of any of our preseason games. 90% of the posters on this forum were saying "she'll be right come round 1, they're only practice matches". Well I was concerned, and I'll be even more concerned if we can't win a practice match this year. Enough of this b#llshit line of "being competive", let's get back to Northey's culture of winning.

I'm glad that you agree with me that punishments shouldn't be left up to leadership groups. And are you saying that CA could have imposed further penalties on Symonds after the leadership group had handed down their penalties?

Read the article. A fine was the maximum penalty the ACB could hand down to Symonds because previous misdemeanours couldn't be factored in, because they were dealt with by the leadership group. A bloke with his track record doesn't deserve leniency. And part of the problem is that his mates/peers have taken the softly, softly approach in the past when it came down to handing out punishments.

Symonds has been a loose cannon for most of his career. His previous punishments were decided by his peers, ie; the leadership group. I'm just making the point that having your peers decide on punishments doesn't have any greater impact than that of a coach or board. In fact, given the mateship amongst the players, it can lead to disharmony. And as I previously stated, I didn't believe that Brock's misdemeanours warranted any action. His suspension from the leadership group didn't change the way he trained or played. It reaffirms my belief that leadership groups are irrelevant.

Yeah, whatever punsishment Carroll and McLean received for their overseas escapades had a profound influence on them. Their reaction was to re-offend 5 minutes later. And for what it's worth, I don't believe that Mclean's offences required anything more than a quiet word from the coach.

Wrong as usual Rhino. His prior offences of turning up to a game in England p#ssed and deciding to go fishing were both handled by the leadership group. Believe it or not, his latest indiscretion was considered a 1st offence by the ACB, hence the fine and no suspension. As for your belief that you need leadership groups to get the best out of players, why the hell do we have a cast of thousands in the football dept.? IMO, that's their job. And that's where your alternative lies. Your conduit between the players and the coaching dept. would be the capt., vc, and dvc.

So elaborate on "big say in a lot of team decisions" And what, you need to elect a group to determine punishments for bad behavior? Why can't the football department make the decision? And look at the leadership group within the Australian cricket team. When it comes to handing out punishments, it's been a farce because of the mateship amongst the players. As for team selection, are you saying that the leadership group has a bit of a say in the selection process? Rubbish, the captain may get asked for his opinions, but that's where it ends.

Leadership groups are the most overrated and irrelevant part of football. Every player should train and play at their utmost, regardless of their leadership status.

Conversely, our midfield was equally predictable this season by constantly going short. There's nothing wrong with going long into the forward line on the proviso that it's done in a quick play-on situation to prevent the opposition flooding, and you have a structured forward line. Our players seemed to be encouraged to play-on, but rarely had a structured forward line to be able to kick the ball long.

Our results last season were so predictable that we were a betting agency's nightmare and a punters' dream. Maybe that's why they're staying away from us.