Rhino Richards

What trade value?? Young unproven with significant development ahead of him. Possibly 2 to 3 years away from nailing a KPF role.

So would you get rid of Maric and Wonna instead WYL? We need to get rid of 3 players. BTW, Simon Godfrey had a real crack to but.......

If you are basing his value on the 2003 draft you are using a poor and unreliable indicator. 2003 has proven itself to be definite non vintage year for talent. He has 7 years in the system with 2 clubs. What has he done in the time? I dont want depth in the midfield I want class. He lacks it and has much grunt as the 2011 vintage of Cale Morton. Definite pass. And what gem do you expect to get there in the PSD from an ageing list like St Kilda's?

Settle Daisy settle. I have said no more (with ifs) that has been put on the public record by the media with Caro being just one of the sources. And I understand that whats on the public record is not necessarily rumour. And its relevant to an assessment of Schwab what the Board/CS do in regard to future contract. The Board mightnt renew his contract or Schwab might not accept a renewal. What has been done is done. It will be an interesting year.

I cannot recall them being hyped. They were all underage. Newton was always a punt. Was young and immature but had an interesting skill set. He just could not bring it together. Bate and Dunn have been disappointing. Dunn from his first year when he would go for overheard marks at the front of the pack with his head down. Troubling. Wasted 1st round picks.

I did start the question with an "if". Why do you think the replacement for Cam Schwab would either be an internal or someone of the ilk of Harris/ McNamee? And i agree we dont want another one of those. I think Stynes has been phenomenal at MFC. However, his illness and inability to fufill his roles in the past 18 months and to have stood aside earlier highlights the lack of leadership and capability at the Board level. I think its allowed some of the key Club departments to get out of kilter too. McLardy would know that with Stynes illness he would have been likely to be called into the gap at some stage. I am sure he is not comfortable with it and I dont think has the capability to do it. Its a hard job. And the fact that we have had some shockers in the past chosen by past adminstrations is not enough to retain Schwab if the Board had indeed been prepared to dismiss him. I would have thought Schwab would be walking on rice paper from this point. I am not sure he would want to extend his contract. I wonder too how much Schwab is really focussed on being a Club CEO given he seemed to dabbling in things he is interested in as opposed to what he needed to do at CEO level. And HT: Big ticks to Neeld and Rawlings

The players were not discussing the future of the CEO.That is the Board's domain. Prior to 186, McLardy met with a small group of players then met with the broader group to air grievances. This process undertaken in the absence of the CEO by the Dep President reflected questions that the Board had over Schwab. It might have been preferable if the Board had replaced Leoncelli's role when he left rather than McLardy's actions bringing all these issues to a head prior to the Geelong game. Schwab clearly has not managed his r/ship with the Board or the players as well as he could have. There was no BaileySchwab showdown. It was a no contest as Bailey was slowing had his support eroded throughout 2010 and in the lead up to 186. After 186, his position was untenable. An astute assessment rpfc. A performance of plusses and minuses by Schwab If we dont re appoint Schwab, why do you think the next CEO appointment will come from inside MFC? I would be surprised if the next CEO is within MFC ranks at the moment. IMO, McLardy is out of his depth once out of Jimma's shadow. Stynes has done some wonderdful things at MFC but his ailing health has got to a stage then when he been unable to fulfil his requirements there has been no one at Board level to come forward.Its no wonder they chased Lyon as the Club seemed to be losing direction and focus.

I wonder how that will go. I dont think CS will be staying anyway. When Jimma took control of the FD and given CS was the person reporting to the Board on the FD, it does not look good. And given in Jimma's absence but should have been with his knowledge, McLardy sought to i/V the players on their concerns with Schwab. Not a good sign even if it was "instinctive". More like poor CEO judgement.

How would we have matched the Carlton/Visy bid? We couldnt. All player payments (except Judd's) go through the salary cap. He had agreed to join Carlton four months prior to doing his DD tour. We are in a better position than we were 4 years but that better position would not have been enought to snare Judd or Ball

You still miss it and you're wrong. We could not matched the Carl/Visy offer through the salary cap. And no I dont think he would have come to us even if we could have come close to the money. Carlton were ahead of us in so many areas and still are. His choices with Carlton would appear to have been a number of reasons including an outrageous package. You can also see them as stronger in facilities, list strength and having the Captaincy on table. We nor any Club could have matched that total package. Its a fantasy to claim that the debt burden was seperating us from Ball and Judd. Given what was on offer from Carlton he did not need to consider any other Clubs. MFC's debt positions was irrelevant to these outcomes. Judd went to Carlton because Carlton offered him a once in a lfetime deal. Judd was not worried about other Clubs given the DD farce he went through.

The head coach should only be focussed on the FD issues and even then today they have salaried mentors indicating that the role has expanded. CEO's definitely have a role and say in the appointment of key Club Appointments. But it should be the Head of FD that should be running the FD. There should also be a Board director with football experience to provide a Board view on FD proceedings. CEO's are ultimately responsible for the implementing the Board's vision and delivering on the bottom line across all departments. It would appear CS played in one sandpit more than others he should been attending to.

Well done. You missed the point. We couldn't offer him more money and we could not have matched the counter offer Judd agreed to Carlton's deal well before the DD period for other Clubs every started. Given the salary cap rules, how could we have ever topped the combined Carlton/ Visy package?? Its an outrageous package that would blow any Clubs salary cap sky high. We could not have gone close to that deal debt or no debt. How the AFL allowed that one through the net is another story. Nor could we offer the flag window the other Clubs were offering. A better effort and agree. Good go tell the furphy hunter.

Proof of that actually being the case?? Or is this just another rock solid comment made without being able to be substantiated beyond your opinion. We could not have matched Judd's salary package and premiership window and still cant. Ball only wanted to go to Collingwood. He rejected any overtures to talk with any other Club and did not give any reasons why against the other Clubs. You are taking two unconnected issues and trying to build a plausible cases without the facts. You are once again trying to build a plausible cases without any facts. And Dave Misson's decision is independent of the decisions made by Luke Ball. Different roles, different objectives. Why because i dont put a blindfold and say gee WYL you havent any facts on the issue but you're right. Like all supporters we all want success, I just dont substitute melodrama and make believe for actual truths.

I think some of the issues centred around focussing and being overly involved in the FD and not enough focus on the strategic issues that a CEO should be dealing with like raising revenue, controlling costs etc. His handling of a few matters in the Press could have been handled more diplomatically as well From what i understand since the resignation of Anthony Leoncelli, there was no re appointment of a football director on the Board, CS was handling it. The only story the Board was hearing was CS's. No one from the FD was presenting to the Board just CS. Chris Connolly "headed" the Footy Dept this year. So it was definitely not a CS vs FD issue. it was clear CS did not support the Coach. And when Jimma took "control" of the Footy Department it was not a tick for CS. I am not sure there has been a clean out of sorts. Cuddles is now in a commercial role. If the head coach is gone then it was likely that assis coaches out of contract were in trouble. I think the scars of what happened up to and around 186 will leave the r/ship b/w Board and CEO dicey. This may be seen as criticism of the CEO performance but I should say that the performance of the Board in this issue has left alot to be desired in the lead up to 186.

Choko, If anything Bailey was no match for Schwab and Connolly. The issue was with Schwab and the Board. They were prepared to almost cut him. I think its a tenuous r/ship at best and not made for the LT. I think Schwab has done some things well but he has also gaffed along the way clearly to the dismay of the Board. Schwab was up to his armpits in the FD. When Stynes announced he was taking control of the football department in May, I would have thought it was not a good sign for Schwab.

Some of those have come from supporters. Regardless of what happens this year, if it was true that the Board were going to sack Schwab and cut the Coach instead I would have thought the future beyond the term of his current contract is murky indeed.

No I didnt at all. You made the comment that "But it was because of our financial state that both Judd & or Ball wanted nothing to do with this club." Judd and Ball chose other Clubs and had agreed deals with their respective Clubs before MFC came sniffing. They did not reject MFC due to the debt it had. MFC did not have a chance in hell of getting either player. They sort deals with other Clubs that made financially attractive deals for them and provided them with the best opportunity to snare a flag. Ball won a flag and Judd is pressing. I dont know why you need to dramatise and make things up. It only makes your naivety on these topics more amusing than before. If we courted Judd and Ball under circumstances without the debt...... then guess what? They has already signed with other Clubs. We could never have come close to equally the $$$$$ Judd was able to extract from Visy and Ball would not have his premiership. If Ball was so fit why did he have to submit a full medical check (including his managed OP disposition) to Collingwood as part of the negotiations?? The furphy is your melodrama by overstating the impact of a concept you have established on here that you dont understand

Another rock solid comment that has no factual basis to it. You cant help yourself with the BS. You get found out for it every time. Why do you do it? Both Judd and Ball had made decisions to move to other Clubs independently of what MFC did or did not have in the bank. The Judd due diligence was a charade and he had already "chosen" Carlton well before he did the review of other Clubs. All Ball wanted to do was to go to Collingwood as his best chance to win a flag with his injury riddled body. He chose not to make himself available and would not speak to a number of clubs including Melbourne and Essendon. And it is humorous you talking of debt WYL.

Then we should play no reliance on it. Thanks for clearing that up.

You need to quiz yourself Robbie about why you did it. Its ironic that you accuse someone of skimming and you are one of the key proponents. Just because my take on things does not align with your narrow view of the world. Its how you operate universally to everyone on nearly each issue I have seen him play one game at Casey. I am not sure how many you have seen if at all. What i do know is that it does take time for taller/bigger players to mature physically and psychologically into their roles. I apply the same rule to Cook. You have amply shown us what you do know.

Rock Solid comment?

Post #21. You should read more. While I like the concept, its hard to put say with any certainty what impact the debt repaid has had an impact. There would be other issues that could have handed bigger impact such as the quality of the list. etc.

You have changed the goalpost again WYL. Well done. If you read my posts, Clark is not the issue. How do you know what Misson and Clark would have done? Sorry if I take your comments as rock solid. Clearing the debt saved us $600,000 a year. Its big win. Does it make us a " player"? Well Ah...no! We still need to become financially sustainable operation. We are no where near that Any thought that the players might find it difficult to adjust to Neeld's game plan and style? Ah but that's right there are "no excuses"!!!!

Skimming posts again Robbie. Tut tut. Post 18 . That's my view on Cook. And when it comes to arguments you're a real firelighter. Keep going until you win one, slugger.

Any chance the individual would take responsibility for that? The Club should not be responsible for it. And Fevola is a perpetual and serial problem. And its not a matter of it just being in his contract. With or without Clark MFC, Fevola's AFL days are gone. Its a finite time and he spent most of his destroying opportunities on and off the ground.