deanox

Not the result we were looking for but Molly named in the best in promising!

Clare Pettyfor was the Melbourne GM of Media and Communications in 2021 and 2022. She then moved to Collingwood as General Manager of Football Operations (men's program I believe), before returning to us as CCO (Chief Communications Officer) which was an executive level role. So while her technical background is mainly in comms she has experience in football programs and at executive level management.

If the metric is "how many games do you need to win to get at least one premiership?" then we are the most efficient!

Surely having parents play senior football should rule you out of being eligible for an NGA? Isn't the purpose to unearth talents from non-traditional backgrounds and pathways?

That's completely fair to hold that view, and it is reasonable to critique specific aspects of his performance (or what you consider his performance). But statements like "he was handed a list" undermine otherwise reasonable positions.

Roos was only here for 1 season without Goodwin, who he selected as his senior assistant and successor and who joined the MFC in September 2014, before the trade period. Roos influenced precisely one trade/draft period without Goodwin's input.

Salary cap in 2025 is $17.7 million. We have 44 players. The bottom 17 players are probably on about $150k each. That includes rookies and draftees and journeymen like Campbell. That leaves $15.1 million for the other 27 players. Oliver's contract was reported as $7 million over 7 years. Petraccas was "under a million per year". Kosi is now $1.4 million. So take those 3 out and we still have $11.8 million for the remaining 24 or $500k each. There will be a spread between $200k and up to a million for those remaining players. Plenty of cap space to play with.

Fredmantle.

He didn't kick any goals at Casey this week @picket fence :p

Nah, they started it when they took Jason Norrish.

Pushed the ladder leaders to one point, and probably deserved a win today. Reckon we (and him) are on the right track.

What rubbish. Goodwin has been a coach at MFC since 2015 and senior coach since 2017. Gawn, TMac, Viney and Salem are the only listed players who debuted for Melbourne prior to Goodwin joining. Everyone on our list (including those four who were relatively young when he join) with the exception of a couple of mature recruits - May, Campbell, McAdams, Billings - have been developed under Goodwin. Even Melksham was coached by Goodwin at Essendon.

Respectfully disagree. Billings has played 172 AFL games over 12 seasons, averaging about 14-15 games per season. Clearly he has been good enough for AFL: he is in the top 1000 all time VFL/AFL games played (over 13000 have played at least 1 game, and only ~4000 have got to 50 games). Has he been an AFL star or able to regularly dominate at AFL level? No. Maybe right now he fits the "too good for VFL but not good enough for AFL" descriptor, but it doesn't sum up his career. However right now I thinkthat is how Laurie is tracking. He'll get more chances this year and next, but I suspect ultimately he will be not be good enough to play regularly at AFL level.

The multi member district system (including the senate) provides a much better representation of the population in parliament than single member districts do. In the recent federal election the 2 major parties captured about 67% of the votes but a combined 91% of the seats. On the other hand the Greens got more than 12% of the vote (1 in 8 people voted Greens) but only 0.6% of the seats. Preference voting means that the results represent a better outcome than FPTP would, but it's pretty clearly it's not representative. For what it's worth, you need the same number of votes for each seat in the Tasmanian multi member district (1 quota, either before or after preference distribution). The last seats don't get in with less.

I do wonder if this (unmanageable rules) is a strategy. Grey areas mean controversy, which means clicks and rage bait and engagement in the media, which in turn brings dollars in the door.

Oh yeah absolutely. A lucky sport in that they have no real competition in Australia outside NRL, and even that is geographical. Soccer and b-ball are 3rd rate sports in Australia because of the international order. All they have to do is put the product on and the money comes, they don't need to build a good business to succeed.

The AFL Executive (CEO) is accountable to the AFL Commission. The AFL Commission are effectively the board of directors, and have similar responsibilities to the Board of any organisation (fir all intents and purposes this includes managing the performance of the executive). BTW most of them are actually volunteers in this role (don't accept directors fees). The AFL Commissioners are appointed (voted in) by the Clubs (each club gets one vote). Similar to how a board of directors is appointed by the shareholders in a for-profit company. The Clubs can overrule the Commission on certain items and also retain authority for certain decisions (including whether to issue new licences for new teams). And the Clubs can remove the Commissioners if they are unhappy with their performance. If you really want to extend this, the members of each AFL Club appoint it's Board. Meaning the club members are ultimately able to influence the AFL Executive via who they elect. So there is accountability within the structure. Saying they are only accountable to themselves, is like saying "BHP is only accountable to itself". Note: I'm not saying they AFL is well run or that there isn't a boys club. But there is absolutely a relatively contemporary corporate governance structure in place.

I think it's simply that he didn't perform that well in that role his initial season at the club and they shifted him back. But also, in lower standard (and particularly junior footy) the best players all tend to play midfield, moving forward to kick goals. Once they get to AFL level, they often find a position more suited to their attributes.

Agree entirely about the rubbish of outcome based suspension. Mills had no chance to win/collect the ball, he just jumped to clean him up. Pearce from Freo got three weeks for his impact on PAs Bryne-Jones, in a situation where he really couldn't do much. My thoughts watching that were that Pearce was leading out to take a mark looked down and realised he was late and going to collide and tried (unsuccessfully) to minimise impact by going past him not through him. But it is outcome based so he gets longer.

I had always assume ld it was Cream, short for Full Cream because his name is FULLarton?

Thanks sorry for being grumpy!

Again, I'm not sure how this is in response to my comment. I haven't suggested he was tested. In fact, based on what I wrote, I believe if he out with an injury that was to be tested that would be listed as injured. If you meant "rested", then again, I think if he was actually rested they would state that (managed). I think the most likely situation is that he has been omitted. Yes he has been playing well, but he has lost his spot to an overall better player. Think of it like this: You coach a soccer team. Your number one Goalkeeper, the best goalkeeper in the world, is out injured. So your number 2 goalkeeper comes in to play. GK 2 plays out of their skin, amazing form, better than expected. But GK1 recovers from injury and is picked in the team this week. GK2 isn't left in the team as well because there is only spot for one GK. GK2 isn't managed or rested, they are omitted. Not due to form, but because others have been selected ahead of them.

I agree with this (his form) but not sure why it is relevant to what I said. He can be our most consistent and in form defender up til now but still be omitted from the team, now that the coaches think the players that make up our best 22 are available.

I suspect he was actually omitted though, unless the official wording has changed? I think it's ok to drop someone like TMac from the team and say "your not best 22 this weekend but not sure to your form and you don't need to go back to work on stuff. You'll be an emergency." Hard to manage someone but name them emergency too? Finally though, I believe that "injured", "managed", and "omitted" have contractual definitions with respect to the EBA, and the status of a play can impact their receipt of match payments, their eligibility for injury compensation, and trigger clauses in contracts. So I suspect that if there is not a physical/fitness reason why someone is being "managed" they probably have to list them as "omitted" even if it feels disrespectful.

I can see merit in all of this, but I don't think it's as simple as "can't play in the same midfield together" either. I think a big part of it is about what roles they are playing and how they are performing. When one or both are out of form, it's a mess. Particularly if it's Clarry, because when out of form Clarry isn't accountable. Even though we have talked about Clarry playing a "tagging" role lately, I do think it has been a different tagging role to what Viney was playing. Vineys was as a defensive, shutdown tagger. Clarrys was more about accountability for beating his direct opponent, which gave him licence to hunt the ball while also being responsible not to get completely outpointed. I think that personal level challenge (one on one with his man) really brought the competitive streak back in Clarey which is fantastic. So I don't think we have seen the end of Viney and Clarry in the middle together. Sure the early season versions of both was a disaster, but my gut says we should test it again with these new roles and form before writing it off. I do think that releasing Riv into the midfield a bit more provides an extra dimension due to his pace and kicking angles, and I agree we should work that in where we can. Between Clarry, Viney, Trac, Kossie, River, Langford and probably Lindsay eventually, have some credible midfield rotations now