deanox

A bunch of players there we need back for and in the team asap if we want to challenge in finals.

7 and 8 on its own is reasonable, but if they require us to give them the equivalent of pick 8 in points in later picks back, then it's only pick 7 isn't it? Pick 7, 8 + F1, for all of our late picks this year (which will be pick 8+ in points) is a fairer deal. Given their first pick next year is probably going to be 15-18.

Doesn't trade week have until next Wednesday? I don't expect a resolution until the last day.

It seems overly complicated and therefore unlikely. And it seems that Clayton has been genuinely hurt, judging by some of his comments. But at first I did wonder if some of it was driven to expose who was leaking. But I think that kind of plot is way to sophisticated for this scenario, and I don't think it would be fair for us to use Clayton as a means to find that leak internally, given his own issues.

I really don't think we've handled this one well. If we did any of the leaking we really ballsed it up.

Absolutely agree @Lucifers Hero , I reckon @red and blue forever is doing a stellar job, it's hard with all the news sources reporting info and it not getting formalised etc! @red and blue forever if you're trying to keep it factual, that's good enough for me! You're right I don't think any other clubs supporters are lucky enough to have info like this available, it's a big responsibility but also a really big volunteer role, and your efforts are appreciated.

@red and blue forever I reckon Turner has been pretty rough on you here, and you do a great job at a relatively thankless task. It's absolutely up to you how you run your thread, but I don't think it is a bad suggestion to only update the list with official changes, so that it's a complete/factual record? I know I personally would find an official, factual, list (like it has traditionally been) a more useful resource. But of course if that's not your preference and you'd like to take it in a new direction, that's your call!

Has Miochek actually been confirmed? I saw that he nominated us, but didn't realise it went through.

I can infer, but they were questions a good journalist could have asked to get decent responses. Instead they asked lots of questions that were always going to get "I can't respond to that." it was a waste of time. Because we may still be stuck with Oliver. Maybe he doesn't agree to trade or no one will trade anything for him. I still believe we can telegraph "Oliver is a superstar, and we'll always find a role for him, but we don't believe his strongest role fits with Steven Kings game plan. He is a champion of our club, and we don't want to see a player of his talent out of the game, so we've offered the opportunity to seek a trade where he may be offered a role that suits his style better. If not, we know he will work hard within our system and game plan and compete for a spot on our best 22." In a way that we can still trade him for a bag of chips. A trade comes up and people say "you accepted low for Oliver " and we say "they might think it was low, but given the role we saw him playing in the new game plan we felt it was a fair deal, and we wish Clarry all the best". It's not hard. I think they've gone out of their way to make it uncomfortable for him. But I also think that diminishes his value in the market.

I thought Lamb just straight batted most things in a reasonable way, and I thought he answered the questions about Clarry's role and off-field well. But the questions overall were poor. Too much focus on things they all knew Lamb couldn't answer - will you pay salary, what trade would you accept - and not real question ls like: What is the role King would require Oliver to play? Did Oliver say he was or wasn't prepared to play that role? You've talked about how Trac is a modern day great, but Oliver has 4 X Bluey and 2 X AFLCA MVP and you don't talk about him in the same way, why? You mentioned that to trade Trac the offer needs to be head turning, but you aren't using the same language Oliver. Is that because you see him as surplus to your current needs? Are WCE in the conversation for McVee? Would you be prepared to send him to the PSD if Fremantle didn't offer a reasonable trade? Would you be prepared to re-draft McVee ahead of Freo in that situation? Personally, I am a bit disappointed that there has been a clear decision to pump up Trac as a great but effectively down play Oliver. There is no reason the club couldn't say similar things "Clayton is a great player and if he would prefer to seek a trade because he doesn't like the role outlined for him, we expect to see a deal that provides value to us versus the value he'd provide in role we think he'll play on King's game plan moving forward.".

Trac has him covered in hit outs though!

Shelley Heath has had an excellent year to only have 16 votes. Not saying it's wrong, just noting she has been super consistent without being in BOG contention. A real purple patch for Fitzy and a bit of a breakout season for her. She's been a great consistent team player but really come by into her own now as well!

We've definitely got a door, so we've got a gym!

The audacity.

We're quite clearly a cut above this Essendon team (as it doesn't feel like they threatening to score) but they are tenacious and bring the pressure, making up for some of what they lack. In some ways I feel like we should be up by more, but I think it's been a good hit out for us in terms of playing against a pressure team.

Up and down I've heard. The barista has lots of potential, hoping they really improve in 2026.

He was always a high ceiling, low floor proposition. Has attributes - many in the power or explosivity category - that if they translate to AFL made him dangerous. But question marks over whether he would be able to translate them. To me he doesn't seem to read the play and react quite well enough. He is a bit flat footed and reactive, rather than anticipating and being on the move. Maybe this can be developed? Agree he is being played out of position at AFL level, so it's hard to assess. Not all players are guns immediately, part of the joy of football is watching them grow and develop into their potential (or not).

3 words only please @joeboy !

All we need is for north to drop one and their percentage will crash and we'll be level on points. So I think it's worth trying to stay in touch with them. I also think it's absolutely worth making sure we don't accidentally drop to 4th and play them in week one of finals.

From a percentage perspective, it's pretty frustrating to let them kick the last 3.

That sort of forward play is what got Pisano drafted, hopefully we see a bit more of it in the coming weeks!

5 goals to Zanker half way through the second. She's got her sticky mits on.

I think Kavanagh for West Coast just got the clearance the wrong way, leading to Zankers 4th?

Need about 130 more points to catch Norths percentage here

I reckon the role is based on two things: Effectively replacing Richo as per above Adding a "Football CEO" type role to run the football department (instead of a coach up to GM type) below our CEO who doesn't have a footy background. Our CEO needs someone to head up that department, and they need to be part way between footy department and CEO, not too much in either camp.