deanox

The PSD used to be what kept everyone honest; players could end up anywhere (but could nominate contact terms so would get a massive pay rise) and clubs lose for nothing. As a result it was in both player and clubs interest to trade suitably because of the risk to both parties. However when the AFL decided players could go in the national draft not just the PSD, and when the AFL stopped threatening to punish people for draft tampering by saying "I want to play for x only" , the PSD lost all meaning. I'm not sure why they still have it. Players don't use it, and clubs don't pick players up if they have said they won't come to them.

Versatile utility; happy at either end but prefers it when it's between the arcs.

I don't wish that on anyone. But I would love it to happen to Sydney. Would. Be. Amazeballs.

Cheers. That's really interesting. I can see some amazing benefits to that however the challenges are immense. Working at an engineering firm for example, the personality tours vary from extreme introverts to extroverts. Making sure that everyone had the chance to be heard, the opportunity to think about what they'd like to say would be critical. If not handled well, it could very quickly be dominated by the loudest in the room. This may not be obvious at the time either; the discussion may appear orderly but that doesn't mean everyone is happy with their opportunity to speak up, even if they say they are. Also, I imagine the start of this process would be extremely confronting. People you've worked with for years and you suddenly tell them your true opinion that you may never have mentioned before? I imagine there is a lot of hurt and lost trust at the start. It would feel like a gang up at times. Once the system runs for a while and you regain that trust I can see amazing benefits, but to only run a few sessions could be more harmful than good.

RE Craig and payout We all knew Craig was gone weeks ago. Roos said it. Craig knew it. Then why want it announced until yesterday, the same time he was announced to join Essendon? We didn't sack him, then he go find another job like usually happens. I suggest it was a mutual redundancy: "I don't want to work under Roos" "That's fine Neil, There isn't really a spot for you." "Ok, let's chat again once I've checked what else is out there." I imagine he'll get a payout but would be surprised if it was the full amount. We may have even said: "we can afford to pay you $x if you move on to another position elsewhere. If you don't move somewhere else we will have to retain you here as we can't afford to pay your full salary for no work, and your new position will be ..."

RE captains Neeld created the process although I imagine there was input from other choosing staff. I seen to recall him saying that they had identified the qualities that a leader should have and then all players and footy dept staff ranked the players. Yes, Neeld could have rigged the system to get what he wanted but that seems ridiculous. Grimes had constantly been awarded the clubs leadership award under multiple coaches and is widely recognised for his leadership qualities, particularly during his injuries. If the process selected Grimes as a captain and identified Trengove as his equal, the system probably isn't flawed is it? Also, this system doesn't seem to be much different than the leading teams system Roos is bringing in. Note re captains next year, I think Dawes, Jones and Garland will be in the mix with Grimes and Trengove. From the outside none of us know enough about personality or behaviour to make an accurate comment but those 5 clearly have, or have grown into, leadership qualities. Note 2: Frawley, Clark, McKenzie and Byrnes were the other members of our leadership group this year.

Moloney may not have wanted to but he agreed to it. Was told he wouldn't get a game behind the rest of their available mids.

Here. A player cannot be traded anywhere without his permission. He has to sign a contract the new club, without agreeing. Just as a player can say "trade me to x because iwant to go there for money/success/family/coach or I walk for nothing and try my luck in the psd" a club can say "we are trading you here because they are offering us a better deal or you can try your luck in the draft."

That's not whatyou said. You used the phrases forced trade and goodwill. No one can be force traded anywhere. That is a written rule. They can be force drafted in national or psd. Clubs do show players goodwill because the alternative is to lose them for nothing in draft.

of course it is written otherwise how could players ever choose to go in the draft? The cub would refuse and trade them to whoever they want.

I cannot understand how at Melbourne with a dearth of any player on the list worth big coin (Dawes, Clarke Frawley then who?) That we could only have offered Sylvia 330 per year when Carlton with Judd, Murphy, Gibbs, Scotland, Walker, Waite, Carrazo and Warnock) can pay Daisy 700k. We must have not been particularly keen on keeping him if we couldn't find an extra 200k to lock him in.

I haven't been there enough but will endeavour to take us forward if I can keep getting a game as a tight head prop.

CBF Thanks for taking the time to write a so well measured and thought out response. It was a good read and offers some great insights. I imagine a lot of it is true to the mark, and I don't know enough to deny any of it nor do I think it is unreasonable. The only thing I would change is perhaps slant the view more towards "he was doing what he thought was right and was sanctioned by others" rather than "maniacal dictator trying to be the premiership coach". That being said I also think that his control freak kind of nature was probably the biggest problem, although this was exacerbated by us being a poor club with cheap and inexperienced football department resources who maybe did need some supervision (just not from the CEO). Again, I have no problem with criticism, I just don't see the need to treat him like the proverbial leper or tax collector. A couple of particular thoughts on your post: I don't think this is actually a bad thing, most clubs do. And I don't believe he was the sole evil genius pushing for is to lose games, I'm pretty sure that would have been a groupthink. Remember, other clubs did it, and until it went to shizen a few years later most observers thought we were on a good thing with a great list. Not many considered the effects of the lack of leadership at the time. Again, I think a lot of what footy departments put out is a smoke screen at the best of times. Think Craig's play of the week, think he ever spoke real tactics? This is a perfect statement for me. He is responsible. But just as Bush could never be accused of being a great lover of his country, I don't think Schwab ever did anything that he didn't think was 100% right for the dees.I don't think Schwab got any benefits out of his time or actions at Melbourne* (ie start a war, make money for your company). I think he just wasnt successful. *Without knowing the specifics I don't understand the issue people have with the loan - happens in private business all the time, and it may have been lower rates for him but it still would have been higher rates than we would have got in a bank. Happy to understand it better though, if anyone knows the true details.

We could have but we didn't. Hardly anyone did. A small percentage didn't like the "tanking" but nothing like the percentage of people who act like they want to spit on the bloke now. His strategy was ultimately flawed, and certainly poorly executed, and the rationale behind what he did made sense in many ways: -We have been accused of standing for nothing, of being a rubbish club with no identity. He tried to address that by embracing our history and establishing or identity in our past, the branding, emblem, blazers, bugle, the MCC and historic figures. Reinstating our position in the history of the game, that was his idea to answer the "stand for nothing". Did it work? No. But if we started winning it may have. -We were a divided club with a recent merger story and internal fighting. With Jim he looked to get the club back together, get everyone around to stop the disruption. Did it work? Yes. Until it became apparent that we were failing on field and until Jim, the person we all got behind, passed away. -We struggled for supporter numbers. So he tried to engage our people with personal contact with players and officials. Did it work? Somewhat. Whiteboard Wednesday is horrible in hindsight, but I think we set standards for content and engagement. -We were crap on field and teams around us got leg ups. We saw low picks as a means to the top, and did many other clubs. Did it work? No. Because we probably took it too far. And because we scrooged on development without raising the repercussions. And because the AFL significantly diluted the pool while we were at the bottom, reducing the quality of the picks we got when we were down. And because we had zero senior on field leaders apart from Junior. And because as a club we got it wrong with drafting; they looked for skinny skilful athletes, not mongrel footballers. We took the formula too far and over corrected. And other reasons, the CEO was to involved in footy, and all agree with that. He was shocking at other things to. I will not defend his methods because ultimately they failed to deliver what we needed and were unsuccessful, but I think he did try and I think most of the actions had reasons. Bit he still doesn't deserve to be insulted or treated like he is on here. He is a Melbourne supporter who tried but failed, not a Malcolm Blight who took the cash and ran.

It didn't work out. It was horrible. We stuffed up big time and Schwab was a big part of that. He wasn't good at what he was doing and has caused problems. BUT the bloke didn't do it on purpose. He wanted the best for the club, did what he thought was best and was supported and sanctioned by the member elected board. He did not gain personally from these stuff ups. He didn't line his pockets with bonus while our share price plummeted (his pay out clause was only 3 months). He deserves criticism for being an average CEO who has cost this club dearly, but he doesn't deserve personal attacks or derision, such as attacks on his character. Attack his work, not the man, because the man wanted to, and thought he was doing the best job he could. We regularly say of our players "I don't care if they are crap, and long as they throw themselves in and don't shirk the contest and bleed for the club." But when it comes to Schwab and even McLardy to an extent, we seen to think that this doesn't apply, and that unless they are the Gary Ablett jnr of administrators they deserve to be attacked.

The same here: if you don't spend 95% you pay the rest to the afl and they divide it amongst your list. I'd like to see the following changes: -The next CBA negotiated with respect to the current floor, and the "max" salary cap increased so that cubs can pay for little as 90% but players still get the negotiate amount -The AFL fund 100% of the cap to remove the incentive. If the floor is not acceptable to the players, all clubs "under payments" should be collected and divided amongst all players, including rookies and draftees, AFL wide, not just that club. That way players at one club aren't over paid with respect to other clubs.

This thread sums up one of the things I've been banging on about for a few weeks. The salary cap floor hurts the poor teams. They have to meet it which means money is tied up in low value high cost assets and contracts. The Clubs then didn't have available cap space to throw around to buy high cost high value assets like free agents. It hurts the cash poor and onfield poor teams even more; they can't afford to pay 100% of the cap so the have less wiggle room to buy players.

I didn't think the subscriptions were that high! Thanks again for your constant efforts over such a long time mate.

Well done boys!

Band 2 will give us pick 20 Band 3 will give us pick 22 Band 4 will give us pick 36 Taking into account: -Essendon and Adelaide are not in the first 2 rounds. -Hawthorn get a first round compo for Franklin. -Collingwood get a first round compo for Daisy -GWS have activated their "use it whenever pick"

I don't mind him leaving for Freo, he has a chance to win a flag. If he leaves for Essendon I'll be staggered, what a poor choice that would be. Regarding compo, I have said and rpfc has said, there are 6 bands: 1. After our 1st round (pick 3) 2. After the first round (pick 17) 3. After our 2nd round (pick 19) 4. After the second round (pick 33) 5. After our 3rd round (pick 35) 6. Not good enough to warrant compo The above picks take into account Essendon and Adelaide draft suspensions but not other free agent compensation picks. I think it's likely we will get band 2 or 3 compo which I would be happy with for sylvia. I can't see us getting band 1, and with 4th band I'd be disappointed because while on a competition scale he may not be one of the elite, he is clearly one of our best players, one of our few senior players, and that should be a big part of the "compensation" process. 5th or 6th I'd be fuming and accusing the AFL of trying to kill us quickly. Anyone claiming "late second or 3rd round as compo" doesn't understand the compo band process.

rpfc and others. Can anyone confirm that players existing contract as well as their new contract will be taken into account? Ie if he is on big coin at Melbourne but leaves for little coin but chance at a flag then surely the current contract will have to be taken into account with regards to player value. And more my opinion on valuing players bad on contact number: all clubs must pay a minimum 95% of cap. So many players are over paid. Similarly at some clubs front loading, neck ending and "team pay cuts" to keep the group together dilute the usefulness of this number.

the single difference between us and those clubs is that they already had some senior players worth their sale, and in particular, some midfielders capable of playing AFL footy. We don't.

100% Correct The problem is that we are already short of best 22 standard players. We need to bring in 3 or 4 this summer. If we lose Col we need to bring in 4 or 5. It is easier to retain him than replace him.

What about 6 hot dogs with mustard?