deanox

Do you think that maybe the journo has a source who has leaked these comments? And have you noticed that other clubs don't leak these comments often?

I still don't think this has been confirmed anywhere. The only news sources available that I can find state 2024. Sure there are some other unofficial sites that list him as 2025, but no primary or even secondary sources that I can find.

https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/1653288/re-signed-quintet-of-talent Update indicates that AMW, K Brown, Verall, Sestan, Kentfield, have all been extended until the end of 2025. No clarity on whether that is rookie list or they'll be upgraded, I guess that'll come at draft time. Kentfield already listed here until the end of next year but I believe mid year rookies could be signed on 6 month contracts.

While it's reasonable to think he is in danger, I don't think there has been much public talk about his future and there was even a report he had one more season on contract.

My take on this (rightly or wrongly is): - the board is the ultimate authority, very hard to truly review them, however boards can appoint someone to assist with independent review and make changes. You need strong leadership for that change to be pushed through though. - the Board appoint a CEO to manage the business for them. - if the Board is under review, it isn't a good time to replace the CEO. It is probably better to review and refresh the Board then the new Board reviews the CEO - the CEO at a football club is responsible for the commercial/administration operations and the football operations. These might be two different departments but ultimately the CEO is responsible for both (via staff appointments) - So a football department review is in effect a review of the CEO. If there are lots of failings in the football department, the CEO is ultimately the person responsible for those failings - Ultimately we review/refresh the board, and then the new board will assess is Pert is still the right person going forward, and they will have the results of the recent football department review to help inform that decision.

I'm not sure of the exact wording, but I think an unsubstantiated trade rumours are different than an unsubstantiated rumour about personal health, illegal behviour, or other type of statement that could be considered libel.

Yeah me too RE Pearce. Although it was a really hard game due to a good spread of contributors. I thought Heath's pressure and tackling was ferocious and probably critical to stop their ball movement forward. And similarly I thought Fitzsimon played a really strong under the radar game with 3 F50 tackles. I'm not sure anyone else was as consistent with inside 50 pressure even though she didnt hit the scoreboard. I thought Chaplin really stepped up with the departure of Birch, and while she might not be as tall she seemed to bob up in the right spots disrupting those attacks.

6 Hore 5 Mackin 4 Heath 3 Fitzsimon 2 McNamara 1 Chaplin Apologies to Hanks, Goldrick. Well done to Beasley in her first game.

I was wondering that about Pisano. Went back through the info I could find about the pre season games, and it sounded like she played, but no reports. She wasn't named as an emergency either.

Love on Kayo.

Shelly Health one of the most underrated players in the AFLW.

She is amazing when the ball is in space, but really needs to add another string to her bow so she can find a way to get involved.

It's the half back to centre kick that we're missing I think. We need one short and safe to gain 25 metres, before the long kick. That means if it turns over it rebounds from half back not from the centre.

@Jaded No More my recollection is that there was a group of ex-players unhappy with the club and it's direction in 2020. The board met with them, and my interpretation of the outcome was that to bring them "inside the house", a director position was made available which ended up being Brad Green. To be clear this is my interpretation putting 2 and 2 together (hopefully to make 4 not 5!) It's also what I wish they did with Peter Lawrence instead of fighting him, whether a board role or another role.

I can't help but read this as "a board member who was in the minority/lost the vote, has called for a spill of the entire board so that it can (hopefully) be replaced by a new board that agrees with them".

Ironically I think making the season much longer could have a good outcome for the game. - Shorter preseason means players can't be "as fit" in round one. It means overall fitness levels might plateau closer to what is sustainable year round and get rid of the assymetrical "loading" and fitness issues that plague June and July. - Lower fitness probably means more one on one and less gut running zone, which seems to be a preferred feature for many viewers - More games means more equitable fixture, playing everyone home and away - Need for larger squads to manage fitness, injuries, etc. means that there is more depth kept on AFL lists (instead of using the list mostly for development). - Longer season might even see a reduced reluctance to rest players when injured. I can see a good case for this. Not saying it isn't without its issues, I haven't actually thought this through. But I think it's worth considering if they can secure the grounds.

It probably shouldn't be possible to go as bad for us next year as it has this year. Although if there are ongoing issues with Clarry and Petracca then it is possible. So assuming if tends to normal, instead of terrible, we should bounce back up somewhat. Like all clubs we'll need luck to bounce back all the way. And we can create some of that luck in the off season.

Worst part of this one is that as Petty was running in for goal, instead of paying the 50, the umpire started shouting get back Tom, get back Tom, which probably was a bit of a distraction for Petty...

After being so good for 3 quarters, perhaps he didn't have the fitness base to go a 4th.

Or you could say Freo doing what we did to west coast (the first time).

Definitely seems to have a bit more power. I wonder if he's been on a modified program that's been pushing him a bit harder?

You could imagine it, but if you are imagining the USA you'd be wrong. Because "free speech" means that the government can't police your political views. It doesn't stop a private company (your employer) from limiting your speech. And fwiw he isnt compelled to sign up. As an athlete he could have chosen a range of sports to pursue, and he could choose to be paid to play in other leagues. And to make it worse, we aren't even talking about the AFL restricting general speech. The critiscm he made were directly of his employer. If you worked at Coles and went on a podcast and gave Coles a spray and your manager a spray and they heard it you'd get fired too.

This country never had (nor does it have) a right to "free speech" whatever you think that is. It does have an implied right to freedom of political communication (ie as Moonshadow said below the government can't lock you for supporting a political party other than their own - that's what freedom of speech actually means). In this case, regardless of whether he was right, Green broke his employment rules, which is why he was reprimanded. For what it's worth, I reckon there were ways he could've said similar things about player confusion and dissatisfaction with the MRO without attracting the AFLs penalty. His choice of language was pretty poor.

I think the AFL has a long term goal of averaging only 6 day breaks. It would allow them to play mid week games, and mean you could fit say 27 games plus a bye for each club in a 24 week fixture. I'm not sure they'll revert get there but I think that's why they want to test the 5 day break.