deanox

Oh absolutely agree on that. But I would expect all to be ahead of him as of today given that they have been retained on a list with a few years development or were drafted in the top 25 of the draft, while we was passed over by everyone in the draft and as a rookie, and is currently trying for a supplementary spot. I actually think Kozzie is the only genuine forward pocket there, with Spargo more a half forward (the role ANB has been playing). Although they are all different players, they are all competing for the same couple of spots in the next year or two. ANB isn't a mid; he wouldn't be a starting mid in any of the 18 clubs. So he is always playing as a small forward, high or deep, doesn't matter. Laurie and Bowey will both start as either a small forward or back, and might work into the midfield. However both played small forward as juniors at times according to draft reports, and for them to push into the midfield or back line they need to push someone out. Hunt played forward last year didn't he? And if we're naming all smaller players at both ends of the ground I should also mention Jetta, Lockhart and Salem. My point isn't that all are competing for the one role, but that they are all potentials for the couple of small forward positions that exist.

I'm all for giving him a go if we think there is some talent that may develop late. But as a small forward he is going to start behind: Kozzie Spargo ANB Bedford Hunt Laurie Bowey Maybe some of them develop to play HBF, wing, mid, HFF, rather than small forward, and maybe a couple are gone at the end of this year, but there are still a few ahead of him.

Oh I agree completely, it's primarily the coaches responsibility. What I was trying to say is for 2017-2019 was the coaches message: -"what Weid needs to do to win MFC games" (i.e. how to play alongside TMac); or was it -"what Weid would need to do to develop as a no. 1 or 2 key forward" (I.e. best practice running patterns). We put eggs in the TMac basket which didn't pay off. It wouldn't surprise me if those eggs included the coaching of players around him.

Oh absolutely. I wonder if playing alongside "non forwards" has confused the message though. Weid only played 3 games in 2016, so has played mostly alongside Tmac as a forward. TMac does not play like a normal forward in terms of positioning. In 2017-2019, Weid may have been instructed to play a certain way to allow TMac to do his thing. In 2020 Weid had to try and take the no. 1 role and run different patterns. But the patterns that would/could work for him would potentially be very different than TMac. I have no idea if the above is true but it seems plausible.

I wonder how much of that is the players around him, as much as the coaches. His main KPF team-mates were: 2016: Hogan, Watts 2017: Hogan, Watts, Tmac (part) 2018: Tmac, Hogan, 2019: TMac, 2020: Jackson, TMac Hogan might have been a strong performer but he was but a kid. Many observers note his poor body language at times, and also that at times of poor form he often stood still and waved for it, instead of leading into space. Watts was not a key forward, and played more as a flanker, utility. TMac is not a true forward in terms of craft. He had a period where he marked and kicked superbly making him the no. 1 forward. But leading patterns and separation from opponent aren't nessecarily his strengths. Jackson is a first year player with limited football experience. Who has Weid had to learn from or emulate? Who has lead had to work with in terms of leading patterns?

Line of credit could have been used to help with liquidity in time of crisis. With reduced cash flow and substantial asset value tied up in illiquid assets (ie stadiums) there was a risk the AFL would not have the cash to pay bills. By opening credit against Marvel, they had additional cash to make payments to clubs, so that clubs could keep operating too.

If you are a government, issuing bonds to raise debt is very low interest. Commercial entities borrowing new money at bank is relatively low interest. Existing loans or financial agreements could be at various rates. If the choice is between investments paying a high rate of return vs low interest debts, then you keep the investment (if you are liquid enough to survive). If it's between debt being repaid and cash invested at no interest, then repaying makes sense.

The reports seem to say that Collingwood are paying the difference between Treloar's contract with WB and the contract he had with them. That is the sensible decision: to get a trade the player needs to agree and the clubs need to agree. If Treloar has signed an agreement with the Dogs then Collingwood either would have known those details or should have known those details, before they agreed to the trade. This implies Collingwood is paying the full 1.5 mil.

I agree with this, but also perhaps it has something to do with the timing of his exit, a sudden out the door departure on the eve of the draft? I assume the club knew he was looking, the industry did. But perhaps the exit wasn't as smooth as it should have been?

How important do we think the ground size is when it is so exposed to wind the conditions aren't the same?

An excuse means you take no responsibility: "It's not our fault we lost those games, bad things happened out of our control, we couldn't help it, it's not fair." Reasons, are contributing factors: "After analysing what happened these things contributed to the situation. We couldn't control them and weren't able to mitigate them. If they didn't happen, we believe the outcome would have been different, but unfortunately we weren't able to manage the process.". By saying nothing, they get slammed for no communication. By giving excuses they are blaming everyone else and not taking responsibility. By saying "we aren't making excuses, but because we know you are interested, here are some of the factors that we identified as contributing factors after our lessons learnt analysis", they are communicating well with their members.

Reckon it could be based on round 1 when we went with Spargo, Bedford, Pickett and ANB all in the one side? We then had Spargo and Pickett suspended, and Bedford didn't do enough, so we went with Bennell, ANB, and, Hunt. We tried the mozzy fleet early this year, but didn't have the right cattle.

CT's phantom draft had him going at Brisbane for pick 29, and noted he could be an option for St Kilda. Given we took Bowey at 21 (before Laurie), I suspect the club rated him a bit higher than media may have, and we felt we needed to get him before 28. Personally, I've got no idea! But I like the sound of "one of the best kicks in the draft".

This is pretty crazy. What evidence is there that we were actually interested in Holmes other than CT's phantom draft, which although it had us picking him also stated "Holmes would be a genuine surprising inclusion in the top-30, but it is not beyond the realms.". If it is truly that surprising then maybe we weren't actually interested? Maybe we knew Geelong were interested but had no picks this year, so leaked that we were interested, to try and get them to trade in before our pick 28, and the story ran from there? I note that although he had St Kilda taking Bowey, CT also linked us directly to him, rating him as one of the best kicks in the draft and noting that he can play wing or small forward: sounds perfect for our needs. CT also wrote we would be "looking to see if Bailey Laurie is still available" for our pick 21 too.

Another idea to make the academies and father son a bit more "fairer". Similar system to now (points discount and bidding system) but you must have your next pick within 1 round (~17 picks) of the original pick, or else you can't bid. So you move up at most 1 round, plus pay the rest of the points from future picks like current. The club who gets out-bid gets the next pick like usual, and also another pick exactly 1 round later (~18 picks) as compensation. So Dogs would have needed to keep their first rounder to bid. Adelaide would have got picks 2 and pick 21 (1st pick of round 2) in return for pick 1. Not perfect, but better than nothing. And the draft order is only a little effected overall. You can downgrade your picks, but if you trade them out completely, you could miss out on your player if you underestimate their pick. And live trading is increased as clubs offer to drop back in the draft order on the night if academy or f/s players go a bit lower than expected.

Swans just sitting around bored as hell, waiting for fox footy to get their carrier pigeon saying they have matched the bid.

Do you think the crows will get any less exposure in their market as a result of this? If anything they have just taken the pressure off Thilthorpe. If they took him above Ugle-Hagan, the comparisons and the talk would have been super noisy.

Hand all or some of the "spent" picks to the club who lost their spot? May give them access to earlier picks than otherwise, or could give them assets they can trade on the night to improve other positions or future draft hands.

And now they're telling us that the crows are taking 4 minutes to decide who is next?

And the dogs know if they are matching or not. Rubbish.

No excuse for Adelaide not to click in no. 1 within 3 seconds. They know before they get there who their no. 1 is.

Also this:

I don't like it but I can "see" the case GCS would make to defend the trade with Geelong: "We think Melbourne will slide, and the 2021 3rd round pick will around the 37-40 mark. We expect this year's academy picks to push pick 27 out to early to mid 30's, so expect the picks will have a similar points value once they are used. We also believe it is worth sliding back a few places in the draft so that we have better visibility on the players: we are unsure about the 2020 cohort having not seen them play due to covid, and we think 2021 picks will be more valuable for that reason. We know its a bit of a gamble on Melbourne sliding, but we think it's a good bet and we're confident we'll come out ok." If you are in the camp that thinks we will finish bottom 4 next year, it is hard to argue with this position.

Yeah once he was dropped, he basically ran the drinks as 12th man. He may not have made it back but it definitely made it hard to find form or confidence.

In Mahoney's words, it's a calculated risk. It is clear they think we are underperformed, which means they think it was 15+ next year for 18 and 19 this year. And that our 2nd will be around 33, within 1 or 2 of the lions, so close to break even. If they though we were performing on par with no scope for improvement we would be looking at trading out 10 and 28 is, and if they thought we were over performing it would be even worse. So they obviously think the risk is justified. It was clear they expected the same thing in the Kosi trade, so makes sense they still do, given they have recruited an A grade KPF and backed the coach in with additional support. Regardless of what we might think, it's clear that is their strategy.