deanox

In a limited sample size, he just seems to do things well. He marks well, he positions well, etc. I cant recall reading much from the club about him (ie big wraps), but might have just missed it.

Ah thanks for clearing that up. Makes sense to me, I think we all saw the Harmes back experiment failed. I do think we need another HBF though. May, Lever, Salem, Rivers, Hibberd, are backline locks with Hib near the end. Tomlinson will play a role, making 6. You need 7 in the 22, and preferably another couple. Lockhart doesnt have a contract yet. Unless we think Hore or Smith could adapt to whatever Harmes role was, we have a hole. I actually think this is a bigger hole for us than the wing, because when Hib goes we've got 2 spots and no one pushing through, while a few players can push onto the wing defensively if needed. It may be a reason Neita has been persisted with: no game development but has a 21 year olds body, not an 18 year olds so may slot in quicker. I always thought Harmes looked good on the HFF, with good hands overhead and an ability to find a bit of space. So the Harmes/Petracca swap @MadAsHell suggested sounds good.

I can absolutely believe the framework of this, but I always have a hard time believing the concept that: "Goodwin thought that the MFC was best off having Harmes play down back this year, but because he complained Goodwin promised to change our entire onfield balance by shifting him back into the mid field." (Paraphrased obv) Making that change as part of a larger coaching season review, I can believe. But not knee jerk based on one convo, walking out thinking to himself "Oh no, I just signed Viney for 5 years, and now I promised Harmes midfield time. What do I do?"

I'd assume Oscar is heading out more because of difference in financial expectations. At 24 years old with 81 games under his belt, there is a spot on a list for him. But being 3rd in line at the MFC isnt great when a) a lot of cap space is going to one and two, and b) we have semi capable other options in Petty, Hore and Smith (even if I dont rate him) that are possibly cheaper for the reserve role. I'd be very surprised if he doesnt play 10 games next year somewhere.

I don't know much about him but despite being a late pick (53), apparently Nietschke won the SANFL U/18 best and fairest last season after averaging 32 disposals per game for Central Districts. That's a pretty good return. He also first did his knee mid Feb, so they did see 3 months of training pre-season before his first injury. If they do keep him, while list sizes are being reduced, it'll be because they see something.

The million dollar question ey? I feel like we are still a younger developing side, without a strong group of experienced onfield leaders, so lack of consistency probably comes from that. It's the coaches job to change that through ongoing development, and the footy deptartments job to recruit to help. But there is only 1 winner of 18 each year. Like we've seen with GWS you can be a gun squad who just don't take home the silverware for reasons outside of anyones control.

They do all the maneuvering in the previous weeks anyway. Make everything a single week, so that clubs have time for dominoes to fall for deals 2 and 3. I reckon they drag it so that fox footy and sen get 2 weeks of clicks on rubbish articles.

Hey if he gets Yarra Park, or any central location, up and running as a home for us, he'll have earnt his spot. The comment that we are a government led committee tasked with that was eyebrow raising.

Just to be clear it was @Cards13 not me who brought up his sponsorship work! I'd be interested to know how everyone elses sponsorship has gone before I make any judgements. I can't imagine this year would be easy. I'd have expected 2019 to be up on 2018, leveraging success but may have been locked into contracts? I honestly don't know whether he is good or not. He has a good industry rep and track record. He was moved on after a decade, which to me isn't surprising: change and refreshing input at the top is important. My surprise is the Eddie is still there. So I won't attribute anything soley to him as credit or fault, unless I know it is his work. I do think though that the good work and performance of of a company, even if driven by subordinates and staffers, is a credit to a CEO unless there is evidence (or at the least reasonable talk) that the good things happened in spite of them. And if there is reason to believe auch talk, I'm happy to hear about it. It just need to be more than "he was moved on by Collingwood, and was only at C9 for less than a year". Also to @jnrmac's point, I was surprised we chased him outside the process too. It's obvious Mahoney is a good business operator, so I'm surprised he didn't get the gig. I can only assume there was a bit of a nudge from AFL house or that we thought he may have had existing strong relationships with those powerbrokers that was an edge over pure business skills.

What do you think of the longer contracts we have previously offered to Harmes and TMac, Preuss and Tomlinson?

Thanks for the extra info RE your thoughts. The only thing I'd say is that the transition from Malthouse to Buckley seems to be regraded as an Eddie brainchild. I'm not sure we can say that it is Pert fault that transition didn't work, while also saying that Eddiec is the reason the club was successful.

Apologies, at C9 he was Managing Director not CEO. For all intents and purposes, that is the same role though, with additional responsibilities. Here is an article talking about how announced he was leaving C9 to take on the CEO role at Colingwood. https://www.smh.com.au/sport/magpies-set-to-appoint-pert-as-ceo-20070510-gdq3pf.html So Eddie left as CEO of C9 on 30 June 2006. They decided to change their management structure and have an MD instead, and they appointed Pert to the role. 9 months later, Eddie poached him to Collingwood. So either Eddie things he was a great operator, or Eddie thought he was a push over yes man to do his bidding. I'd really like to engage with you keep makings comments that you either cant back up or are deliberately disingenuous. The closest to a point you might have made is that you don't think Goodwin, Richardson or Mahoney are good appointments, and that that may reflect on Pert. Is that your angle? Because I agree his role will live or die by those type of appointments. But you seem to be writing them off before they pass or fail, which shows your bias.

I'm not sure if he is smiling or not? In all seriousness, good luck!

When I read it, I assumed he was maintaining responsibility for business related decisions, vs football performance related decisions whixh go to Richo. Directly from the email Richo is overseeing the performance-based elements of the program including coaching, high performance, medical, performance psychology and skill development. But Josh is responsible for the financial management of our soft cap, which means reaponsible for managing the cost of the staff Richo is managing. I interperet that Richo's team will identify performance needs (recruiting and trading targets) and Josh will then try to deliver those. Similar to how they said they wanted Oliver and Kosi, and he then did the business deals to get the picks to get them. I'm thinking of it almost like a "Program Delivery Manager" (responsible for delivery of core business) and a "Operations Manager" (responsible for managing the business overheads and expenses) working side by side. I also thought this has been under discussed: Josh will be a key part of the government led working party for the new home base development within the MCG sports precinct. 1) We also just brought in Dave Rennick as a Director with sepcific experience in this sector. Makes sense to have a director and a staffer in this space. 2) "Government led" is an intriguing and promising phrase.

My words, yes. They are correct though. Eddie is a part time volunteer. He isn't paid at Collingwood. In fact during his tenure he holds/held similar Director roles at lots of other organisations: -The President of the Melbourne Stars; -Chairman of the Michael Long Learning and Leadership Foundation; -13 years on the board of the Victorian Major Events Corporation; -8 years on the board of Athletics Australia; -This year became a board member for Visit Victoria. In addition he has maintained roles as tv show and radio show host, newspaper columnist, footy commentator etc. He cannot possibly put in more than a couple of hours per day at CFC and still do those things, so he is absolutely part time. Meanwhile Pert was full time at CFC for a decade. Before that he was the CEO of AusStero Network (fox, mmm, etc.) and then CEO of Nine (replacing Eddie). Also, as CEO for 10 years, he is the guy responsible for the appointment and management of those finance administrators. I'm not a Pert fan, I'm indifferent. So if your arguement is that Pert was a yes man, not making real decisions, not involved in strategy, planning etc. and just doing what Eddie told him after their morning meeting catchup, or that he was incompotent and performed only because he had a gun CFO at his side, I'd like to hear it and understand your basis for saying so. But if you just want to discount any success he may have had as due to someone else, without backing it up, you will get called out.

I think this is my perspective too, except that Im not sure he will be able to do it at Melbourne. Sometimes a fresh start is needed. Whether for personal motivation, confidence, trust from team mates, different internal perceptions/expectations, etc. After going back, then forward then battling for form, TMac will struggle to reach his best at the MFC again. Bringing in Brown and publicly shopping him is a vote of no confidence (or at least uncertainty) from his coaches.

So yiu are daying that it is the part time, volunteer chairman and the subordinate financial officers who are responsible for the success of Collingwood, not the full time CEO who's job it was?

I also think there are different wingers. Gut run, link man wingers in the Langdon and Gaff moulds. Some kick more goals than others, but laregly they are outside mids who run all day. Silky, lower possession but super damaging wingers. Often also plays a role from HBF or HFF, and are known for kicking goals or being the "playmaker from defense" Defensive wings, often not your typical winger. Maybe doesn't have the goal kicking or link up as much, but holds structure and contributes defensively on the "far side" of the ground. Tomlinson played this style in 18/19 at GWS. I feel that most non-specialty wings try to plug this role if they aren't coming off a HBF.

This isn't about my preferences. This is about what I think the MFC may try. For the last few years we have won well at narrower grounds and struggled at the wider MCG. They brought Tomlinson in thinking he could cover that wing, like he had played at GWS since 2017. We didnt play at the wide MCG this year and he was ineffectual as a wing on shorter, narrower grounds. He moved to the backline wuth OMac struggling. We are moving OMac on but have re-signed Hore, Petty and Smith who will all compete with Tomlinson for the 3rd tall defender role. We have coaching staff on record saying we can use his outside run in 2021. In 2021 we expect to be back at the MCG. My reading between the lines is that we see Tomlinson potentially filling that role.

If he vame out and said "We have identified someone with outside speed as being the missing piece to our puzzle. We missed Smith so we are desperate to target someone else", Demonland would be screaming that Mahoney is too transparent, that we'd lost our bargaining power and that he was a terrible negotiator.

Mahoney has just said we aren't targeting outside run because we think we will get it from existing players such as Baker, Hunt and Tomlinson. It wouldnt surprise me if Tomlinson lines up on the wing at the G next year in a second attempt at that role.

Valid but I think there are two key points here: 1) Forwards need to lead well if you want your mids to kick well. This doesn't just mean the leads to mark, but also the leads to create space etc. I'd say TMac doesnt do this well: his focys is on getting the ball only. Fritta doesnt do this well: he leads to pockets and poor locations. Hogan did this more naturally but up the ground. Inside 50 he didnt. IMO one of the reasons Weid struggles is because those around him dont create space. 2) Our mids are better than Norths. It makes sense that Brown will be able to function effectively at the MFC.

In all seriousness though, he is a young KPP who has shown ability. He hit the comp well this year with high goals per game ratio as our no. 1 KPF, with limited back up. His stock is probably all time low on the trade matket and he has upside and he has the chance to play alongside BB next year. IMO trading him now is a poor choice.

Close thread?

I actually disagree. I really feel like his stats in debut year, and again in the back half of this year, demonstrated his ability to provide AFL standard "connection" and "score generation". As a third year player, he has shown enough for further development. In his limited 3 years with us we had a terrible 2nd year with substantial injuries leaving him exposed and unsupported as a junior player, and his 3rd year was covid interupted with no seconds comp for form development. Kids need devlopment. Kids with smarts, deserve a chance to development. 2 years is not unreasonable. I'd actually say that flashy speed without smarts (Hunt) or athletic endurance without skills (ANB) are less reasons to give extensions.