deanox

I met a (now ex) board member in a pub once, and we had a chat, but that's the closest relationship I've had with one. The types of people we are talking about don't get "talked out". If they have concerns and think change may need to be made they would enquire. If they are satisifed with what they see, they'll move on. If they not, they'll assess if the situation would be improved through a challenge, consider if they have an alternative ticket who would stand with them and then make a decision. It may be that they think the current practice isn't as good as it could be, but that destabilising would produce a worse outcome. People can put their hands up for an election whenever they want. There absolutley will be an election is a single person nominates themselves. People who are capable of operating in this environment understand that you dont fight and force yourself into a board. The board needs to be on the same team, alligned. You enquire, express interest, become part of the team (whether officially or unofficially there are more then just the directors working on stuff), and if there is an need for your particular skills in the mix, you get more involved. The other option is a whole board challenge, which brings down the house.

You have just explained why you aren't going to succeed, because you are in the minority. If you have a full opposition board, with experience, skills and track record, and any real plan or direction, then maybe you'd stand a chance. But you don't, you're one bloke complaining. And if you were worth your salt and genuinely felt there needed to be change, then you wouldnt complain. You'd get in touch with the current board, explain that you'd like to help on the board and that you had some ideas. They'd listen to you and decide whether you were a crack pot or a legiment asset, and react accordingly. Put up or shut up.

Irrelevant. Put your hand up if you think its important. As a member you can nominate for the board whenever you want. Obviously the people with the skills haven't thought it was required and have opted to remain supportive of the current board. Edit: A call for directors went out with the AGM notification last year. Put your hand up if you think you can do a better job. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://resources.melbournefc.com.au/aflc-melb/document/2019/12/16/2e4671f9-3884-4ae8-85be-507838f91f1e/MFC-Notice-of-AGM-2019.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjA7KWU6MnsAhXz7XMBHepHCiMQFjAEegQIIRAH&usg=AOvVaw070qS-E0nxcumCZWIb-kg2&cshid=1603425301335

Clear and concose description, thanks. The one thing I would add is that the purpose of the board is to manage risk and not to manage decisions or tasks: - the reason the Board/Subcommittee needs to sign off contracts of a certain length/value shouldnt be because the board are onvolved in list management decisions, its to make sure there is external review of higher risk management decisions. For example: people have complained about Goodwin selling our future to win extra games next year by signing Smith for 3 years, and this would probably need board approval first. - the reason the Board/Subcommittee needs to sign off game plan /strategy isnt because they get to tell the coach which positions players should play, but so that the end goal /strategic direction of the plan is accepted. For example: we are on a development year, and our strategic imtent is to give players the opportunity to learn and develop through failure, vs we are going to make ruthless changes to win every game.

As members we can put our hands up whenever we want. Are any of us well enough credentialled? Good practice would be to review current capabilities, identify skill gaps, assess term lengths (its important to refresh members to bring in new perspectives), identify suitable candidates, and bring them into the fold. Elections aren't healthy, they are combative and disruptive. You dont force yourself into a board without upsetting the balance of skills, personalities etc. You stand for election if you disagree with the current strategy, direction, or board performance. But you form a new ticket and try to take over.

All clubs have to pay 95% of the cap as a floor. So at best there was $650k unspent this year. With front/backloading the available money for three coming year could be anywhere from $0 to $1.5 mil. Want to bring in Brown and Smith? Need to make some room. Aversge salaries include first year draftees, rookies and the Franklins of the game. Tomlinson, after 8-9 years in the system, is expected to be above average salary.

Beat me to it, I came here to say that! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

But he was 17th in the comp in goals per game, and before the last month (an admottedly poor patch played in wet conditions and at the end of 13 games in 11 weeks) he was in the top ~7, and he only had 5 goal assists this year, so didn't give that many off...

I thought this was interedting: Weideman was "the target inside 50 on 93 occasions, taking 25 marks in the arc". That put him 10th in the league for marks inside 50 third year per game. He is also holding on to more than 1 in 4 marking attempts in the forward 50. He kicked 19.8 and 5 goal assists. I can't remeber many shots from outside 50. So be is converting from those opportunities. He was 17th in goals per game with 1.46. Only 6 players were above 1.8. (Jayden Hunt snuck in with 1.67 from 6 games). It would be nice if he was Hawkins or Kennedy, but outside of the top 3-4, he was statistically on par with the next group in 2020. We have a lot more worries then Weideman.

The games in Cairns were also pretty wet weren't they? Makes it tough. I don't think he does well as the only tall, as he struggles when 2-3 out in the air: he gets blocked from running at it and it looks like he isnt making the contest. I think he goes better when others play well around him. TMac being out of form hasn't helped. Jackson seemed to pair well. I think it's about space and positioning, so that he isn't competing against multiple opponents. Does that make him a second forward? Or doea that mean he is a KPF who works well in tandem? I think he would probably work ok with any quality second tall up there. Hopefully he can really take more steps though.

I think the Bennell experiment was always such a long shot, except we all thought it would be his calf that went, and not that he would explode right as it looked like he had gotten through.

Yeah that might be the case, but it doesn't solve the problem that in 2013 our players recieved at best an average of 5% less than Hawthorn players. And that this year, Adelaide players recieved at best 5% less than Brisbane players. It also sets up weird situations: pay less while your rising, pay extra for 1-2 years, but it doesnt spread out over 4-5 years. And contracts arent 1 year.

In 2019 the cap was $13 million and the floor was $12.35 million. That means no club has more than 650k free in their cap any year. Your scenario wont happen. There are minimum wages so players who are drafted wont earn anything less. But 3-7 year journeymen and 10 year B+ players wont be overpaid. (There is a reason we could afford to pay Tomlinson). And what you've described in no ways limits what they could earn. If the club doesnt offer then enough, they use FA to move and get paid more. In fact it will mean mid tier players are more likely to get that 10% if they've earnt it, because it wont be tied up in a 3 year contract elsewhere. The real arguement is that if there is no floor, clubs will pay under the cap because they are poor, and then the players aren't getting the financial share they are entitled to under the EBA. But that's easy to fix too: All clubs get a dividend from the AFL approximately equal to the salary cap. So instead of paying that to the clubs who thenpay the salaries, the AFL can pay the players direct. Any money that is left over in all 18 salary caps at the end of the year is combined into a pool. It is then split equally across all 700 players. So if the cap is $13 mil, and 9 clubs pay 100% and 9 clubs pay 85% there will be $17.5 mil left. Every player gets a neat $24k bonus to make up their collective share.

Absolutley. The AFLPA should be pushing for larger lists, more professional footballers at reserves level, better than average wages for rookies and lower ranked players who put their lives on hold but may only have short careers. I have no idea why the rest of the players keep voting for EBAs that disadvantage them. I dont know why the player managers arent pushing their clients to get a better spread too: if the lowest wage increases, the managers arent as reliant on having a couple of big fish for their pay day.

These things need to come into play to even the field. Also, they need to remove the "salary cap floor". At the moment, all clubs must pay a minimum of about 97% of the cap. That means we, and the other poor performing clubs, are overpaying average players and dont actually have free cash to bring in FAs when they become available. If the floor was reduced to 80%, the successful clubs would be at the limit while the unsuccessful clubs will actually be able to lure FAs with cash. Another option would be if the penalty mechanic was tied to contract value. Any club interested can lodge a formal offer for any FA via the AFL. If the FA chooses to ignore the higher offers and take lesser pay, then the club gives up picks/points as part of the process. This way if you overpay you get them for free, but if you are underpaying as part of a "destination club" scenario, then you pay picks.

It is interesting the media is starting to call this out. They are normally pretty silent on these types of things, which fuels it.

Look that's fair, but even losing those players, we have depth, both existing and developing. Petty, Brown, Hore, Smith as talls. Plus we are discussing whether we can actually play Brown, Weid and Jackson in the same team. Sparrow, Lockhart, Baker, Bedford, as smalls. (Note I've listed players who didnt play in round 22 and Baker and Brown who get puahed out: you could easily swap fringe players to decide who is depth). That's 30 players. This year Brisbane used 36 players, but their bottom 8 only played 12 games between them. Collingwood used 40, but their bottom 10 played 15. Geelong used 34, their bottom 5 played 10. PA used only 30. Their bottom 4 played 20. Richmomd played 33. Their bottom 2 played 3, their bottom 3 played 9. St Kilda used 34, their bottom 6 played 8. We played 36 and our bottom 6 played 20. Depth doesnt need to go beyond 26 players, if you have a solid 22. Stretch to 30 players when rotating some development or some fringe players. Premierships are won by stable best 22s. If many more are needed we either wont have the talent or we'll be too injured to win a flag anyway. Trading out 8 depth players for 3 best 22 players will improve us immensely. We just want them to be players 5-15 if possible, not players 15-22.

With the reduced soft cap, do you think we'll have a forward, mid and defensive coach? I know we've previously used terms like offensive, defensive and stoppage coaches, implying a responsibility for all aspects of the game plan, not just 6 players. Is that better than line coaching? Can we afford both (line coaches plus role coaches)? Yze was Head of Match Day Strategy and Opposition at Hawthorn. I was wondering if he was coming to fill Craig Jennings role as Strategy and Analyst. We moved him on at the end of 2019 and chased Yze but didnt get him. Match Day strategy is interesting. Do we see Yze helping make calls and changes on game day (something that seems to be a Goodwin weakness)? This Tom Browne article is interesting. Jennings and Mcartney didnt get along. No mention of their relationships with Goodwin. Jennings celebrated in 2018 but potentialy responsible for failures in 2019. The self promotion is interesting: I wonder if he felt he should have been doing a senior role and it affected working relationships? Either way we didnt actually get to replace his role after 2019. https://7news.com.au/sport/afl/the-inside-word-on-how-melbourne-demons-craig-jennings-fell-out-of-favour-c-396886

We don't currently look like losing any best 18 players, let alone best 22. Of those you named, only ANB played in round 22, and it seems most people here want him gone anyway! If we lose TMac and bring in Brown, lose Hannan and bring in Smith, we have just pushed Brown/Weiderman and Baker into the reserves, immediately making our team better. We have a couple of quality senior players with a couple of years left (Gawn, May, Hibberd), and the middle 12 players in our best 22 will all have hit 100 games next year. We are either primed for a shot, or need to tear apart and rebuild. If this group haven't made it in the next two seasons, we are going to be doing some major list changes.

I think there is a chance that Pert's email about the review was prompted by realising Hawthorn were about to announce Yze's departure to Melbourne (I recall this hqppened the next day, and they mentioned his destination, not just that he was leaving). Why else would you announce the review one day, then a new apointment the next, before the review was complete?

The list managet and coaches would be choosing the trade targets, identifying tbe draft targets and what pick numbers they want for those targets, not Mahoney (although as part of the football department I'm sure he is involved in the discussions). Mahoney's role, as GM of Football (effectively the business manager of the football dept), is more likely to be involved in the negotiations/trading to acquire those targets

As a thought: Did Fritsch do the defendive stuff in 18/19 when playing back and wing? It could be that his role this year, effectively as a FF, meant he wasnt really in the positions to do the small/medium forward things.

This is their aim. More shots at goal. Increase scoring. Makes tv happy.

It's completely ridiculous. The only possible time that is relevant as "deliberate" is when a player is by themselves, in 20 m of space and does a doublehanded uncontested punch to the bounday. But even then how silly would that be? If the player thought they were safe to mark it, instead of going to a stoppage, they would. The punch would only ever happen if you felt percieved pressure, real or not.

I think this will help too. One issue I think we had this year was a very congested forward line. I can't remeber Weid being one out very often, and he only found space on leads occassionally. We tended to have packs of players forming. Ideally, with Brown in the side, he and Weid would split the space so that the key defenders arent at the same contest. The 3rd tall (Jackson) would roam around half forward wing, looking to bring it inside 50 (Weid would also play this role so Jackson can go forward, but I think Brown would tend to stay inside the 50). This would improve Weids marking chance, and also technically free Fritsch up as a 3rd marking target inside 50 against a much weaker opponent. We'll really need Melksham, Pickett and Fritsch to step up, they are then our defensive forwards. ANB, Hannan, VDB, Jones, Hunt and Spargo will be putting pressure on those three to perform.