deanox

I think if that happened they would both still answer to a GM of Football, not to Pert. Pert doesnt manage the football department, he manages the club. If he had to coordinate and manage reporting from the Manager Football and from the Manager Football Support, he would have to be involved in the department. I can find evidence of people filling the following positions at MFC (website, news releases, demonland, LinkedIn), most of who would be direct reports to Pert: -CFO and Head of Major Projects -Chief Commercial Officer -GM of Football and Casey Operations (Mahoney) -GM of Marketing, Comms and Digital (Ryan Larkin) -GM of Casey Football (Peter Maynard, may report to Mahoney, I'm not clear, but unlikely to have a GM report to a GM) -GM of People, Performance and Culture (Jim Plunkett) -GM of Business Development Below the GMs are a series of "Head ofs" and "Managers", for things like membership, IT, events, media and brand, partnerships and fundraising, digital sales, digital gworth, HR. These report to the Chief or GM positions. Here is a current (?) List of staff at Carlton. You can see how big each department is, and why Josh's role cannot be split and for both to report to Pert. https://www.carltonfc.com.au/club/about/staff

Do you really think the game wasn't looked at at all? We had played a great 2-3 months of footy, inc 4 "must win" games in a row. We went to Perth and it was clear we got smashed all over. Nothing worked, we had no winners. We were clearly fatigued, flat footed, and carrying a ton of injuries. What did you want them to take out of the review? Should they sat the players down and given them a spray? They already kmow they let themselves down. Should they have dissected it play by play and pointed out the mistakes? The game was played so far off expectations that wouldnt have added value. Should they have thrown everything that worked the last 12 weeks out the door because of the bad day? We made changes. 9 players left the club (Vince, Pedersen, Bugg, King, McKenna, Filipovic, Johnstone, Kent, Hogan). We went and got a big KPD to fill a hole (May) and got a capable back up ruck (Preuss). We rolled the dice on a free winger (KK). What else did you want them to do?

Especially given from very early and for most of the year the media was beating the Neale will win the Brownlow drum. The umpires would have to hear that. Does it increase their notice of him, or do they look past him while trying to manage their internal bias?

Look this is a pretty average post. 1) with no exposed u18 form, a comprised draft, no first round pick, and Lockhart and Brown as potential rookie upgrades, we are not bringing in lots of players from the outside to fill roles this year unless they are FA. 2) Its been reported OMac is on the way out, so we do need coverage for a 3rd defender (or even a May, Lever injury), with Tomlinson likely to be trialled on wing on the bigger, wider MCG, and Petty showing promise forward. 3) One year for Smith simply provides that cover. 4) Next year the soft caps are reducing, and we will be down on coaching structures. A player / coaching role for Jones is a way to allieviate this, while also having cover on field if needed. Do I think he'll be the best coach? No. But he'll be better than no coach. It's actually a pretty innovative option. What do you want them to do? Dump everyone to prove they are ruthless then try our luck with pick 80+ in the draft?

I think it's important to have a few experience players as depth as well as kids. If we have injuries, it is good to be able to replace some holes with 100 game players, instead of having 5 kids in their first few years.

America is about as close as analagous to our states as you get. Our "states" have executive authority to legislate on matters concerning their own citizens, and have full control over their internal laws, with the exceptions being national "external" issues ie external borders and customs, immigration, military, etc. The constitution actually ensures the states maintain executive authority, and limits the powers of three national government. Think about it, we are a "federation" or "commonwealth" of states. The means that the two levels of government are of equal status. Any federation has similar situation to us. The alternatives are a unitary state, such as France, where there is a single supreme source of power, or a confederacy, which is a union of self governing states where the central government is relatively weak or limited compared to the individuals (like the EU).

Well the article says he covered on average 200 m or ~1.5% more than Weid this year.

You think the playing on ball he could compete with Viney, Oliver, Petracca, Brayshaw (from us) or the equivalent first 4 from other clubs? I don't.

I wouldnt mind adding 2-3 senior players from other clubs if they will contribute as best 22 for 2 years and not cost the earth. Bringing in senior players will increase training standards, and also bring techniques, ideas and concepts that our players aren't currently exposed to. For example, a Gunstam, Breust or Browm should be able to mentor Weid and Fritsch, two players who don't have a senior forward to talk to.

15 disposals (1.3 clangers), 4 tackles, 1.3 shots at goal per game with high accuracy (64.41 over his career), plus 0.6 goal assists are pretty handy stats over 80 games for a fringe play. Note that means 4 tackles where he causes his opponent to lose possession. He may have weaknesses, and he definitely isn't a midfielder but he is better than a speculative pick 45.

He fills a spot, if not on the bench on our best 22, but in the next ~4. So given injuries and form, I expect him to play 10-15 games next year. Normally, cycling players at that level is a good thing, with developing kids taking his place. So to trade him out for an average pick in a normal year world be ok, on balance. But unnless we are bringing in 2-3 more best 22 players than we lose (meaning he is pushed even further down the list), then I think he is worth more to us than a 3rd round pick in a comprimised draft with limited exposed form. I'd happy trade him if it was part of a deal that brought in a better player.

I wasn't saying we planned to use two rucks, I was saying I think we told him we had that plan. I remember reading a quote from Preuss about having a conversation with Goodwin about playing two rucks. I can't get past the paywall buy the blurb on google suggests there may be quotes here. https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/more-news/max-gawn-likes-idea-of-north-melbournes-braydon-preuss-joining-him-at-the-demons/news-story/ce9af9644fec250e8dd97f32736be73f

He came because we discussed playing two rucks. We got him because we had a bumper 2018 and needed cover in 2019 in case Gawn went down. Unfortunately he has been injured, or coming back from injury most of the times we needed him. Now we have Jackson has proved capable of holding his own, and we've probably decided that we'd rather play him as first ruck (for development) than Preuss, then Preuss became expendable.

We have a massive list of unsigned players, and have had no action on then all year. I suspect that we have been waiting on 2021 list sizes and salary cap discussion before committing to anything. If I was Jack, regardless of where I wanted to play I would test the open market. I might not take a pay rise, I might not even use it to bargain, but why give up free information at the negotiating table, or the chamce of a freak once in a lifetime contract that just might tempt you? I'd suspect he either has a contract or a ballpark in front of him, but we are all on hold.

On points this is the equivalent of Preuss for pick 27. That isn't unreasonable even if it may be a bit overs. You could justify it like that.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/510958 In 2019, the avers she player wage was more than $401,000 for players who featured at AFL. Average, not median, but it gives an understanding of what types of salaries we are talking, when you consider that the bottom 6 are going to be on <$150k (rookies are on ~$80k, minimum wage for a 3rd year player (so bottom level journeyman is about $110k both plus match fees). I think it's fair to say about 10-12 players in each team well be above the $400k mark.

Great post. I know Oliver is an "inside mid" but he is super capable on the outside. He has good acceleration into space, his run and carry is good, he is a creative handball and he is an excellent kick (when he has time and when he is concentrating, I know he shanks some, but his best is top class). Playing on the outside doesn't necessarily mean soft, loose, receiver on the wing. Petracca does both. The best mids do (Dangerfield, Bont, Judd etc. are all capable winning ball and using ball). But it was only this year that Oliver started doing this. We saw his game morph this year from purely inside and handballing out, to trying to kick and shanking, to accelerating out of the contest and delivering it. If that development trend continues, he will probably learn to play with Viney a bit better, particularly with respect to first touch posessions around the contest.

Looking forward to it!

I'd happy give them 62 and 63 as well. Thag means they only lose about 200 draft points for a 1st grade (capable) ruckman while we lose picks we aren't going to use but gain an early 2nd rounder. Win win. We would have 22, 23, 83 etc Usually we need to take 3 picks at the draft, including rookie upgrades (with list sizes reducing that could be cut to 2). Either way, we have Lockhart, Brown and Bennell as potential upgrades. We can use pick 83+ on those. So if we upgrade one rookie, we use both 22 and 23 at the draft. If we upgrade two rookies, we can use 22 and trade 23 for a player.

Ah so you must rate ANB? These stats are from the essendon game but are pretty consistent: ANB is regularly listed in the top 5 on ground for fastest average speed, faster in attack and defence, most distance moved at high speed, number of sprints and repeat sprints. Fwiw I agree with you about these things being more important than top speed, and I'm taking the [censored] RE ANB a bit: this is his strength and why he gets picked, and I don't think he is as bad as others make out, but he doesnt do enough other stuff well enough which is why he is on the fringe.

I think smaller or larger list sizes would work, but right now we are in an awkward spot. Make it a senior squad of 32, and a development squad that fills the reserve league: allow interchanges between the 2 squads on long term injuries or at set windows (e.g. 3 times during the year). Alternatively make the lists 55 and field a senior and reserves team from the list. The current list size means you have a "best 26" and then a developing squad of kids not really ready and a handful of journey plugs to fill gaps where needed. This means that our main product (the AFL) is not always the best players possible. It also means that the reserves comps aren't as strong as they could be: many players who would genuinely be in the next best players in the country aren't on AFL lists (they aren't developing) and they don't play for the reserves comp. I think bringing them back in the fold would actual speed up development of juniors at reserves level, and also ensure that all players in the 22 have earnt their spot. If you aren't drafted at 18, and haven't developed by 21, you are virtually lost to the system. IMO the problem is the AFLPA. While they should be trying to get living wages for as many players as possible, they seem more focused on getting the most money for the elite players at the expense of the rest.

He has been rubbish since he went on the IPA podcast.

Not having a seconds comp had made it very hard for him to find firm, confidence and learn what the coaches want.

Similar: discount on academy or f/s could decrease with ladder percentage. Although I think 20% is too much.

You can do a couple of easy things to fix this though. Top 4 sides could lose their next pick after the compensation when recruiting a FA (ie say PA win the GF, if PA recruit someone from Essendon and Essendon get an end of first round compensation pick, then PA lose their second round pick. If PA have traded that pick out in advance then they lose the equivalent points worth from their prior pick. So Essendon gain 19 (end of first round), PA lose 37 (their second round pick), or if they have already traded their second round pick in a previous year, then pick 18 (their previous pick) is reduced by 483 points (the value of pick 37), and becomes pick 36. Then top 4 sides still pay significantly under market value, but they can't double dip. In addition, then could allow the bottom 6 to have a marginal increase in salary cap for a year (say 2% or $200k). That will help them retain or attract FA's as well. It would definitely help even out the comp, which should be the aim of the AFLPA: so that all players have a chance of winning a flag in their career no matter where they are dragged.