deanox

I think this is true, in that if you ignore all aspects of politics, social issues etc. you dont make it apolitical, you just make it "conservative" (I'm meaning the current political status quo, not using that as a pejorative). For example, the current discussion around coaches mental health is inherently "political". Is calling someone "crazy" offensive or is that "too PC"? Should they "toughen up" or is that "toxic masculinity"? Are we as a society doing enough to support mental health? What about our role as an AFL community? I'd hope that any discussion that does touch on these topics need not be automatically banned because they are relevant to how we think and analyse, interpret and understand. But also how it plays out determines that: arguing, fighting, baiting, trolling, doesn't help. And when these issues derail the conversatio and become the focus, it changes from a footy convo with social commentary to a political, religious or ideological discussion, and this probably isn't the place for that. My experience here has been overwhelmingly positive, I think most of us do a good job of avoiding conflicts or derailments. But special thanks must go to the admin and mod team for making it a great space.

From memory, the reports were that they thought his ongoing concussion symptoms were actually related to a neck issue, rather than concussion itself. He'd done a body of work to put it behind him and medical advice was that he was ready to go. It might have been a bad call, but sounds like it had its reasoning.

I've already apologised for derailing, and asked that we try to move on. Perhaps you missed that? No reply necessary.

And people wonder why we look to bring in players like Smith, Lewis etc

Agree with his poor effort and form, but I think the reaaon he wasn't dropped is because he was considered to have the potential to fix the connection.

The only question about draft order that I can remember was actually the MFC saying if we only had one pick it would have been difficult to choose between Scully and Trengove (ie it mjght not have been Scully), but that Scully got the no.1 on the night because of his body of work over the previous 2 years.

This year the top 6 all had high goal kicking KPFs: Kennedy, Darling, Lynch, Reiwoldt, Hawkins, Dixon, Hipwood, Mihocek.

Asolutely. But I'd say don't hate the players, hate the game.

They old. Dangerfield to retire without a flag. I couldnt be happier.

To me, the main skill/attribute Melk has/has shown that the others havn't is smart delivery inside 50. We struggled for "connection" this year and that is Melks specialty. So I suspect that is why he got got games. Disclosure: I thought he didnt deserve games.

Really? Oliver isn't a bad kick. He kicks it out of packs, under pressure mlst of the time. And he does shank some he shouldn't. BUT it is very clear that he has a very good kick on him when he thinks about it, instead of blazing away.

I think they are two sides of the same coin. If they dont get midfield minutes because Oliver Petracca Viney are ahead of them, I don't think that would be a problem. If they are being player behind Sparrow ANB and Jordan, fair enough.

I think you are right on this. From a culture perspective, a club like MFC can't afford to be too ruthless as we are requesting loyalty from our squad. So in some ways the best outcome is for some of the quality but not untradable type players to ask to move. They have currency that we can use to improve other areas of our list without robbing Peter to pay Paul. And if they ask to move got more opportunity and we help them, we are the good guys RE culture.

I hope that's one thing we can all agree on, politics and economics aside! And also, when getting behind the dees, none of that stuff should matter either. Sorry to derail the thread, happy to keep it on TMac and how we can offload his salary or at least get value from his performance!

The IPA isnt a political side, it is Gina Rinehart and a small group of friends lobbying for their own gain. It promotes climate change denialism and lobbies to make insulting someone based on their race legal. If TMac has decided the IPA is on his, or anyone elses side, then it's a poor decision.

To some extent, this is my thinking. There is a chance he didn't realise how good it was over here and constantly battled a bit of nostalgia from home, thinking that would fix all his problems. It hasn't, and if he realises this he might be able to knuckle down and return. But I do think the club would be in the best position to judge that. And we wont take him and Brown.

I'm ok with that. But to do so we either need to trade out other high salaries (TMac, etc.) or trade out multiple smaller salaries (ANB, OMac, Hannan), AND find an alternate HBF.

He also went to see Jordan Peterson and was a guest on an IPA podcast, in case anyone needs further proof of his terrible decision making.

This is my thoughts as well. He showed a lot of promise as a forward. Good hands. Knew where the goals were. He did a great job as a tagger, but really failed off half back. His problem is that he is one of our most versatile players, but we have other, non-versatile, depth in his best positions, so instead of being a second stringer he underperforms in his worst position. If we move Hannan and ANB on then there is a role for him up forward again. Otherwise I think trading him to bring in a need (KPF, genuine HBF, wing) is probably best for us and for him.

Absolutelh. The worst part is, they could do this without telling everyone they are cheating.

This thread has taken yet another excellent turn that i wasnt expecting.

They got $80mil+ worth of bonuses and people are worroed about $20k of watches? Bringing her down for this is a political stunt. If it was really an issue, the obscene salaries and bonuses wouldn't occur in the first place. Bur that being said, Eddie is part of those obscene dollars.

I agree with this somewhat, except that I think he did have a plan pre 666 and has struggled to establish a consistent, working plan with the cattle we've had since then. Thus I don't know if he doesn't have a plan, or if he has one and is now making changes/modifications to the list to implement it. Fwiw I had a close contact at EFC when he was there. They spoke very highly of him, suggesting that he was one of the few coaching staff who (that they ever saw) spent time reviewing and analysing games and opposition, working with technical and analytic staff to understand tactics etc. In 2017 and 2018 we were very experimental both strategically and tactically. This matches with what I heard. Has he not been able to create a new plan? Is he still experimenting to find a new one? Or is he taling steps, but just not there yet? We'll know in 12 months.

This is almost exactly what I was saying above though. External group isnt happy with the current board performance. Instead of a divisive, public board challenge, the groups talk it through, and move forward together. Collectively there is now an otherwise unknown view on the board, theoretically making it better and more diverse. This risk is that its a token appointment, and the original board is just placating them, and gives them no real involvement or input. If the external group spends 12-24 months on the board and either feels like nothing is improving, then it might run a full challenge. If the placating appointment is only given lip service and no real input but dont complain, the board will let then run their course, they obviously dont know what they are taking about.

Agreed to some extent. But the board model we all know isn't necessarily the standard everywhere. The German codetermination model means that once a company reaches a certain size, the employees get to elect either 1/3 or 1/2 of the supervisory board depending on company size. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany