Qwerty30

Tracy Holmes has been uinquely sympathetic to Essendon throughout this saga on Outsiders. A definite miss. Misguided. Good get.

Agreed. This was contract extension driven by Paul Little to get Hird to accept the 12 month sanction. This contract was critical at the time of the ASADA inquiry and would not have been left solely in the hands of "Legal team" to negotiate. And given the situation, Hird had the club over a barrel. And given the contract was to mollify Hird to acquiescencing to the sanctions imposed by the AFL, its hardly likely the AFL would "place the club under administration".

Given the temperature in the Australian and the Hun and his tweet on the disposition of knighthoods...... I reckon Murdoch is weaving his magic.......

Ok right. How do you know what is in the contract signed in 2013? And how does a contract signed in 2013 retrospectively apply to activities in 2012 which the EFC were aware of? And if it does have the sections you referred to then why havent EFC acted upon Hird now? I mean its end of problem isnt it?

Hardly a stretch at all...... and its the EFC Board that makes those decisions During the worst player management debacle in the Clubs history where the coach an others are under the microscope, they do the following: 1. Sign him for a further 3 years 2. Pay him $1 million plus a year. 3. Send him to the US and France to study and executive management degree (probably all expenses paid) 4. Tolerate his intransigience and public outcries against the club. 5. Allowed him to operate his agenda I mean he is the golden boy. At the start of this event he was largely untouchable with the members. Time may have melt this. Despite the condemnation and ridicule directed at him, Hird is not stupid not protect his own interests. Where you been during this whole saga if you are now challenging the AFL's actions?

Ummm..it's called a contract and.... Given the context upon which his contract was renewed I'd very surprised if Hird had not enshrined termination conditions that were tight and supporting him through a rough environment where even at that time there were many in the media and the broader football community that were calling for Hird to stand down or be sacked.

If EFC are going sack Hird then it must be in regard to a specific failure to perform in accordance with his current contract arranged in 2013.The suspensions of the players by the tribunal are in respect of their violations of ASADA regulations. Hird's failure was part of an overall failure by the EFC and is Board not to implement an appropriate governance framework over the football dept including the proper formalisation of key responsibilities and accountabilities for senior football dept personnel including Hird Thompson and Reid. Given what has transpired the EFC Board including Paul Little, Hird Thonpson and Reid should not be involved in football or in sport. The lack of governance protocols have muddied proper lines of responsibility and accountability such that in a major disaster it is not clear who is specifically accountable. And there in lies the challenge with Hirds position. Despite the best efforts of the village torch hunt to hang him high & dry for at best an implied responsibility, there is a lack of clear and sustainable basis to sack him Hird without triggering a massive counter legal action and prolonged PR and media war which EFC (and the AFL) could well do without. I don't see the suspensions representing more than the formalisation of penalties in respect of activities we have been aware of for nearly 2 years.

It might give them reason but not necessarily justification under his contract. Given the Ziggy report highlighted an appalling lack of governance at EFC from the Board down and that there was no clear lines of responsibility and accountability over and within the football department, EFC would opening themselves up to substantial legal claim from the vexatious Hird. And given they extended Hird's contract in 2013 in full awareness of this saga I doubt the EFC would have been able to have negotiated retrospective culpability. After the journey they have been on together since this debacle started, I think EFC and Hird are quite aware of each others vulnerabilities. And it's a dangerous and litigious path EFC take if they were to sack Hird on the basis of the ASADA matters. EFC will need to craft a strong case that Hird has failed his obligations under his current contract. But the two reports are clearly not enough evidence for a breach of duty against Hird even more so given his contract extension in 2013.

Just saw your post and I agree.

What has specifically changed that would lead the Bombers to sack Hird now and on what contractual basis can they do it? I think EFC have already explored that route some time ago and realised that Hird would sue them for King and country.

LOL. ( I did say it was laughable!). I am not surprised you have fantasised this bit of rubbish based on the often ludicrous "inside" scoops you sought to ply here It's been a long saga and you really have pushed the Armageddon theories to fill the gaps to keep your excitement levels up.

He did. It was one of the reasons Jolly left in 2004.

They were never decent at the same time. And Daniher really didn't manage the ruck stocks well. We should have drafted another ruck when Jolly left but we didn't. We paid overs for a 200cm rover in Paul Johnson. Bailey traded for Meesen in his first year to address the issue but Meesen was a fail.

Indeed. The efforts to equate Hirds failings with Armstrong atrocities are laughable.

Nah.....

Yeah........nah.

In 2014: Hannah has played 3 games, 18 disposals and 7 marks with 26 HOs Sandilands played 23 games, 300 disposals and 85 marks with 890 HOs Sandilands must be really spooked by the shadow cast by the young upstart. Hannah may well end up a competent footballer but you are stretching it further than normal Ron.

I take it that "star" is your twist. My reference was to "good". You dont have to a star forward although it could be argued that Geelong and Hawthorn did but you have to better than mere competent across a whole 22 H&A and Sept finals to the flag. And every premiership side in the past 8 years have had good forward lines with a number of key forward players many of them stars in their own right. I think its a stretch to claim that a recent flag team has got there on the basis of a "competent" forward line.

While not the most important position on the ground, the role of a competent ruckman cannot and should not be overlooked. I dont buy the story that a skilled midfield can just shark the opposition ruckman (unless the opposing mid field is feeble). In the game where possession/control of the ball is the mantra, no team can afford to sacrifice first touch at the centre bounce or around the ground to the opposition. If you are not winning the bounce, the very least a competent ruckman is doing is preventing his opposite number from doing so. Therefore the ball becomes a midfield contest. So aside from the centre/ATG bounces, a good ruckman needs to be able to mark and use the ball competently (at best another midfielder), use the body strength to assist his shorter teammates in the contest and traffic, take contested marks, have ATG mobility and be able to go forward and hurt the opposition up forward. In addition, they need to ensure their opposing ruckman does not achieve these attributes. Edit: Just saw Rjays attrbutes for a ruckman and they are reasonable.

No MFC's midfield in past years have been more than capable of making themselves look hopeless.

I think the modern game (and in particular Hawthorn) have shown that you forward line no longer centres around one key forward. You need a spread of goal kickers not just one avenue. And the attributes you honour in a key forward are attributes that should be present in all your forward options. And the half back "general" who sweeps is not the general but a corporal with good footskills enjoying another uncontested possession due to the hard unheralded work of others. I see the "general" as the person who marshalls the troops up back, leads by example in the contest and on the damaging opponents. They may not pick up wads of possessions but their selfless and skilful deeds on the ground dont go unnoticed by the coaches. Players like Hodge (an outstanding example) and Maxwell are these types

Todays game has reduced positions to essentially forwards, midfield and backs. Regardless whether you need a number of them, midfield is the most important position. And your best midfielder is the crucial item in your team. They win more contests than they lose (by a margin), they use the ball well by hand and foot to hurt the opposition and they make those teammates around them better players. While the midfield includes the ruck, todays game has restricted the ruckmans role to less than it was 30 years. Its still an important role but not the most important. And I dont buy the argument you can win a flag with a good midfield and a not so forward line. Both have to be good but your midfield must be superior to other teams including the team that becomes the runner up.

Totally agree. Its the same premature condemnation that was levelled at Johnson. Sharma is looking a right goose now. Points to Mitch with bat and ball.

I think cardboard is a fitting representation of what MFC have served up.

Might help if he could bowl a consistent smart line. But I guess that's the captains fault.....