xarronn

Surely, they saw something to draft him and having played only 5 quarters of AFL football, it would be amazing if the FD thinking is, he has no future at this stage. On top of that, as you mentioned he is a rookie. As for his age he's a lot younger than Podzy was when recruited by Geelong. At this stage he gets my vote. Wayne, surely you don't imagine King is anywhere near taking the Senior ruck position in 2018 if Gawn was injured again! If Spencer goes the club will definitely recruit a mature and mature bodied ruckman. Maybe if the FD thinks we are a real chance in 2018, they will do that even if Spencer stays.

Why is this too soon? Are any of the thoughts which are posted here going to impact on the team, the future of any players, our chances of playing finals? What this thread is really about is a current assessment of a part of the list. The bottom part. If we were just ranking players instead of talking about delisting how would that be different? As Nasher said, its interesting to compare thoughts at this stage, with thoughts as we move further into the season. Finally the FD makes the decisions irrespective of what is said here.

You're right about losing consistently, but the breaking of these embarrassing records began in 2014. 2014 - Carlton and Adelaide, and Adelaide oval 2015 - winning Round 1 v GC, Geelong and Kardinia (whatever its called now), Collingwood, winning last round V GWS. And actually I think the Brisbane win broke a long losing run as well. Some, (many), of them were pretty scrappy, but it was a glorious feeling to break those damned unhappy records.

Yeah, I wasn't attacking your conclusion, - because he really looks different.(Hope we don't jinx him). Just comparing that to our bleak previous history.

The recruiting over the last 5 years has been marvelous, the only really big miss has been Toumpas, (and maybe Dawes but he wasn't a draft pick). But good starts to careers in the previous 4 years proved to be mirages with many of our players: Cale Morton: averaged 23 possessions in first 20 games Blease: 20, 17 and 28 possessions in games 2, 3 & 4 Strauss: 20, 21 & 17 possessions in games 3, 4 & 5 Gysberts: 21 & 27 possessions in games 1 & 2 Tapscott: 19 & 23 possessions in games 1 & 2 I'm pretty sure there were some Rising Star Nom's that went along with these performances as well.

Spot on, agree with every word. LH, Patrick Smith is the only person in the media who corrected the mistruths or spin which have been put out by, Amendola, Hird Snr, Corcoran, Pickering and Warner. That was the point of his article. He would not have written this article at all were it not for what seems like a concerted effort to re-write events, by these Hird supporters. As for your bolded statement, I would really love to know what more you would have wanted Smith to say regarding his condition and what is the difference that it would make anyway? In my eyes he made the necessary PC statement of concern, what more is needed? I would assume that James Hird will get plenty of support from his family and friends and the best treatment money can buy. There is no need for anyone to express concern that is not genuinely felt. Neither his condition nor his recovery is dependent on a few more sympathetic words any of us might utter.

I agree with both posts about Corcoran. Let's also remember something else, by trying to attribute fault elsewhere, Corcoran is also trying to mitigate his culpability, retrospectively. I'm not sure what he is doing for a buck these days but you can bet it's not as lucrative as his jobs in the footy industry. As they say, always back self-interest even when it seems to be wrapped in a cloak of compassion. Another thing about Corcoran. He was employed by Melbourne, - I think as Football Manager when he had a falling out with Sheedy. He brought with him files on possible recruits that the Essendon recruiting team had collected. He was not entitled to take that Intellectual Property and Essendon took legal action to force him to return it. He was our man at that time but that gives an insight into his character. Buck Nekkid, are you not aware of the penalties imposed on the club by the AFL and the fact that all the prominent officials (other than Reid) are gone? How then does your statement that they let them get away with it stand up? As for the first bolded statement. Australian Football is a very small fish. There is only one Professional body for the sport, - maybe you are happy to cripple the sport and the competition by destroying a club, but I doubt that most people would forgive an AFL commission which permitted that to happen. Time passes quickly, but don't forget this issue has derailed the EFC for 4 years. ( And whilst writing this I remembered that they were kicked out of the 2013 finals, - another club penalty). Surely there have been enough consequences for Essendon to both penalise that club and to educate and deter future infractions from all clubs, - at least for a decade.

Wrecker 45, I am responding to your statement bolded above. America de Calli had already made the point below: "How can you believe he is the scapegoat when just about everyone else in positions of responsibility at Essendon were sacked or resigned swiftly? It took untill the bitter end and millions of dollars in his pocket to get Hird out of the club". However Wrecker45, you responded to his post as though you didn't read it, so I am again rebutting your statement that: "Hird could have handled it better but I truly think he his a pawn that the AFL needed to hang everything on. Particularly, after he wouldn't cop the slap on the wrist they were offering". You are again ignoring all the other casualties at the club which were mentioned by AdC, you are ignoring the fact that Essendon was fined $2 mill, you are ignoring that it lost draft picks, you are ignoring that the players were suspended for 12 months, (albeit by a WADA tribunal) and retired players had to step aside from coaching and other positions. You are ignoring the fact that the club is shelling out millions in compensation to the players. You are ignoring that Watson has lost his Brownlow. Hird himself resigned as coach before the player suspensions because the players were no longer performing for him. This was not a penalty imposed by the AFL. He kept going to independent courts and losing, so how can he be a pawn of the AFL. After all this, how then is he the scapegoat that the AFL needed to hang everything on? You yourself say"he wouldn't cop the slap on the wrist they were offering". So he was offered a slap on the wrist but 'he is a scapegoat"? (I know you say it happened because he wouldn't accept the slap, but that is still contradictory). Hird is just one of the many and continuing casualties of this program. By definition if there are so many other casualties, Hird cannot be a scapegoat As it happens, my view is also that he didn't intend to break the rules, but that is not a defense when the rules were broken under his watch and as a result of a program he instituted. He had responsibilities and he amongst others had to be accountable, - the Cronulla coach copped a suspension, what penalty did Hird get from the AFL which was worse?

This is: 'the-bombers-doping-saga-the-fat-lady-sings' thread. Not the James Hird thread, why would it be locked? You do realise that this was reignited by statements made by Stephen Amendola in Saturdays Herald-Sun and Allan Hird on 3AW and TV. The discussion now is about their hypocrisy in coming out with the old malarkey and allegations at a time when Hird's wife and others were saying leave him alone. Saturdays article included a false statement that the AFL had blocked Hird being employed by SEN. This was refuted by both the AFL and SEN and published, but in a much smaller article on Tuesday. Hird senior probably based his allegation that the AFL was still harassing his son on that 'false news' article. Amendola is trying to cover his a**e, (following all the poor advice he have Hird), by again blaming everyone else, - as did Hird senior. Both the Amendola and Hird senior statements were sickening and shouldn't be allowed to pass uncontested.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-09-23/no-priority-pick-for-demons Not trying to point score, but it was 2014 as it happens. (I remember Roosy buying into it, when previous to coaching us he was completely against it). Fully agree with last sentence. I appreciate that we had a civil exchange of views on the issue of Gil and the other matters.

The Jobe issue: If I'm not mistaken that fell into the Commission's scope. I don't think you can sheet that home to him. In any case, I believe it was obvious to both Gil and the Commission that he had to lose it, but they decided to do it their way. In the end the right outcome was achieved. I have no sympathy for Jobe and don't think he did anything heroic, courageous or noble by giving it back before he was told to. Don't forget he had a number of prominent supporters arguing he should keep it, (including the AFLPA, Robbo, and a former Brownlow medallist. I think the way it was done will allow Mitchell and Cotchin to receive their medals with far less controversy and I am really pleased about that, as they are fully deserving. The broader Essendon issue: Again, I'm pretty sure the Commission had a big role in this. I also happen to believe the players didn't set out to cheat, they were victims, - but that is just their bad luck. (Again no sympathy from me). Remember the Cronulla players and club got away with far less than what happened to Essendon. Of course the AFL was fought all the way by Hird, the club and the players. You can add to that list the AFLPA and the 'great Civil Rights lawyer Julian Burnside, (who also claimed Hird's human rights were being breached). Turning up to Torquay: I've had my say about that in previous posts, its a matter of opinion, but I don't see it as a sign of incompetence, it was his considered decision. Priority Pick: Was it after 2013 or 2014? Because he was appointed CEO at the end of April 2014. Either way, I recall that the grounds for a priority pick were deliberately kept secret, (and still are), so they couldn't be gamed by clubs. I think it would have been controversial to give us a priority pick then, but we got a pretty could result for the Frawley free agency move. I always felt there was some effort to compensate us there. I'm not convinced that he is useless, nor that he is a Dill.

It seems that people in positions of responsibility will invariably cop criticism and whilst I'm not in a position to say he is terrific, I'm really puzzled by this comment. On the basis of the bolded segments we obviously have Bozo the Clown as the current AFL CEO, surely then the worst CEO in Australia! R & B, can you illustrate his failings in respect to each of those criticisms with examples to enlighten me?

My responses to the bolded segments in order. Point 3, I was replying to your criticism of his using time to call Mike Sheahan's daughter. ( Quote from Herald Sun article - “Gillon had seen me play when I was younger and I was his tennis coach, so he knew what I was like,” Sheahan said), so apart from anything else, he knew her personally. How hard to pop in to Torquay: I'm not going to to argue that it's some impossible thing, but it is 3 hours to just travel there and back for some glad handing. Last bolded segment, the quote from Dangerfield: Let's not forget that Dangerfield is also acting as the PR face of the AFLPA. This is part of the strategy to portray the players as wronged and downtrodden as they battle the AFL ogre. I see it as an attempt to get public opinion more onside.

1. He clearly is not one of the negotiators. 2. These negotiations have been going on for quite a while. He would be updated regularly on the state of play, for what purpose would he 'pop'in? 3. Not that it matters, but how do you know he didn't make the call in his time? 4. Are you saying he is not allowed to allocate some of his time to women's footy? This is a new addition to the CEO's responsibilities.

Damn good points. Let's also not forget they had no National Disability Scheme, no Gonski funding, to overcome disadvantage. Very backward in technology as well, no Facebook, Twitter or Youtube? As for their Climate change policies, don't get me started. Man, those ancient Greeks, totally over rated!!!

I heard on the radio this morning that he has asked the current CEO, the former CEO and the AFL integrity officer to appear at the tribunal to be questioned by him at his appeal. Two thoughts: 1. This is the man who refused to appear before any of the investigations into this Essendon case, and he seriously expects these guys to voluntarily appear now for him? 2. My thinking is that he is not seriously expecting them to appear, but wants an excuse to not proceed when they don't play his game. Finally, IIRC, he has already lost cases in which he sued various people and was left with all the costs. He originally promised many more, I wonder if any more will see the light of day. I would love to know what all the people at Essendon think of him now.

I read Robbo's article in Saturday's Hun, and I think it was ridiculous. His logic was abysmal. HOWEVER - I heard him on SEN on Thursday afternoon and he did say, that when he read that none of the players had admitted to receiving injections, - that constituted, in his words - "a game changer" for him. I don't know if he ever wrote an article to that effect. That he would express that view and then write Saturday's article is quite incomprehensible.

Thanks to both for the explanation.

Is this a serious comment, or have I missed a joke earlier in this thread? What's the connection?

I don't know who he is, but he surely must be mature age by now!

The four players below are contracted for 2016. At best only Grimes would be a possible trade. We did delist and pay out Evans when he had a contract for 2015, but not many clubs make a habit of that. Trengove 22, Grimes 25, M Jones 27, Terlich 25, I think Bail, Jamar, McKenzie and Riley are almost certain delist / retire. Fitzpatrick keeps teasing, he has pace and height and his role in defence has worked well at Casey and in one AFL game, I would say still a chance to be retained. I don't know enough about Hunt, but it will definitely be a question of what potential the club can see in him between now and end of season. White - first year rookie, again don't know enough, but I would imagine our recruiting team probably need some space to try and pick the next VB or / Harmes for us.