Chris

Would be worth thinking about.

The other thing in common, they all came through the club during a leadership void. They have and to work it out themselves, and to a large degree are getting there over the last 18 months or so. Unless you can replace them with better leaders then the current young ones will come up in a void of leadership as well. That is not a good thing. Garland would also add leadership to the quieter players, the ones who aren't into the jock crap that football clubs can throw about, and the reason I stopped playing in my 20's. No interest in it, Garland offers an alternative.

Because you argue based on someone leaving because they have been here too long. Does not make sense and is a mistake. Not every player also needs to be an overt leader, I am sure there would be young players who would look up to the Garlands and Jetta's of the world, quiet achievers who get their job done with little fanfare. I know as a kid these were the sort of people I sought out, not the overt look at me I am leader type, they left me cold, and still do. You need a mix of both.

Isolated case. Basing a decision on a player on whether they are from the past or not is a mistake. Base that decision on their contribution to the team, skill, errors, etc. Not on that they have too much experience!

No I didn't just appear out of a cave, Yes we have drafted and recruited well, I have been following the club since Carl Ditterich was the Coach. Going with youth alone does not work, you need to keep experience around the club. Three examples, us after we sacked the captain and all the other experience and went with youth (worked wonders), Gold Coast, went with youth with very little experience around, really struggle when the littel experience they do have is missing, and lastly, GWS, have bought in experience with their youth and have leap frogged GC by a country mile. If you think we need only focus on the future and get rid of anyone from the past then we are rid of N. Jones, Vince, Cross, Dunn, Garland, Howe, Watts, Lamumba, Dawes, Trengove, Grimes, Pederson, Garlett, and a bunch that will either retire or probably delisted (at best provide a little depth). Remove these players (which is the extension of your argument to go with the future) and our club would sink straight back into the mire it finally seems to be extricating itself from. But I suppose that's OK, we have some players for the future, again.

What happened last time we threw out the past and bought in the future?

Garland I think will stay, if he wants to. I don't think the club will push him. He is very versatile and is in our best 22 every week, no doubt.

They need to work out how to make sure of the sex of the child first. If society gets to the point a club can mandate that their players only have boys then that is the day I stop wanting to be part of it.

My solution. Each club younger than 20 years can have an academy, each club over twenty years old gets father son. Every five years each club can have a max of three picks from F/S or academy for free. They can use these all in one year or spread them out depending on the talent coming through. The five years is a rolling five years. If a club want more than the three picks then they can have one per year, which would be governed by the rules as they were, i.e they can't get them for their last pick and would need to pay close to market price for them. This sounds complex but is actually fairly simple and allows for forward planning by all clubs, and removes the disadvantages of having F/S coming through or academies.

Perfect example of why this new points system is bull S&*T.