Chris

You are right on the time frame and I changed my post to reflect that. Don't necessarily agree with the arrogance tag, more entitled and definitely a boys club through and through. Comes back to the private school boys running the place, they think it is like business where who you know is as important, if not more so, than what you know. That doesn't work in football and you get found out, as we have been many times. I think the new regime are going a long way to removing this crap. On another note, I wouldn't lump Davey in with the bunch of footballers who wouldn't tackle or chase, he is credited with inventing the modern version of forward pressure by doing those exact things.

The boys club at work!

And that culture is one of entitlement which has in the past been lead from the top, hence I say it is off field although it probably started before I stated. It was not however lead by the players, or the coaches, it came from the boys club on the board.

Yes, the problem is driven by off field issues. this started when we sacked a coach who was doing ok (Norm smith or the rev, take your pick), only to then sack his replacement, who was also doing OK. We had a management team in place that bought in tanking, could make money to save themselves, was very much stuck in a boys club mode where everything will be OK in the end, and they ran us into the ground. They also oversaw the sacking of all our experienced players, including our captain. Something we rue to this day as what we have clearly lacked is experience guiding the players, St Kilda have it, the dogs have it, and look at how they are going! Going with youth is only good to a point, you need the wise heads around. Look at the difference between GC and GWS for more evidence. Our players lack knowledge of what is required and have had their confidence smashed as a result. Add to this a development team that has to be the worst in AFL history, and a recruiting department who were OK, but not great, and made to look worse by appalling development and things go from bad to worse. Then Jimmy came in a cleared the debt (only to go into debt sacking more people) but he was still bound by the boys club, but to a lesser degree than others. Then the board made their worst mistake, hiring Neeld. Neeld may well have actually been an OK coach, he was not good at reading a groups of players and managing them, he lost them before he coached his first game, and if not then then he certainly did after it. The less said about this period the better, suffice to say we continued going backwards from when the rev was sacked. Then came the sacking of Neeld, to me this is the beginning of the resurrection. From around this point we have a CEO in place who knows what he is doing, we have a recruiting team in place who are doing a great job, we have a development team in place who so far seem to be doing very well with the likes of Brayshaw, Salem, Watts (the fact he needs development is an indictment of how bad the previous development team were), and others, we have a coaching panel in place that is stable (although many on here seem to be thinking Roos should go, massive mistake purely due tot he instability it would create) with the players knowing who is coaching for the next 4.5 years. Yes we are bad, but we are getting better, we are just coming from miles back due to the reasons listed above. The biggest of which was removing the experienced players, not only have we missed the experience but we have had to use draft picks and trades to bring other experience back in to the team! How about for once in this clubs history we actually stick out a plan to the end instead of jumping off half way because it doesn't look good, and then having to start all over again!

I don't think Jack made him cry, I think it was something else he wanted to do to Jack!

Amazing that two hours after the game there are only two posts on this thread. I am used to two pages in the first hour after a game! I guess Garland, Watts, Howe, Dawes and co can keep their jobs this week.

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.