No10

I believe if WC trade to 2 the idea is they’d take Curtain. Leaves both Duursma and McKercher.

This would effectively be North giving 2 and 3 for 1. Don’t think they can do that. We’d have to give 6+11. Imagine we’d ask for 15 back as well. Which they won’t do. So if we get to draft night, what are the chances of WC accepting our offer? What compels us to deal with North before their pick 3?

This is maybe a brilliant strategy. We’ve put our best offer. North are low balling. Why our position is so smart imv, is that WC are naturally holding out for the best offer from North. The question is: what’s North’s best offer without us trading with them? I’d say it’s 2+15+17 for P1 Is that better than 6, 11, 42 and F1? Perhaps slightly but also depends on what players WC want and where they think they’ll fall. And I doubt North would give that up, given their huge delisting numbers. It’s a brilliant play because we’ve given WC our best offer. But we will have undoubtedly simultaneously made an offer for 3. This one however a low ball. I’d guess 6 + 11 for 3 + 15. North need our 6 and 11 to make the deal they want with WC. Which you’d assume is what everyone has floated here many times. But we’ve made the squeeze play. WC have our best offer, eventually North will stop low-balling and give them theirs. But we can squeeze, we can hold out on facilitating the 3 club swap. We can even hold until after WC make their No 1 selection before we budge on our swaps with North. If we want 3, wait to then. It’s smart.

In that order? You’d take Duursma over McKersher? I have no idea, but they seem the likely two we’d choose from. I also don’t mind holding 6 and 11. It seems a fairly even trade going to 3 and 18.

Wasn’t my suggestion. However, I think it highly likely this will happen, but with p17 or 18 also included from North. But the question is if McKercher or Duursma are worth it?

Agree Old. The hardball from us should be asking for North pick 17 or 18 as well. Which I think is possible, though I might be wearing my red and blues.

Except North will take our 6 & 11 for 3. Then trade 2 & 11 for 1.

No 2024 picks? I’m clearly misunderstanding this whole play. Why bother trading back for equivalent points in the same draft?

He’s a product of our culture. He’s been 4x b&f and one year ago signed a massive seven year deal. Was he a problem before all of this?? If he’s lost his way that’s the on our ‘great culture’ to correct. This is where it matters, it’s where the coaches matter. Where captains lead (Max is rumoured to be doing so). Make no mistake, this is a huge moment. You can’t name a single other player and club where this happens. Maybe G.Ablett Jr, but that was a very different set of circumstances. Dusty is a much better example, what happened there? What will happen here?

This seems like a poor analysis. Still can’t buy McKay compensation p3. Will not happen. But also don’t understand Gold Coast taking NM picks for p4. They’re not short on points. What they want, I’d assume, is a high F1. Trade Grundy +p24 for Syd F1. Then 13 + Syd F1 (plus some later picks) to GC for p4. That Bartel analysis is too basic. It’s always more complicated.

You’ll be walking. Frawley is the only vague comparison and the situation at that stage was insane. In no way comparable. Yes, we both lost a n1 draft recruit. But we then went through years of drafts that were extremely compromised. They’ve had top selections that are making an impact already. Frawley was a high draft selection (12) and was AA, etc… Then add to all this, he went to a powerhouse premiership team. That was the BIG PR problem. AFL House desperately needed to rebalance. And even then, it was all a stretch. Chris Scott is doing the good work at speaking out. Can’t stand him usually but suddenly he’s a genius. No chance of p3 for McKay. No way.

It seems the done deal is Grundy to Swans. Must be relatively simple if as agreed upon as it appears. Do we not even know what that trade is? Demonland intel is broken. I’ll pretend I know something… Grundy +p24 for p11 Oh. And no chance Nth get p3 for McKay, sets unworkable precedent.

You’re living on a different planet. Re. Adelaide, given that was your first example : "It's inexplicable they didn't call for a review" said Crows Chairman, John Olsen. "The field umpire then also didn't call for a review of the decision". Olsen told Nikolai & Stacey, "A lot's got to be played out here yet".

The Adelaide goal that was misjudged a point by the goal umpire? Nothing to do with ARC. The goal umpire who was stood down? The AFL who apologised and confirmed the error, Gil made statements about fixing the system? The Adelaide goal that was written about in every major and minor press? Yeah… No.

The Carlton player does signal, not immediately, only after he looks to see the ball is going through. As every player does now. The ARC footage is shown as the broadcast footage, that’s the point of the script: “looking at this angle…” There isn’t some other magical angle where you can see this non-existent touch. It’s clear there isn’t sufficient evidence and likely it wasn’t touched at all. The problem is that we roll over, other clubs do not.

@Turnerthat sounded sarcastic about your ARC friend, wasn’t meant to be. But I mean… if you have a friend in the ARC, maybe there’s something we can offer so these 50/50 calls fall in our favour next year? Demonland membership perhaps?

This is a nice defence of your friend in the ARC. But at the end of the day, you’re looking at the same footage as everyone else and I don’t see the finger bending or the deviation. Honestly, I can be impartial and if the field umpire called touched I would’ve accepted that. But this isn’t even close to a standard for overturning.

I know, I uploaded the video. The middle finger is possible. But unlikely. If there was a touch it would’ve bent backwards and separated from the other fingers. All the fingers continue into the same motion blur direction as the ball passes and the hand moves down. This isn’t proof. That’s why it’s a problem.

I’ve watched it, scrubbed and zoomed. Not there. Not touched. Who at the club do you expect to hear from? The president? I don’t hear much from her at all. Whereas Collingwood or Hawthorn in their window, I know you would. This is precisely the problem, a winning culture. Can not accept less so easily.

Great analysis. That left hand footage might be where some on here have been convinced. Smoke and mirrors absolutely. Because the footage below, which was what ARC used, doesn’t show a touch. Inconclusive, at best.

I’m not sure the ARC call saved the game for Carlton, we proved an impressive capacity for capitulating under pressure. But to say this was adjudicated correctly and definitively touched is wrong. The ARC footage is locked to the broadcast and when they say “looking at this angle” the footage is in context. I don’t see any touch on the ball. Extreme to callback a goal, the uproar should be now. But it wasn’t in Q4. And it was Melbourne.

Frame by frame, zoomed in, I’d have to say not touched. Doesn’t matter to me in regards to the result, we lost for many other reasons. But I do care there isn’t the kind of aggressive pushback that would happen if this was a different club. That’s twice in a month (against the same team) that we’ve lost by less than a goal and ARC has made a critical decision against, with questionable evidence. Zero discussion in the media. Would this happen to Carlton or to Collingwood?

ARC said this angle determined the overturning FullSizeRender.MOV

Oh no. I completely agree. The sub selection was bizarre. But it didn’t lose the game. The team lacked composure. Goodwin is to blame for these finals losses. That was a mess and he needs to improve more than any player. I’m not saying he can’t. But that coaching booklet talking point rubbish has to stop.

How can anyone think this isn’t a real part of the problem? Max spoke better at least.