QueenC

Some times there are those that just can't be helped !!!

There is a lot of pontificating going on in here, and some peoples opinions are being treated as absolute fact. Thinking highly of ourselves aren't we. And it would be nice of some folk not to treat those that disagreed with them with total disregard and disrespect. It could be worth remembering that no-ones thoughts and opinions are any more right or wrong than any one else's, no matter how condescending and dismissive some posts are. Now the way I see it, Miller will probably get another year (and who knows under a new coach what can happen and I am going to continue to have at least some faith, blind or not, and loyalty in this player. Besides he would be a pretty useful depth if nothing else), that is, of course, if he is not bundled up as a sweetener (he could become very valuable in this particular scenario) for another bigger and more important trade that hopefully will improve the list. The problem with finding a trade on its own is two fold in my opinion (and I am not going to tell people that this is fact as I have no more idea than any one else around here), the first being, there are far more valuable players on our list that can, and should be able to be traded, if needed, for a bigger list improving scalp. The other side of the coin is that there are probably less valuable players that will be delisted before anyone even gets to Miller. Therefore he is stuck somewhere in between (on the lower rung, but still in between). And I don't know and am not going to pretend to know what a new coach would do about trading Miller for a draft pick, especially given the element of unknown (to us all). Not to mention I certainly don't know enough about the depth and/or quality of this years draft, since it seems to be generally acknowledged that he will only draw a lower round selection. Thus if his inclusion in an offer to another club gets us what we want then so be it, otherwise I see him staying put for next year.

Captain : David Neitz, if he wants to still do it, if not then Brad Green Vice captain: Brock McLean (& Brad Green if not named as captain) Leadership Group: James McDonald, Cameron Bruce, Jared Rivers & Nathan Jones Coach: Kevin Sheedy Delisted players: Matthew Warnock, Heath Neville, Ryan Ferguson, Chris Johnson & maybe Daniel Ward Retired players: Nathan Brown, Clint Bizzell & Byron Pickett (hopefully) Traded Players: Maybe Brad Miller or Mark Jamar (but this doesn't really depend on us) First draft pick: I actually have no idea!!! Football manager: Chris Connolly 2007 B&F: 1) James McDonald; 2) Nathan Jones; 3)Jeff White; 4) Daniel Bell & 5) Brad Green

Thanks for posting it here Warren :D !!!

In your opinion, which last time I checked I am still allowed to disagree with.

But we didn't see it happen!!! Saints fight Baker ban August 22, 2007 ST Kilda has launched an appeal against the seven-match suspension handed down to tagger Steven Baker last night. The club confirmed today that it had appealed on several grounds. The Saints said the tribunal had accepted Baker's versions of events and should not have suspended him. In an unusual move, the tribunal jury said it accepted Baker's evidence, with the player saying he was running in front of Fremantle opponent Jeff Farmer before stopping and propping. That caused Farmer to run into the back of Baker. But the three-man jury still found that Baker had engaged in rough conduct, acting recklessly, and that he made high contact to Farmer with high impact. .........And now I am just repeating myself.

Well I guess I am unreasonable and imprudent to want to see facts and not assumption, which is still all you gave me.

I have no formal legal training Deanox, but I have been through two assault cases as the victim on both occasions...... So maybe this qualifies me as have some understanding through some very unwanted experience!!! As for the comment, I believe that to hand down any penalty you have to be certain that they actually performed the illegal act with which they have been charged. The severity to me only makes worse the fact that the tribunal actually doesn't know what happened. They're ruling is based on speculation, and Bakers account, in which he says that he didn't do anything illegal (injury via head clash) other than shepherding off the ball. Now unless the tribunal says that any player that may cause injury in an action that occurs off the ball including a shepherd will be penalised (not just a free kick like it is now), I can't see where they can absolutely say that Baker did anything. Rough conduct must still be proven and they can't do that. So I guess what I was saying is that to me you shouldn't be able to put someone out for any length of time based on speculation, you need absolution. I hope that made sense !!!

He was also charged well before any evidence was given, especially since there was no evidence out there. But while I disagree with you Rhino, I understand your point of view about behind the play incidents and the need to penalise them, You say that with such certainty. I am not quite sure how unless you are judging the player and not the incident. Personally I still can't get past the fact that no-one knows or has any independent proof as to what happened, therefore other than his own testimony, which while stating it was off the ball the injury was actually caused by an accidental head clash no-one can prove your "malicious" accusations one way or another. It may be, but we don't know that. And for a penalty that harsh you really should have an element of certainty.

Yeah I read it somewhere I will try to track it down again..... And no we don't know an accidental head clash would cause that kind of damage, but we also don't know that it wouldn't. My main point throughout all of this (and sorry about the rhetoric) is that we can't know because we can't see it. So I am not categorically saying he is definitely innocent of the charge, because I don't know, but neither do those that say he is categorically guilty.

But if that was the case then he is being penalised for a head clash simply because it happened off the ball. And while they are horrible and in this case maybe avoidable a head clash should not be punishable. I only used Whelan as an example to say that the injury (and Ball was badly hurt) is not always caused intentionally, and should not be the reason for any suspension. Part of the process yes but it is the action that causes the injury that is the reason for the suspension. Besides to me there are still a few distinct differences in the actions of the players besides the off the ball stuff in that Whelan had intentionally shepherded Ball by a legal hip and shoulder, which led to the unfortunate clash of heads, yet according to Baker's testimony, which was accepted by the Tribunal, he actually 'blocked' Farmer and that Farmer ran into him again causing the unfortunate and very obvious injury. On the one hand, Whelan laid a 'hip and shoulder' intending to cause contact whereas Baker laid a 'block' maybe with the intention to cause Farmer to stop/divert. What happened probably should have been a free kick on the day to Fremantle, but given no-one saw it that didn't eventuate. Which is still where I start and stop. You should not be sentencing people or convicting people with no independent evidence of the crime.

He said that Farmer hit the back of his head (head on head clash) and he has the bruising to show for it. And they said they believed him. If that was illegal then Whelan would have served time for his hit on Ball in the opening round. He didn't and shouldn't. And if inference and resulting injury is everything at the tribunal, rather than proof, then that is going to lead to all kinds of problems. As I said Baker may have hit him (and he does have a bad record), but he was not charged with striking, because they couldn't.

Just out of curiosity and I don't want to put my head in the lion's mouth over this, but did you see what happened RR? I watched the game and certainly didn't. And with there being no independent evidence, (and sketchy testimony from a Fremantle trainer doesn't really count) how the hell can they give such a severe punishment (not factoring in his hang over points), when they apparently agreed with Baker's testimony, and no-one actually had a clear view of the apparent hit? Yes Farmer was definitely injured and I am not saying that Baker did not do something to him (he said that he did bump him off the ball illegally by stepping into his path allowing Farmer to run into the back of him (& apparently has a bump on his head)), but no-one has any absolute proof of what actually happened. I have to say that I am not even a little surprised that St Kilda are appealing, I would actually expect Melbourne to do the same with this kind of case. But in the end I would have thought that it would be tough to penalise, especially to that extent, what you can't actually witness or prove independently.

Sydney - say what you will it is still my home town!!!

Fair point Rhino, but the conerns are still valid

Johnson accepts guilty plea COLLINGWOOD'S Ben Johnson will not play again this season after he accepted a six-game suspension for making forceful front-on contact on Melbourne's Daniel Bell. Johnson opted not to contest the charge, arising from last Friday night's game at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, as he risked being suspended for eight games had he lost a challenge.

His "club building" reputation gives him a distinct edge over the other candidates....... Given that this is what we need at the minute both on field and off. He is a proven coach but he brings with him a hell of a lot more and we need that. So you would think that that would have to factor in to a very large degree.

That is a fairly shocking peice of info there Rhino, I just hope you can back it up :D !!!

That's not really a surprise though, is it? !!!

Unfortunately Colin is becoming a repeat offender in this regard and that is the worrying sign, not the fact that he is doing what we have all done. I would never condemn a kid having a drink nor doing something relatively stupid when having said drink. That would be hypocritical of me. And I honestly have no problem with any of the going out stuff, nor even the mishaps that can come along with that, especially since being a relatively public figure, they live under a slightly different mentality and for that they would get treated differently both in the positive and the negative. The problem I have is that it does seem to keep happening and that is not a great sign. And he needs to learn, and quickly, that while he is more than entitled to go out and enjoy himself, he has a set of responsibilities (to his health and subsequently to the club that pays him) that others around him simply don't have and he must live up to those, especially when living in a fish bowl. And I think that asking him not to get drunk repeatedly and punching someone would not be a too difficult request.

They're just used to getting their own way, so this must have come as a huge shock to the system !!!

That actually sounds like a viable idea (from the outside anyway)........ People who were anti-Connolly earlier in this process (me included) seemed to generally be anti him taking over as senior coach (which I still am, unless he gets appointed) but there was quite a swell of support for having him be involved within the club in some other capacity. Maybe this could well be the avenue to that? And can someone please point me in the direction of some information on Bailey? Thanks

I agree with Nasher....... And I have always thought that Green showed quite a bit of grit and determination, and has worked hard in different roles for the betterment of the team. However his leadership has not been particularly consistent, but when he has been handed the captaincy in the past he definitely stepped up and showed a hell of a lot more within the role than any of the others (including McLean) that have been presented with the honour in recent times. That being said Brad could still only be seen as an "interim captain" given the fact that McLean with all his natural leadership ability will and should at some point take over. This would be unfortunate because to me once you are named as captain, you are the captain, no matter how long you may or may not hold the post. For Brock though he could well need a bit more time to get himself and his body right before being handed the extra responsibility. Although he could well end up relishing it. There is really no way of predicting the future. But we do generally seem to assume that Brock is definitely a captain-in-waiting. But if given the role Greeny could end up being a fantastic captain, we honestly have no idea !!!

Well said Finks...... Thanks to Chris for the years of service, and I hope you are happy with your new role. This would tend to lend (at least a little) credence to the fact that nearly all those extensively involved in the Daniher era are moving on to other positions. This would obviously give any new coach the much needed clean slate to put their own people into place. That can only be a good thing in the long run !!!

Being from Collingwood ?!!!