titan_uranus

You’re still salty about not being allowed to go on radio and mouth off at the club?

This is true. However she went very close to alleging medical negligence by the club, AFL, ambos and/or hospitals. She even caught herself and said she wasn’t explicitly suggesting as much, which was a bit like trying to unring the bell.

Great post. The way Caro stumbled over what she was raising as “issues” is telling. She was asked where they would lead and had nothing to say. All that lies at the heart of her story is that Paul Marsh has just returned from 3 months leave of absence, which means he wasn’t here at KB, and so he’s now asking questions about what happened. That’s not entirely surprising. It doesn’t mean there are new issues, nor that they’re the club’s fault (or anyone’s).

From whom? You can DM me if required.

If you think Kennedy's kicking "too regularly fails to hit targets", but you think Nick Hind is an option, I don't know what you're seeing.

Yes, I mean the affidavit itself. Is it publicly available?

Where did you get this from @Hawk the Demon?

The [censored]? If anything, it's indisputable that we're in better shape than when she started in 2013. The debate is over the role she played in that change.

Nothing could be more Brisbane than losing from 61-0.

Hawks riding a wave of confidence and fitness (largely untroubled by injury all year, although they're doing this to the Dogs without Will Day). Every year you back the EF winner to beat the QF loser, and right now how can you pick Port to beat Hawthorn? But most years straight sets doesn't happen for a reason. If they knock Port off, they're as good a chance as any side of beating Sydney at the SCG to make the GF. Which leaves the Geelong v Hawthorn GF alive. For all the equalisation measures the AFL has implemented, having Geelong, Hawthorn and Sydney in the top handful of sides yet again is not good.

I suspect @DeeSpencer is talking about the 23 playing, not the entire list. The side currently playing has an average age of 25y 6m (Dogs are 26y 8m) and average games played of 107.6 (Dogs are 130.8). They're not that far off the same age/experience as Port last night (25y 10m and 107 games). I suspect they're the youngest side playing finals (perhaps GWS will be similar?) but they're nothing like some of the sides we saw in Round 24 (e.g. Fremantle was 24y 10m, Adelaide 24y 5m, GC was 24y 10m, North was 24y 9m).

“Twin reviews”?

If you accept that 7-8 become also rans, why do you then advocate for them playing 9-10? The AFL want this for money. Most of the rest of us don’t want more unnecessary games of football which, contrary to your argument, do reward mediocrity by putting 9-10 into finals (because let’s be honest, the wild card round is simply another week of finals).

If Trac had a Clarry issue, it wasn't with Clarry himself. It was with the club for how it handled that situation. Spending all year getting Clarry into what is, from all reports, the best off-field place he's been in years, only to then summarily trade him would be a really strange move. I know some will say "but it's two first round draft picks", but even then, after everything we've been through, if we then say "thanks Clarry but we don't actually care about you that much" I think that undoes so much of what we've tried to achieve this year as to be a bad decision.

It's sickening. Prelims in 7 of 9 years and 13 of 18. The comp has never been more equal, except for Geelong. This year is odd though. Most years they dominate H&A and then struggle more in finals. This year they were arguably the least impressive 3rd ranked H&A side in AFL history but have just turned in a flawless QF performance on the road to boot. However, that's now four straight finals losses for Port, three of which have been at home.

I’ll give it a go but might not be able to commit to the entire season this year. Texans, Jags, Vikings

I also think the board has to be talking to her - she was breaking down how many hours the board spent talking about various topics. How would anyone else know that?

Barrett reported yesterday that the AFL has cooled on Wildcard round too. Thank [censored] for that.

Does anyone know what was said at the Ringwood thing last night with May and Lever? Tom Morris reported that they said something about the club's communications around Trac's Noosa trip.

For those of us (e.g. me) who perhaps over-reacted to this last week: AFL 2024: How addressing key confidants gave Christian Petracca confidence in Melbourne’s future (theage.com.au) "The club is also throwing its support behind Kysaiah Pickett, who does not want to be traded but informed the club last week he felt homesick at times. A source close to Pickett, who preferred to remain anonymous to speak freely, said that was reinforced post-season when he caught up with AFL footballers playing in Western Australia who encouraged him to think about joining them. However, a trade has never been seriously considered"

Haven't seen much discussion on this article from last night from Peter Ryan. "Melbourne star Christian Petracca consulted trusted confidants both inside and outside the club – including teammates – last week before choosing to put an end to trade speculation... After those discussions with trusted parties, Petracca was satisfied enough that broad issues would be addressed to commit to rolling up his sleeves and contribute to finding solutions for Melbourne to end the external discussion. It’s not clear if any commitments were made to Petracca... Petracca – with some justification according to those close to him – wants to move forward, using the off-season to wind down to recuperate from the serious injuries he suffered on King’s Birthday and let the club get on with the job after a gruelling week that included the prospect of a trade being raised"

Let's hear what comes out over the next few weeks/months. If things go as we want them to go, and the group starts to galvanise after all this, I dare say Gawn will have played an important role in that. If he still wants to be captain (and he may be exhausted from the role, tbh), it's undoubtedly still his IMO.

I don't agree with those who are saying "if Collingwood/Carlton have the capital next year, watch out". For one, if we address the issues that have come to the fore, we may be able to reduce or eliminate what's been pushing Trac towards the door. Things will also feel and look better if we get back to winning again next year. But more importantly, this time next year he'll still have a four year contract on a million a season, and he'll be 29 turning 30. One fewer year on the contract doesn't suddenly make it easier for another club to take him, or reduce our bargaining power.

Throughout this whole process I've always wanted him to say, because I have faith in his ability to return to being a top 5 player. He is too good, and too professional, not to IMO. So my overall reaction to this news is one of excitement, happiness and relief. Of course, the statement certainly reads like he's saying "I'm not happy, but there's no way I can get out and so I'm staying, and hopefully things improve from here". However, in combination with Gawn's very well-spoken words yesterday on radio, I can see how we're here, and I hold out genuine hope that throughout this process the club has committed to addressing what are likely very real issues. The disappointment is that there has been damage done to Trac's relationship with us, the fans (probably the players too but that's harder to assess than simply reading these 228 pages). He was my favourite player. Maybe he still will be, but I know that many Melbourne fans are going to have, in the back of their minds, the thought that he isn't fully committed, or still has an eye on the door, or has his own "brand" higher on his list of priorities than us or the club. The way we respond to the issues Trac has raised becomes, IMO, one of the most singularly important things this club has done in decades. If we do this right, this could bring the club together and improve us in ways that otherwise would have continued to be ignored. But if we do this wrong, the hole we'll fall into next year will be far greater than the one we've been in the last two weeks.

The interview wasn't bad. It was awful. Her interview responses were contradictory, confusing, disappointing and, worst of all, at times incredulous. How has she not spoken with Trac's family despite the severity of his injury and the focus at the time on whether it was right for him to have gone back on the field? The issue was raised 2.5 months ago, not just this week. Yes, as president she is rightfully and reasonably a step or two removed from football operations. But the issues facing us with Trac (as well as Clarry, Smith and perhaps ANB/Pickett wanting out) aren't exclusively football department issues. If she attempted to dead-bat the questions, she failed miserably given how much she opened herself up to criticism. It's difficult, if not impossible, to resist the calls coming thick and fast now that she is incapable of doing her job and incapable of holding her role as president.