titan_uranus

Silly comparison. Campbell’s been playing one position - ruck - for 12 years. Tomlinson came to us as a jack of all trades and if he had form on a wing it was fleeting. Grundy we all know wasn’t a forward. Once again, the question on Campbell isn’t whether he’s the right type of player to add to our list. He’s precisely what we’re after, a ruckman who can be the number one ruck if required. The only question is whether he’s the best option for that role. His VFL form this year suggests he’s at least in the conversation.

Sorry, completely missed your first sentence somehow. No idea who the other FAs are - perhaps none. I was otherwise agreeing with you - FA compo pushes picks back but f/s and academy picks don’t, as those players aren’t on the market.

It’s been genuinely pushed back though by the Battle, Perryman and Cumming compo picks though. More FAs might mean more compo pushes it back further.

Fullarton isn’t good enough to play ruck. We know that from this year. Verrall’s too young/thin/inexperienced/incapable to play first ruck in 2025. There’s nothing strange or questionable about us taking an experienced ruckman to play in Gawn’s spot if required. The only question is whether Campbell is the best option for us.

Agree. 407 is the lowest winner’s vote count, excluding the shorter 2020 season, since 2016 when, funnily enough, Viney won with 407. We played finals the previous three seasons but the winner each year polled 600+ (in 2022 Clarry won with 608 and just one extra game played, given the additional H&A game this year).

Morris reporting the board said no once they found out. So did the board not know, then found out, then intervened? Who else at the club isn’t in the know or on the same page?

The logic is sound. He may not be the best ruckman at AFL level but neither is Darcy Fort. The concept makes sense and means we go into 2025 without the same level of fear over a possible Max injury.

So are they on the same page? This suggests they aren’t.

2021, eh? So that’s before we signed him to a 7 year million dollar contract that is now the noose around our necks in trying to do what you both are implying is the right thing to do?

You’re in a “win now” window. You have to be. Your list is primed for a flag. Houston might only give you say 4 years but if you win a flag in that time no one will care, and tbh you should win a flag. A list with Cripps, Curnow, Mackay, Walsh and Weitering shouldn’t be battling just to make finals.

We started this. We called around and asked if clubs would deal. He gets all the way down the path and wants out. We complain there isn’t enough value in a proposed trade. All of which was completely foreseeable. As if we didn’t think clubs would refrain from throwing massive draft pick hauls given his recent history? As if we didn’t think throwing his name out there for the second year in a row would create a major media storm and [censored] Clarry off? All the parts of this that have been within our control have been mismanaged by us.

Kane’s right. We’re absolutely pathetic.

We’ve instigated this. Which means we’ve lost the bargaining power to hold him. It’s, IMO, a monumental mismanagement of one of the 5 best players this club has ever had.

We’ve pushed him out. We’ve ceded bargaining power. We’re a complete mess.

So are Goodwin/the FD on the same page as Pert? This sounds like they’re not. There are issues with this wherever you look.

Yes. There’s every chance things aren’t as bad as they seem…because they’re worse.

We spent all year backing him in. As recently as last week he was all in for a big pre-season with us. It doesn’t matter if he transgressed. We’re morons if we expected him to be a perfect model player after everything else. We had to know it was a risk, otherwise there was no point sacrificing our season playing him through his injury. I find this all disgracefully poor management from the club. Not just Pert. Everyone.

So much of this story is confusing. Do we want to trade him, or not? Does he want out, or not? The fact that it’s so unclear is in itself an issue. We have repeatedly demonstrated a complete inability to control any narrative about our club.

I just listened to it too. I agree with your summary. If you listened just to the podcast and didn’t know anything about this week’s reports, you’d walk away from that podcast feeling pretty good about where he’s at, both individually and in relation to the club. Given that, it makes it even harder to reconcile what’s been reported this week, and IMO only strengthens the concerns people have about the club’s administration.

Ravens, Bills, Colts

The podcast is out. Has anyone listened to it?

In what world does the CEO become a list management messenger boy?

It's now four journos actually. I had thought they were all over the place but I'm not so sure. McClure said Oliver felt unwanted and was exploring his options. Ralph said the club knew nothing about that and quoted Richardson as saying he's a required player and will be here next year. Morris said that Oliver wants to stay but the club has suggested he look around, and what the club says publicly isn't necessarily what it thinks privately. Gleeson said that over the last few weeks we've invited other clubs to pitch for him and are now walking that back. Writing this all out, Ralph's the outlier. There is a commonality between McClure, Morris and Gleeson - Oliver feels like the club doesn't want him (i.e. because the club has shopped him around).