caddypgt

1st choice or only choice? Is he the right choice? He gets soundly beaten by gorillas like Cloke because he doesn't have the right body shape for the body on body contest. He got towled up Cloke for at least a half of footy on Queen's Bday, he was giving away 15 kilograms. A resting ruckman is down in the forward 50 maybe 20% of the game, and not all of them are aerial threats. And further to an earlier post, I still think J-Mac is a required footballer. Pace and strength, can play mid-tall. Disposal iffy, but that may be more a symptom of a lack of structure and definitive targets rather than the skill itself.

No. Rivers is required. Good reader of the play as a spare man to help the KPP's. We have 4 talls down back now. Three of them can play tall or short. Rivers can only play short; unless his tall opponent is light. We need Rivers minding mid size or light frame talls so he can zone off his man, drop in the hole to take a grab, or be the extra fist in pack situations around the main fwd target (read Nick Maxwell type). Could he organise the defence like Nick? Not sure. This will release Garland to be the running half back that the game seems to require these days (read Harry O'Brien type).

This is a good result for us; Collingwood's is the same per year, but their deal is for 7 years. http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/afl_club_secure_lengthy_sponsorship_deal/

Grimey needs to focus on getting the park for 20 games a season. JT for me.

Not exactly sure who shelved it. Perhaps the board should have initiated and controlled it. I was just talking in terms of the OP; if any review is to be undertaken, it should be without bias and the recommendation should be placed in the hands of people that will act upon them in the best interests of the club, not themselves.

Agree with everything you said. But he couldn't be the one asked to conduct a review of the club and forward recommendations. That needs to be done independently.

Don Argus was impartial to the Cricket Australia situation and why he was on board. Don Argus is a known supporter of the Melbourne Football Club. Potential for conflicts of interest there. Especially if any finding he produces may encourage the pushing of his own barrow. Fat slice of his wallet would be nice though :-)

Marcus Aurelius: Let us pretend that you are a loving daughter, and I am a good father. Lucilla: This is a pleasant fiction, is it not?

I would post the link to the youtube clip but I think it would be too vulgar for this forum, what with the "Drink Coke" campaign - but hilarious nonetheless! One of my favourites :-)

Some clubs receive assistance from the AFL, generally not enough to make a huge dent in the football department spending. Everyone seems to be spending at least 13 mil per annum; Collingwood spends in the region of 20. Cap it like salaries, and set a minimum spend of 92.5%. That is the next step in equalisation. AFL are vested in the survival of all clubs to ensure they can provide for a full 18 sides for the broadcast rights. Get onto this before football dept spending renders clubs unable to compete. This will truly get the cyclical success model going.

We bring in a salary cap to curb the advantage of richer clubs being able to attract better players who demand better pay. There is a large disparity in football department and developmental spending. The next logical step would be to cap football department spending in a similar way. This is how you can maintain the current league structure and truly obtain the cyclical success model the AFL wants. Even and fair.

The Presidents of both (currently strong and well performing) clubs, whose coaches may be eyeing a career at Melbourne beyond this year, have made a point lately of trying to flame the MFC in the media. Granted, I think that JoKe would rather see the back of Clarkson, but I am certain his mind would change if another premiership was delivered in 2011.

And nothing to do with the extra $400K? ... get real. There are issues that probably won't help MFC's cause in regard to retaining key personnel. But let me throw some light from a different perspective. I bet you if there was no TS issue this year, there may well still be some dissatisfaction with admin, but nothing to this extent. Isn't it funny how it all finally reaches boiling point with the players when Schwab publicly opens his big flap and says we can match GWS's offer? TS may not have held a dagger to DB ... but some form of involuntary manslaughter might be appropriate. It would not be a stretch to imagine that TS holding off contract negotiations has had a destabilising impact on the rest of the club.

Yeah, and if someone were to call in on Eddie's breakfast show and mention that, that caller wouldn't go to air.

A desperate and robust attempt at bluff.

Sacking one in the current circumstances doesn't look good from outside the club. Given the result on Saturday, the club had to act. Sacking the CEO is an outcome that does not fit the antecedent. The club and coach is already under pressure from the media and the membership, and the Board are representative of that membership. Sacking the coach given the history and the current circumstance, while extreme and somewhat reactionary, is not an unreasonable outcome. Sacking the two of them looks like the club is imploding completely and irrecoverably; that those governing it have lost complete control. An extension to Schwab looks (to me) like an extension for now until he and the club can come to an amicable parting; away from the current glare. Speculation, but reasonable.

The AFL website is reporting that three news sources say the sacking has happened; but they are not so sure as to confirm it themselves. Maybe he wasn't convinced a decision had been made, and maybe the tweet was a plea for clemency ... or look like that. Who the [censored] knows ...

Might also be a passive aggressive way of telling Scully to take the money and run. That way the club can blame his greed and still maintain the playing group and retain the other (weak pricks) players whose noses may have been put out of joint with the money that Scully would have demanded. Slightly off topic - And who is to say that the comments by Schwab last week about having the money to match GWSs offer might prove to be the straw that breaks his back also ...

And once the information is in the lap of paid up members; you lose complete control over it.

The problem may be that we weren't the only ones watching it.

That's what I was thinking.

We are seen as the private school kids living in a blue collar world.

Who has to forgive whom?

There is nothing more to say. I am empty.