Jump to content

Lord Nev

Members
  • Posts

    6,850
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    45

Posts posted by Lord Nev

  1. 46 minutes ago, adonski said:

    We're not trading for a player who has known baggage to stick him in Casey I wouldn't have thought

    Nowhere did I say I expect him to be 'stuck at Casey'.

    All I said was he would need to prove himself and earn a spot in the 22 with a ripper preseason and isn't a walk up start. Do you disagree?

    • Like 2
  2. 36 minutes ago, picket fence said:

    He hasnt been recruited to play at Casey!! Agree a very astute ball distributer! Hunter a lock! How did Matt Jefferson train??

    I have reasonably high hopes for him, but giving up a future 3rd rounder for him would tell you he's absolutely no lock to walk into a top 4 team's lineup without having a ripper preseason.

    • Like 1
  3. 25 minutes ago, Dwight Schrute said:

    The Geelong strategy isn't without risk though, i understand it worked incredibly well for a team of over 30's but potentially for a younger side it could upset the balance and team chemistry so it's a tough one to balance. 

    i think with those things they could do the exact same thing next season with totally different results, the reality seems to be winning a premiership requires so many small things to go right for you that it's almost out of your control. i think the top few teams are so close, that it almost comes down to luck in some ways. 

    I do agree though that Simon Goodwin at times probably could reward strong Casey performances, a good example would be that Ben Brown in hindsight could have been replaced by Jacob Van Rooyen who despite being young, was clearly in much better form. 

     

    Absolutely, the whole thing is a delicate balance hey? It can't be a set in stone rule I don't think, but does feel like we pushed too hard to one side last year. The contrast being the year before we didn't really 'manage' players and steamrolled through, just goes to show they perhaps need to be a little more flexible with the parts to the plan IMO.

    And to be clear, I'm in no way a fan of resting numerous players per game or doing it all at once, but I definitely think we could have managed players like Gawn, Jackson, Lever, Brown and Salem better last year and perhaps rotated them through 1 at a time with a week or two off when it would have been beneficial.

    Aside from the benefits of getting those key mature players a bit more cherry ripe, there's also that little energy bump you see sometimes when a new young player comes in for a game.

    • Like 3
  4. 12 minutes ago, rjay said:

    I don't think we were in the position to rest our key players 'dazz'... Geelong could do it because of the easy draw they had in the last part of the season, ours wasn't so kind plus midseason results meant we had to work for our top 4 spot.

    The opportunity just didn't present itself.

    In the end it was all for nothing.

    Then again maybe not if lessons were learnt.

    Geelong started the process mid-season, there is absolutely no reason we couldn't have started to manage payers when we were 10-1.

     

    • Thinking 1
  5. 4 minutes ago, 12345_54321 said:

    Totally disagree. He can kick a football and hit a target. 80% of our team can’t. 

    For sure, neat kick; which will be very handy for us, I just don't think he's an automatic selection at this stage. I think he'll absolutely have to earn his shot at the 'other' wing, we do have options there.

    • Like 3
  6. 28 minutes ago, binman said:

    Like last season, it will be evident by round 20 or so if the mid-season loading phase has done the trick - and there are no guarantees it will (because of the aforementioned variables). If we are not running out games, then it hasn't worked, and we are stuffed.

    You mean round 20 like last year when you said this:

     

  7. 2 minutes ago, rjay said:

    I'm pretty sure that was not what was said.

    For someone that doesn't like to be misrepresented you really have misrepresented the posters here.

    Isn't it fair to keep boards accountable? that's what was being asked.

    I don't see anywhere stating this board will fail.

    You legitimately don't take this as 'Slarti' indicating he thinks this board will fail? You don't take even the weight of his posts criticizing the board as context for that as well?

    2 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

    I watched the Szondy Board drive the club into the ground financially to the extent we needed to be saved by the AFL as did the Stynes/McLardy Board.  Both Boards started with promise, and both dropped the ball.  By the time the members became aware of the issues it was too late and in each case we survived because of the generosity of the AFL.

    I'm not suggesting for a moment we are in that position now as we find ourselves in a good financial position historically and a list that is stronger than any this century. But the decisions Boards make are long term, failures take years to be seen and I don't want to see a repeat of the two previous Boards that ended up with us requiring AFL support.

    But they'll care if in a few years' time we haven't delivered on the field or at Board level and by then it will be too late.  And this Board is giving me no confidence because they are treating us like mushrooms.  I worry there is a reason.

     

  8. 6 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

    Sigh ........ Nev didn't take on board the rhetoric message....

    Sorry 'Hawk', but the 'oh btw this is rhetorical' was added after I'd already replied. But in any case, pretty poor form, even by Slarti's standards, to make a large reply post full of questions and misrepresentations and then later add 'oh but this is rhetorical so don't answer....'

  9. Just now, Slartibartfast said:

    Without wanting to pour over every post you make Nev, why is it wrong to let those standing for the Board the ability to communicate with members?

    There's across the board rules that are the same for everyone. I have no problem with that. I also do not want my contact details being given out to any member who demands them.

    Just now, Slartibartfast said:

    Why did the Club go to Court, with little or no chance of success, to stop Lawrence putting forward suggestions about the constitutional review?  And don't tell me it was about protecting members email addresses when they could have sent the email out themselves with no disclosure of email addresses to Lawrence.  Even Joey from Moe could see that's a smokescreen.

    Hahaha a few suggestions you reckon? That's all Peter Lawrence wants is it? What naive rubbish.

    I would suggest the reaction by members, have a look at Lawrence's twitter for examples, would tell you why the club went to court to protect the data of it's members.

    There is absolutely no reason why the club should send out agenda-fuelled trouble making non-official content on behalf of any member who demands it.

    Just now, Slartibartfast said:

    Unlike you, I can see both sides of this and don't see it as black and white which you've already said you can't.

    What? You're attempts at misrepresentation are completely transparent I hope you realize.

    Just now, Slartibartfast said:

    And let's not pretend a few posts on Demonland are a real risk to this club, that really is a silly proposition.

    1. Pretty clearly those like yourself and 'Hawk' are doing all you can to destabilize the current board. It's not just a few posts on Demonland.

    2. My post is there for all to see, I didn't say 'a few posts on Demonland' was the only factor. Again, misrepresentation.

    Just now, Slartibartfast said:

    Haven't you ever paused to wonder why they are so afraid of disclosure and transparency?

    Pathetic attempt at a straw man here. You think this, I do not.

    • Love 1
  10. 58 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

    You're not a fan of Hawk and like Lord Nev, who pours over everything, seem very afraid of someone who wants to question the Board and hold them to account.  I don't see the issue.

    This is rubbish and you know it, and such a huge post with deliberate misrepresentations and flimsy assumptions (ie - other boards failed so this one will too!) just makes it clear that your whole crusade is a personal vendetta against the current board rather than out of a genuine care for the club.

    As I've stated previously, I'm all for board accountability and the home base situation is absolutely a watch for me, but there is absolutely no balance whatsoever in the agenda being pushed by yourself and 'Hawk'.

    No one is afraid of putting reasonable questions to the board, but pushing this over the top agenda and doing things like launching legal challenges which only get members offside absolutely does scare me at a time where things are for the most part going very very well. People like your mate Lawrence, the various posters pushing this silly agenda, and even people like Bartlett are the real risks to this club, not the board who has helped deliver financial stability and a premiership at every level.

     

    • Like 2
  11. 2 minutes ago, Palace Dees said:

    By his own admission,  Burgess' first love is soccer, especially EPL, that is the majority of his background. That environment is very much instant success or you are out! That is what he achieved with us and he will always be revered for it. I don't blame him for our fade in '22, the fault lay with the coaching staff who though that style of fitness coaching was sustainable long term. Griffiths followed a Premiership formula and to a degree was dammed if he did and dammed if he didn't.  I hope there is a highly collaborative fitness approach to this season to ensure we have the ultimate goal as our main focus. A Bart Cummings approach if you like.

    Absolutely there will (hopefully) be lessons learned from the physical management in 2022.

    But Burgess wasn't there. So blaming him or assuming what he would have done is just silly. That's the part I disagree with.

    You're right with the coaching staff point, we don't know how much say Griffith was able to have in terms of selection etc, I would wager not much given what we know about Goodwin's stubbornness with such matters in the past.

    • Like 4
  12. 40 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

    Burgo’s system burnt the players out and no wonder he left after a couple of seasons. His method has a short use by date and he knows it. He’s another Ross Lyon who flogged the players to the limit for short term success. It was reported that Griffiths closely followed the Burgess system. The players were broken by mid season and it was inexcusable no one saw it coming. Barely any players rested for niggles and minor injuries all season. Only one debutant and bench players knocking on the door rarely used. Blame should be shared by the coaches as well for inflexibility and hubristic selections. They just thought “bang, bang bang” would happen on the flick of the switch till the very last.

    So Burgess took us from a physical rabble to a team that steamrolled into the finals and won a flag, but now he's to blame for a season when he wasn't even there?

    Come off it. I agree on the resting players and lack of rotating others through, but to blame someone who wasn't even there is ridiculous.

    • Like 8
    • Thanks 1
  13. 9 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

    It is just not ready yet to be promoted as the elite sport. IMO it should be played at VFL level until the skills are more advanced.

    This makes absolutely no sense. Are you even aware of what 'elite' actually means? AFLW is the top level of women's footy, that makes it the 'elite' level.

    What does "played at VFL level" even mean? AFLW players have full time jobs outside of footy, just like most VFL players. Bizarre comment. I'm assuming that this comment and the "not ready to be promoted" comment simply mean you're one of those 'stop shoving AFLW down our throats!' types.

    • Like 5
  14. 2 hours ago, cantstandyasam said:

    It's a  little worrying compared to the other club's financial position. We need a financial wiz to help us going forward.

    It's not really. 'Hawk' has a clear agenda against the current board and is using any means necessary to try and paint them in a bad light. Net assets is certainly not a singular key indicator of financial performance.

    • Like 6
  15. 5 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

    Essendon had a few other things going on last year. Just wanting to see that our Board was beavering away on that home base. 

    It seems that most Clubs meet monthly, with maybe one off in January?

    We seem to be more relaxed.

    Perhaps we're more efficient and have had less spot fires to deal with than say Essendon and North...

    Either way, seems pretty arbitrary and irrelevant - Almost like there's some kind of subtle agenda there...

    • Like 2
  16. 2 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

    How does HFC go from almost bankrupt to the wealthiest club in Victoria. And the Doggies 2nd with a crappy supporter base? What am I missing here? 

    Guessing - Hawthorn's number includes all the money they've raised for their new base. They're getting a massive amount from fed and local government, had around $10mil donated by a former pres, sold both pokies venues etc.

    • Like 1
  17. 28 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

    All the AFL financials are in - a quick review of the Victorian clubs shows the following:

    Net assets ($mil) as at 31 October 2022, (followed by the number of Board meetings held);

    1. Hawthorn 90.0 (11)

    2. Western Bulldogs 62.2 (11)

    3. Carlton 56.9 (12)

    4. Essendon 51.3 (18)

    5. Collingwood 49.4 (11)

    6. Richmond 41.4 (13)

    7. St Kilda 38.5 (8)

    8. Melbourne 27.4 (8)

    9. North Melbourne 18.9 (11)

    10. Geelong 17.3 (8)

    Third last in net assets and no home base.

    Why is the number of board meetings held relevant? I wouldn't have thought Essendon had a fantastic year...

     

    • Like 2
  18. 20 minutes ago, Redleg said:

    1. Agree

    2.. I thought he was from country WA  and might not be a Port supporter, though that is a minor factor.

    3. Was she living in SA and have family asked him to return there permanently for some reason.

    Not saying he won’t leave, but factors may be slightly different to LJ situation.

    From what I understand, Koz moved from WA to SA during his teen years and lived with family there which he is still very close with. I don't think the chances of his mum asking him to move back are very high, but there's always the scenario that losing his mum has made him consider being closer to family again. On top of that, I believe his dad lives in SA these days.

    • Like 3
×
×
  • Create New...