rpfc

I was being flippant. You said this: The cash comes from the Board's resolve, quite correctly, not to pay Scully an outrageous salary which would destabilse the team. So I said this: How cash can be obtained by not spending an amount you were never going to spend is beyond me... You are trying to say that we will spend money on a coach as opposed to a player, I replied by saying that the 'extra' money set aside for Scully is non-existent. We have reportedly given his management our 'best offer' of around $3m over 5 years. With that in mind we can now move on because the scenarios are now down to two: 1. He stays on that salary. 2. He goes and we have $600k to spread around. There was never a time when we were going to match the Scully offer of close to $1m - so you cannot reallocate funds that were never allocated. Maybe the next time you don't understand what someone is saying you can ask for clarification.

'Value for money elsewhere'? I don't understand. Yeah, Neeld at $300k would be cheaper, but he isn't a proven flag winning coach who is out of contract. The key to this 'offer' which I am sure was just ballpark figures is that we wanted him to know how interested we are before he is signed by the Hawks.

1. F... the process. If you internally agree that one person is amongst a few targets, their CV is very good and they are out of contract - you let them know that you are an option. 2. Who gives if we push up his price? We are acting now because we cannot act later. Can't wait for him to sign a contract with the Hawks. And who cares if we are showing our hand? Too many on here are worried about perceptions. I think with our problems - people who don't think we are a basket case won't be swayed by trying to get Clarkson.

I wouldn't say that. It's probably a deliberate leak - get the word out that we have money to spend, so that other people know that we can compete in the marketplace. Also, gets the story off 'The Internal Crisis at Melbourne'...

We are far too cynical, DC...

I am ok with the club abandoning a 'formal process' if they get a proven coach who has won a flag. Sometomes getting consultants in to tell you something means they tell you something you already know or they give you glossy BS.

How cash can be obtained by not spending an amount you were never going to spend is beyond me... We can pay for a good coach like Clarkson or Malthouse because of the fact that we have grown revenue streams and asked fans to chip in.

Assuming his body is ok, I think it might just be because he is 28 and they would like to rebuild. But I know it doesn't look great when you are picking up players not wanted by teams that are not very good... Which is why I don't think Warnock is going to get us a second round pick that a poster suggested he might...

You have got to work with what you can get. I would like to get a 27-30 year old (or a couple) pro who will command a spot for a couple of years and is a good leader to help fix our easily pleased culture. Example - Kane Cornes. I would also like to target a 23-26 year old (or a couple) established player that can command a spot in the 22 - must have a good head. Example - Travis Boak. I don't know if either is available, or who else might be but I would love to get a couple of both.

Yeah, I have a similar sentiment. The issues have been laid bare. We can fix them before they become the difference between winning a flag and not... Possibly like the Saints? Just throwing that out there...

I keep getting pulled back into the scrum... I have nothing to say and it has degenerated back to the 'lying-gate' issue (to throw another 'gate' around) of which I feel compelled to respond to for some reason...(ego, probably) But I am weaning myself off of it...

Yeah, I was a big rap for him and can still see what he 'could' become but this year hasn't been great... Throw him in the middle and see how he goes, I want to see him wear a few tackles.

Same place as Lady Hamilton's virtue...

Hurricanes and banana plantations don't co-exist well... That's the issue.

Considering the stratospheric expectations that some people had at the beginning of this season, it is the right message. We thought - we are the Sydney game of 2010. Without qualifying that by saying that we lost the only proper leader at the club and a seasoned pro in Junior and Bruce, and we became younger, and less experienced for the 4th straight year. We have a ways to go. PS. That doesn't mean we won't play finals or win them in 2012 and 2013 but that we will face teams better than us in the finals.

Just realised we can't because of Fevola... Next season - train the kid to play in the square.

The emergence of Martin has moved the goalposts significantly. We are no longer looking for a Hale-second-ruck-type but a legitimate forward who can kick multiple goals. Narrows the field and the possibility of finding one. Fevola is not going to be apart of a flag winning team. Read into that statement all the different angles. I reiterate my point about Gawn - if he is to play semi-regularly in the next three years it will be as a FP. So I say train him up!

If people want Gawn to play many games in the next three years it will be as a FP... And it won't work if we go out and get a big lumbering forward...

I thought that was why the rule was brought in...

I just can't do it. I'm not strong enough. I post, OD. So posters like you, DC, and Redleg don't have to. I'm doing it for you.

Never! Eager to defend a kid. Anyway, back on topic, Darwin is hot. Sweat much? Gloves? Check.

I actually feel less tense posting in this thread... So what is going on? Davey a chance this week? Surely not?

Yes, and didn't they do well... Excellent start - 2 goals in the first 15 mins.

This is...wow. I hope this is a cut and paste job. That's impressive.

Yay! I can't make it Sunday but the outdoor heaters are around the $300 mark at Bunnings. So you might want to do the old "it doesn't work so can I please I have my money back" trick on Monday. Store credit? That's a hell of alot of light bulbs...