rpfc

I left that out because we are talking about specific drafting and list management decisions (and sanctions) not the management or executive that brought about those errors (and sanctions). One begets the other of course.

No, Stuie, you tried to equate two people's refrains about staying at the club when one of them had no choice to stay. You don't get to act like the demurring, bemused victim. Just deal with the fact that most of us do not think you internetted properly. It happens to the best of us.

I really couldn't care less about that frontrunner but the way he was handled from a purely 'protection of assets' standpoint was stultifying. Dropping him late in the season and keeping him out of the side and then all but stating that we wouldn't give him another contract was naive in the extreme in this new FA landscape where the AFL give compensation for important, or seemingly important, players leaving. The damage is done, but it is a rich story that might be a disaster documentary on List Management one day... List Management decisions made from the end of 2007 to 2012 and drafting from 2001 to 2011, and penalties from salary cap cheating in the late 90s are why we are in the mess we are in.

You are trying to make it simple to fit your point. It doesn't fit. Move on.

Well, we aim to be well run don't we? And since you are using the present tense - are we not 'well run' now? Decisions surrounding trades and draft picks are rarely accurately judged until years after the fact. But I am quietly confident about the Tyson deal, and I am loudly confident about the Hogan/Viney deal.

Red shorts look terrible. Our options are minimal.

No, he comprehended it just fine. Moloney was not offered a contract so it makes your 'he also left after supposedly bleeding red and blue' refrain rather moot.

Supporters do feel that way, which is why we lost thousands upon thousands of supporters in the 70s and early 80s and now after 2007.

It's not bad... The reverse Carlton won't find many fans on here though.

An admirable stance with one aspect I can't overlook - this 'charade' was not a 'charade' when Jack Watts did it last year. As you note, the Free Agnecy Era has begun and that means that October is the power month of the year, as clubs and players have to wait until then to negotiate (or do it a year in advance like Ablett and Scully). This means that waiting and delaying talks is the future and more and more players will be doing this. The renewal of contracts months before they have finished is foreign to most salary cap and draft regulated sports. It is very rare in the NFL and the NBA. And emotional ties are fine, as long as one doesn't prematurely burn those ties because a Demon isn't re-signing on blind faith 8 months before his contract ends.

That may be best for your personal sanity but there is emotional involvement because he would be making a judgment call on our club. We celebrate when they get a kick, and sign a contract, to say that we can be so detached about one of our more important player leaving is delusional. And yet there are many who routinely expect the insane, and damned a sane Watts last year for his delay and obsfucation. Ok - I have a thread out there somewhere that I will bump if this continues into the latter half of the season but the clift notes: - Frawley is a RFA (and we are assuming that he is in the top 10 paid players at the club - if he is then he can go anywhere for anything) - Clubs can offer him a contract in October (or already has been offered last October) - IF Frawley agrees to that contract, AND if we decide to 'match' that offer (a HUGE if due to the fact that you don't want to keep players who want to leave and he would net a very good pick) there are two possibilities at this stage: 1 - he signs with our 'matched' contract so we keep him on someone else's terms, OR Frawley decides to go into the National or Pre-Season Draft. I will repeat that last line because many don't understand - Restricted Free Agents can still go into the National or Pre-Season Drafts instead of staying at their club. Possible Outcomes: Frawley stays on our terms. OR Frawley stays on someone else's terms. OR Frawley leaves and we get approx. Nat Draft Pick 5. OR Frawley leaves through the Draft and we get nothing. The first and third options are far more likely than the second and fourth options.

I am not going to get too worked up about this as I can't corroborate the story but this is no way to select a Leadership Group. The parameters can be different but the playing group should be represented, and led, by those they wish to be represented by.

When I saw the blue star next to the title thread I thought this would have been a thread where I queried Green's captaining... Don't want to go back there... To those that didn't see Jones as Captain in 2011 (I was one that would have overlooked him) the difference between the Jones of 2011 and the Jones of the last two years is quite stark.

It is my understanding that the LG was voted by the players. I happen to completely agree with that. The choice of captain is aside from that and shouldn't be wholly up to the players, but the LG is the group that leads them - they should be represented as they wish. They wished Byrnes and Dawes last year in a larger LG, they haven't this year in a contracted 6-man LG. I feel it is that simple. I don't really see the arrival and empowerment (from the players themselves) of Byrnes and Dawes as harmful to the mindset of the players already at the club. Who should have been ahead of them in the LG? Whose toes did they step on? The players were mentally shot before Byrnes and Dawes arrived I am afraid to say. If 186 in 2011 was breaking the players, 2012 broke them, I don't think the subsequent arrival of Dawes and Byrnes made a negative difference to the playing groups mindset at all.

It's just an overreaction to his poor form, no need for names.

That's an excellent point. Ownership of decisions is important, a head coach deflecting ownership of that decision is an insight into his capabilities.

Yeah, I am critiquing the mess around the can. Well glad-wrapped though...

Being 'liked' and 'respected' are parallel lines of influence. And you can be one and not the other. And they can both be aspects of leaders.

Well, another issue is number of games played and touches acrrued. You will turn it over less if you get it less. I just wouldn't read much into these stats full stop. As I have said before - I would rather somone get 6 clangers if they have the workrate to get 20 touches, rather than having a perfect 10 touch game that might be considered timid at best and ineffectual at worst.

He gave off the 'impression' he didn't want to be at the club and having bad body language? This reminds me of the poster that was convinced Hogan will leave - his evidence: the fact that the kid rarely smiles in photos of him that he sees.

I don't think these stats are that conclusive about anyone's ability to perform under pressure. Disposal efficiency and clangers don't tell a definitive story of courage under fire. For instance, a player may not even get the footy in a contested situation after being in a position to get the footy. There will be no negative statistic recorded for this negative instance. And DE and clangers have definitions that bring negatives to a positive - for example, a clearance out of the middle to Clark when he is outmarked is a clanger and an inefficient disposal. It would statistically be a net negative but it really shouldn't be - not to the player who managed the clearance and the long kick forward.

Thanks Range Rover.

Well, I for one hate the next clash jumper...

Used by Sarah Palin. She lionised herself, and 'hockey moms,' with the joke: 'What is the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick.'

Small mercies - our midfield (or what there is of it) seems to be having a good Pre Season. Those are the players you need to have a huge Pre Season. So far, touch wood, they are up and about.