rpfc

The Saints should move him, but we are not the destination.

I really do not like the term 'list clogger.' We will have to dig deep into the player pools again this year. Player A is drafted at pick 80 and is immediately contracted for 2 years. He is little chance to play AFL and is discarded 2 years later. Player B is picked up on a 1 year contract and has injuries and form issues, plays 6 games and leaves 12 months later. Which is worse? The 2 year 'list clogger' or the one year pro whose body is failing him? When you draft a kid in the National Draft - they are immediately put on at least a two year contract. So I would argue that there is less risk for a Byrnes/Cross type player on a short term contract because you know what they are capable of and are not behoven to an automatic 2 year contract.

You have given a good reason to hold a grudge against me, not past servants. My issue with hazy, and there was a point of detente when he and I saw eye-to-eye was with an abject refusal to give any credit for any positive. We can dig up old threads and hash out old arguments in which we all point to the nuances of what we said - but who are we to settle the scores of past administrations of the MFC? And as for the motive of tanking - if you can prove action had a causal reaction to a particular motive then yes, you can prosecute. You and I may disagree, but a joke about aggressive Zulus (the guise of MFC fans) advancing toward the club if wins continue, does not constitute motive. Now if they had an Assitant Coach admitting to the desire to lose - that would be different...(and I bring that up only to point out a better example of motive, not as a 'they did it aswell' defence) And tanking occurs all the time, I hope that people are not so naive that they think the removal of a PP will end what they think is 'tanking.' Teams will still lose and minimise their chances of winning in bad seasons. It's life in draft regulated sports. Fans/journos/execs of the NBA look at ways of removing the allure of tanking, their equals in the AFL attempt to 'capture smoke with their bare hands' looking for motive and punishment. I know what is the better use of time...

So you listen to Schwarz and ignore your own 'lying ears'?

I wanted to deal with this seperately because it is not really relevant to my own vision of what tanking is. McLardy, CC, Schwab, Ridley, Gutnick, Szondy, Gardner, Harris, and every other Demon that comes and goes as the latest scapegoat for our plight as my sympathy. I have personal experience with grudges held for a great number of years at this club and while I called for McLardy to leave in Rd 2 this year, and put forward the idea of moving past Schwab before he received his latest and infamous extension, I don't hold the contempt for them that others do. They are not evil, they are Demons that on occassion, have done a laughably bad job of running the club. But once they have moved on they should not continue to recieve scorn, nor we waste our energy. If we are a club that is to consolidate and hopefully grow, we cannot continue to hold the hate we hold - there are some that (and I bring this up to derision every year) still hold grudges against players in the near-merge of 1996. You don't forgive people because they deserve it, you forgive them because they need it. And in the end, so does the club.

It is a strong argument - to take away draft assistance that would normally be awarded - we mean we would be punished. Therefore, the Not Guilty verdict officially becomes farcical.

We didn't tank - and before you roll your eyes - my argument does not reject reality: we tried to manipulate a few games to secure a better draft position. The reason why I said we didn't tank is because I have a narrow interpretation that stops at the water's edge of players being told to lose. And the amount of internet I spent explaining this would make Al Gore roll over in his grave so I will give the clift notes: If playing someone in a foreign position is a part of tanking, that will create a problem. If sending players for early surgeries to prepare for next season is tanking, that will create a problem. If playing young players and ignoring others is tanking, that will create a problem. And if only some of these are tanking, or is tanking only at particular times of the season, then where does it stop? When we removed all our older players at the end of 2007 and sent our fortunes through kids - we were intent on bottoming out. That is in the spirit of tanking. But is it? I am of the view that if you cannot legislate coherent and stable rules ito govern a practice then you shouldn't bother. The NBA has a lottery draft, but it still has tanking and it does not care. It overlooks it because it is impossible to prove motive with these moves that define tanking. The AFL knew this but wanted to win the PR week, hence our fortunate use of CC's remarks as a pressure valve to get us out of a mess that cost Adrian Anderson any future at the AFL.

It really does not matter, games won, it all comes down to perception. And from what I can tell from Jackson - he will attempt to get some help from the Commission. I think we will be awarded something, but only as much as to not cause too much of a stir. Basically enough for Barrett to smugly say "I never thought they deserved a PP, and the AFL agreed with that premise." But also enough for Barrett to smugly say "the MFC can't say that the AFL hasn't helped them out - they have been given Jackson, Roos, and Pick(s) X - those first two funded out of AFL house." I really don't care what these awful journos say, but the AFL unfortunately does. They like winning their PR game each week.

I sympathise with the 'we should not look for picks to save us' argument but I would argue that that argument is not an argument against a PP or draft assistance but our reliance on simply taking these boys and then waiting for them to save us. Which I agree with - there was nothing worse than listening to MFC officials reel off names as though through osmosis they would become consistent players, stars, and leaders. The rest of the arguments are deeply flawed.

So "the effort you put in during the week?"

Since when are we out of jail? And the AFL gives out these cards because occassionally, clubs need them to keep the sport from degenerating into an EPL-like experience where only a few rich clubs can win. We got a lenient judgement in your view - so did the Bombers. We got emergency funding - so have countless others. Now we look for draft assistance - that has been given, again, a number of times. How about if the AFL say "You broke the rules 4 years ago. Now have draft assistance because these are the rules of the a game that wishes to even up the competition." I find it difficult to stomach the idea that the AFL was right not to punish us with draft penalties because it would be a disservice to the competition and then argue we don't deserve the draft assistance that would be given to a club that is a disservice to the competition.

I interpreted it as "we can't prove anything but we fear the public outcry over the entire tanking issue so we are coming down hard on a joke from your FD head about it." We paid for our 'sins' in that one game and the sins of Carlton (lose 11 straight to get Kreuzer and Judd), Collingwood (lose 8 straight to get Thomas and Pendlebury), and back-to-back PP years from Hawthorn after having 5 years of 10+ win seasons.

As a captain, I would hate it if people judged me on my speech at the B+F, especially since I will be in Europe this October... Your players judge you on the 100mins you play every week and the effort you put in during the week.

Never heard of him? When I see long sleeve NM jumpers worn in the street my Rorschachian reaction is to blurt out "Brett Allison!"

It is frustratingly specious reasoning: to simply say that because we have not picked well, we don't deserve to pick anymore? Just ignorant.

I will make it easier for people: If he gets officially delisted; we will take him in Delisted FA (this does not count against any compensation we may get for Sylvia). If he is not delisted, but WB is amenatable to an easy trade, then we can swap down a couple of picks in the 60s or 70s. Again, no effect on FA comp. We could take him in FA but it will count (however small) against our comp. Or he could walk into the drafts if the Bulldogs play hardball on a trade, they won't delist him, and we don't want to affect our FA comp for Sylvia.

One poster thinks Roos will be CEO, others GMFO, there was a mention in the papers he could be a paid Board member, and I think we should get him to play the role that Craig was doing. He's doing everything after these three years are up.

But the club wouldn't be maximizing what they do in the draft and FA if they leave 2 spots more for the rookie draft. Leave Clisby there unless we decide to delist Agee more and he can easily be elevated. Frankly, there should not be a rookie list, they should simply expand the primary.

Don't worry, Byrnes will still be there next year.

By contract you mean person. 'Thanks for everything Rohan, good luck with all the head trauma - we are cutting you a year out and wasting thousands of dollars on another payout.' It also sends a bad message.

PJ talked about the 4 positions he wanted to fill in that presser - Prez, CFO, Coach, and GMFO. It sounded decidedly like he was not done because he said the GMFO was the last one he had to get to.

We can re-rookie him but that would require delisting him and then taking him in the rookie draft. We may do that, or we may be simply looking at what happens during trade/FA period. Around 5 or 6 players at every club will be in this situation as the new FA period brings opportunity for clubs to bring in players.

I don't really give a flying, ignition. I just find little desire in hitting abloke on the way out - whether or not he was any good, do you think we were as bad for him and Leigh Brown as they were to us? We have been a club where careers come to die. So I am not about to curse the cursed. That's where I stand on that - happy to dismember those who have the power to cause change, and lenient and understanding of the underlings.

Do you think I am one of those supporters? Or are you just advancing a stereotype that, if muttered by another, you would dismiss as readily as you have put it forward here? I disagree that you can judge Assistants as wholly as you have done here - but they will be tarred nonetheless. And people thank recently departed staff for their service because that is what good, solid organisations do - they don't shite on them on the way out. The club sent out a press release and a tweet thanking them and some supporters have concurred. The players thanked them at the B+F. It isn't a laughable trait or sign of anyones weakness - it is just an honourable thing to do for people that will attempt to move forward in a career that has been tarred by this club over the last 2 years - most of it not in their control.

He didn't have the engravers around but he said that the heir apparent may be in charge before Watts re-signs, which tells me that it is soon and that a Senior Assistant will be hired.