rpfc

He reminds me of a softer Simon Godfrey. But Godfrey got 100 games out of himself because he knew his limitations and played accordingly. Nicholson manages to look up see an option that only 5 blokes in the team can hit - an option he always misses - and say to himself 'yeah, I can hit that.'

I just think that if we use your standards applied to prospective board members - we will have few people to pick from.

Do you have particular bones to pick with him? Or is any Demon involved with the club in the past a failure?

But we will be polite about it, take Kelleher, and thank you to stay in the fold. Some of you burn so easily. At this point, he has done nothing more than give some deflating (in more ways than one) comments to a reporter about his efforts to be involved in the club. Let's not keelhaul him just yet.

I rarely thought when reading the 'outs' over the last year and a half - 'oh, he didn't deserve to be dropped'...

I don't see anyone on here as an enemy. That's being a bit rich. And perhaps I could turn the sentiment around and say that posters declaring players are finished without any facts are not doing the right thing by their fellow Dees supporters?

It was the year before. 2011.

As Jarka said, Stockdale makes a good point about corporate governance. It's is a very odd thing to have a CEO installing those to which he answers to but, it isn't that simple is it? Jackson is an AFL paratrooper that knows what the AFL see as what makes a good board. Redleg - I hope this is the only aspect to Stockdale's issues and that the 'refusal to become Vice Prez' is just extrapolation of what has actually happened. We need unity, and we don't need the Jackson and Bartlett ticket being blasted in public by Stockdale and Kelleher ticket.

I hope Redleg is justing reading a hell of a lot into the reports, not all of which may be true. But one thing I do not like is the threat of an alternative ticket. One ticket. One MFC.

That's very polite of him. Especially with him being out of state and playing for a different team.

Would it? Instead of throwing talented individuals at a problem and finding roles for them later, we should define the role and attempt to get the people that suit that role the best.

Roos was never going to start 'ASAP'. What precedent in the AFL is there for a midseason appointment of a new coach, after the interim coach has been installed, and after the original coach has been sacked? A new coach needs a Pre Season to get anything accomplished in terms of how a team plays and getting better personnel. They would be voiding their 'fresh start' if they took over in the middle of a horrible season. I think Jackson asked Craig to be caretaker, gave no promises and little talk of 2014.

Drawing a long bow there... I want Demons in charge and he is one, let's see what happens. I hope there are no tickets and that we get a very good board with the support of all influential Demons that are putting their hand up.

Yes, you can read a great deal into it on this site.

You watch Jackson keep us up there.

Poor kid.

No, it wouldn't be. I use that example in my new tiered system to fix the issue of clubs who have lost a high-end FA staying out of FA altogether.

Trading a RFA has precedent - Monfries was effectively traded from Ess to PA. Trading a UFA is trickier and I really doubt whether it can be done, I also don't think the AFL should allow it. The PFA would not like it at all. SCENARIO WHERE UFA MIGHT BE TRADED: Player X is free and has no attachments (like RFA) to his previous club, but because his new club doesn't want to dilute the compensation that it has received from a FA who has left, they wish to trade in Player X. rpfc's view of this possible hypothetical: The AFL should step in at this point and not allow it in my opinion. The PFA rightly has said that compensation is geting in the way of clubs signing FAs as they don't wish to dilute their compensation should they lose a FA. Frankly, the AFL should either forget this 'net loss/gain' idea that they got from the NFL (where there is a huge turnover in FA of middling players) and label FAs as Tier 1, Tier 2 and Untiered. Tier 1 gets a 1st round pick BEHIND the team's pick. Tier 2 gets a 2nd round pick BEHIND the team's pick. Untiered would be the majority of these FAs and allow these players to be signed without indirectly punishing a team for doing so. Franklin and Thomas would be Tier 1. Sylvia would be Tier 2. Daniel Jackson would be untiered. It would be based on salary, b+f finish, games played etc. For example; we could sign Jackson in FA without diminishing our compensation for Sylvia.

We are not headed for an NBA-like scenario. The NFL would be a better comparison. In both codes, the best players rarely leave, and when they do it is a huge deal. There are just less 'best players' in the NBA. 15 man rosters with about 3 promising kids, 10 role players, and 2 stars (or those that think they are stars). In the NFL - about 8 promising kids, 8 stars (OTTTTAS) and 36 role players. The role players are increased and they move around more. But teams don't identify themselves with these players. In the AFL, with the introduction of FA, there should be a loosening of the restrictions on those role players and that is not a bad thing at all. The numbers change from team to team but we would have about 12 stars or promising young players per team and about 30 role players. For every Goddard there were Byrnes, Knights, Chaplin, Pearce, Young, Moloney, Rivers, Murphy, and Lynch in the last FA Period. Like every Celtic had Pierce for 15 years, and Laker fans have Bryant until he is in a wheelchair, fans rarely see the back of their best players even in the NBA. James may have left Ohio, but Dallas still has Nowitzki, Wade will be with Miami forever, Garnett spent 13 seasons not winning things in Minnesota, Nash was incredibly loyal to Phoenix and Dallas, and there are many more examples. Professional sports is still a very stable place for the very best players - the ones that the fans idolise.

"I thought you said you would save the club." I tried, but you didn't accept the draft assistance...

What straw argument? That was the argument. Roos is dithering and/or dismissing. It is hurting our brand. I would argue, in fact I did, that it is irrelevant and unimportant. I also said that significant decisions should not be brought to the alter of public perception for their conclusion. You don't have to agree, just don't say I evade.

Why do you constantly bring this back to our pathetic culture? Whatever you call what happened in 2009 wasn't the cause of our problems - it may have been a symptom - but it is not as simple as saying: our culture would be better off without PPs or draft assistance or handouts. And some bring up Sydney and Geelong and their refusal to 'bottom out' and get 'handouts.' What do you call the extra $1m that Sydney get? What does the 8 games a year at the unique regional ground get Geelong? (Around $6m in gate receipts) I don't see them hedging on the appropriateness of what they have. They fight to keep what they have, demand that the AFL bow, and show nothing but smug satisfaction when others marvel at what they have achieved. I want that attitude at the Demons. And Jackson agrees with me, he has already called this team a hindrance on the league. And we are. And when teams become a hindrance, it gets corrected. And it gets corrected through the draft.

You haven't convinced me that perception should dictate decisions - which is what is being argued. An ultimatum to a prospective coach because of what the perception of that by the public at large is not good decision making. You want a well run club? Stop worrying about little things like whether or not a prospective coach's dithering on coming to the club is hurting the brand. We need to worry about getting tangible things right before we dress up the unique process of headhunting an experienced head coach.

I think you are readin WJ far too literally. The scales will move slighly if we win 3 or 4 games out of 7 from here. But they are so heavily weighted with the nonsense of the last 7 years it that it would still be a huge imbalance. We have no midfield and no tangible assets to move to acquire midfielders. We need draft assistance.