rpfc

What if next year is a wash - 7 and 15? Some good, some bad but Bailey gets a 3 year extension. That is more of a gamble than a year extension right now. Give him two years, from now, to see if he can coach. It is the prudent step, and whispers around the traps say it is what is about to happen.

No. We are looking for ways to get up to the 92.5 minimum threshold. Players are getting frontloaded contracts to get the club up to it.

Thanks, Caro.

No he wouldn't. But with his output this year, he is quickly closing the gap on those very good players you mention. 27 goals, 26 assists, 113 marks, 70 I50s, 61 tackles, 333 disposals (124 contested), and 90% game time for a 22 year old in the worst team in the league is a great effort.

Ok, then. Here is the scenario I am having problems with - we are 4 and 7 at the midway point with some decent wins and Bailey gets another 3 years as an extension. We come out and finish with 7 and 15 in 2010 and 7 and 15 in 2011. No improvement discernable, but Bailey has two years left because we waited until half way through 2010 to give an extension. A year extension right now is the smart, prudent step.

They'll like us when we win!!

When you have them by the balls - their hearts and minds will follow.

You say that GWS18 stands for nothing at the moment and your answer is to turn it into the Swans seconds?! That would stunt it irreparably if it ever decided to go out on its own. That senate report, that you disingenuously mentioned (as you later note), was not a triumph for common sense but the good work of a PR firm to get these parliamentarians to deliver political book for the Tassie team's cause. Furthermore, the AFL doesn't have to listen to them, nor should they. The AFL is independent and I don't want to think of the parochial and nonsensical plans that MPs would put in place if they had any authority at all.

That's fine by me. I will believe that the stirring speech Robbo made last week, announcing he and the Dees were parting ways, was the naked truth. And that truth that he talked about was the unsuccessful pursuit of a flag and the desire to win games of football for the MFC. But you can believe he cared more about taking flashy marks and getting the spotlight because of a joke at his press conference if you want to.

We are not fighting a ground war in South East Asia. This is a part of Australia, unenlightened as it may be, that needs to be told of the greatness of the AFL. There should be more than 1 team in the biggest state, we have sh!tloads of cash, and it is going to happen sometime... Why not now? I really hope that some of you never run a business because you would run it into the ground. You cannot keep toiling the same field over and over again and expect to get more and more out of it, in fact - you'll get less. You have to expand to thrive.

And what if our draw has us playing the top 8 teams in those first 12 rounds? We played Colingwood twice in the first 12 rounds this year. He'll be moved on because of a win/loss record that isn't indicative of where he has taken this list. Bailey could have shown 'improvement' and attempted to beat Sydney, NM, and Richmond in meaningless wins but it would have meant 6 wins in the last 9 rounds and certainly enough of an 'improvement' to warrant a year extension. But he did the right thing for the club, and for 2010 also by getting players ready early. And BTW, it is only 1 year. If Bailey is not the man but gets another contract halfway through next year because we have a soft draw at the start of 2010. He will get another 3 years. Simpletons will think that an extra year right now looks like we are rewarding failure. I am glad the MFC don't listen to simpletons, or care what the 'greater football public' thinks. Give him an extra year.

This is one of the most disjointed posts I have ever read. Not indicting you or anything but just walking through this you say... That you think it would be great to beat the best side in the comp, but then you concede we will have a severely weakened side. You then say we should barrack for that unlikely win, and in the next breath catergorically say that those in charge of the team will not let the win occur... And then you appluad Jordie McKenzie... I think 45hotgod16 can give you some sage advice about drunken posting... 45HG16, tell him...

It says nothing. If you saw the press conference you would know that Robbo's tongue was firmly in his cheek with the MOTY comment. And it's 'faithful', but maybe your subconscience knew what you were writing was 'full' of something.

I will umpire this one: RR wins with a KO. DD - PJ can do a lot of things, but none well. Jamar can ruck well, play forward, and assert himself on contests. PJ is a 6'10 winger-trying-to-play-ruck.

I've said this before but I believe Bailey deserves more than a make-or-break 2010 and giving him a 1 year extension right now gives him 2 years to show marked improvement. And well said furious d.

The AFL is in the strongest financial position that it has ever been. Another team in Sydney/NSW is always going to come in our national competition. This is the best time to go and set a team up. Sure, it will be difficult, but if not now, when? And don't say never, that is shortsighted nonsense. You have to grow to grow.

If you go looking for a conspiracy - you'll find one. We have had the PP wrapped up since the NM game.

We should have a versatile back-up as I don't think we can carry two pure ruckmen. That's where Martin has a lock. PJ is a better kick but can't play in as many positions as Martin, and is not as competitive a person as Martin in the ruck. Jamar, Meesen, and Spencer are going for the same spot. Jamar could be a decent first ruck for the next 5 years but if the rumours of him moving on are true we will need Meesen and Spencer around. My plan: trade PJ for a pick upgrade and elevate Spencer.

KC has already said Batram and Dunn were non-starters.

McLean had a decent game against Freo. And he hasn't done any PS speed work and his season has been stop-start with niggles - he may not be injured now but he hasn't been able to build a decent base of fitness. And anyone alluding to us 'tanking' against Carlton are delusional and arrogant. Carlton are at least a 6 goal better team than us. We didn't need to try to lose, we are just that awful.

Well, I'll email him and ask him not to get injured then.

Burn. What do they say about drunken posting?

From 64 Inside 50s... Defence is the one area I'm really bullish about, our best defence is better than theirs. But it doesn't matter when your midfield is a siv and lets in 64 entries from very good kicks.

Yeah, and he kicked 5. So as Stewie would say "tHanks, Dean."

One of those ruckmen, and it was 4 ruckmen if you count PJ, kicked 5 goals and Martin and Spencer weren't given a bath. And McLean couldn't have been a huge loss - we won the clearances. McNamara on Fevola is an interesting one as I only saw a couple of Fev goals that were kicked on him. What I am saying is that some of these supposed 'experiments' actually worked in our favour and we still lost by 10 goals. We are awful. We let in 64 Inside 50s! This tanking/experiemental/list management debate ended after the NM loss. The PP has been ours since then. If you thought we had a chance against Carlton because we beat Freo last week you are setting yourself up for a fall. Yeah, we might do them over next year but we will need a summer in the gym, a suitable amount of skill work, and Scully, Trengove, Watts, Blease, Bennell, Maric, Grimes, Wonaeamirri, Garland, Warnock, Green, and Bruce.