old55

Well, that's one unsurprising revelation but WJ is quite clearly alluding to far more.

Yeah - her top eight in those pre-season polls will contain her 8 people most likely to be sacked: Schwab, Connolly, "the Weapon", Robson, Thompson, Hird, Swan, Gale - well maybe not Gale.

I'm looking forward to a full exposition.

Very keen to predict people being sacked ...

He'll get the 3rd tall defender initially - the Jack Darling effect. That would be Watts, Dunn or Garland against us and I rate our tall defence. I think North's tall defence is their biggest weakness but they're not the only side without 3 capable tall defenders. One thing I liked in the North game was 2 or 3 defenders flying against Chris Dawes, add Mitch and Jesse and there's all sorts of problems for them.

I want you to be right, believe me, but I think we're all a bit jaundiced from Sylvia and McLean through Scully and Trengove to Viney and Toumpas ...

Thanks Jacqui!

Why did we lose and what should the club be doing about it?

Yeah I thought his field kicking looked very good.

It won't surprise me if Richmond touch us up in the regular season - they're well ahead of us now in the midfield and they've recruited well to fill some deficiencies and build their ready-to-go depth, they could have a very good year I think. Nevertheless we're better than them back and forward and if/when we bridge the midfield gap we can overtake them.

I was pretty happy overall. We were definitely competitive in the North game, they seized the momentum in the middle part but we had it at the end and could have run over them which is a very good sign. Our weakness remains in the midfield and we've taken long term steps to address that over summer with Viney and Toumpas so it's unrealistic to have high expectations of immediate improvement. The only new ready-made in the midfield is Rodan and I thought he was very lively. Richmond really smashed us in the first half of that game and poor conversion kept it closer that it should have been. But as Ben's Tiger quote shows they were playing their A team vs our B team, they were fresh and they played a different game style from North who wanted to retain possession from the back half rather than move it really quickly, even if to a contest - that would have been a tricky adjustment. That we came out even with them in the second half of the match was a credit to our adjustment and fitness. I think Richmond are a good side who'll push well into the finals. Some say: "But we didn't win". I say: "Hotel-Motel ..."

You'd have to be the biggest doomsayer and sook I've ever come across. I thought you were out of here if we didn't take it to court but apparently a hollow threat? Look I'll make a deal with you - if any of those 4 things happen (losing our liquor and gaming licenses and Webjet and Opel jumping off) as a direct result of yesterday's findings I'll never post here again and if none of them happen you'll never post here again?

No kidding!!! I said it before the findings were anounced - we won't be losing our liquor and gaming licenses and Webjet and Opel won't be jumping off.

Well that's what Dean Bailey didn't do - as Senior Coach he was senior member at that meeting he didn't report Connolly to management - that's why he was penalised. The club remains responsible for their employees - not knowing is not an excuse (eh Jimmy?)

He didn't tell on Chris?

According to you now Webjet and Opel jumping off later this week and liquor and pokie licenses revoked next week?

Yes we were - that's the whole point.

Succinct and excellent reasoning.

Me too. Surely Col is smart enough to see that a big year means the difference between a 4 x $500k contract and a 2 x $300k contract. As I've posted elsewhere - a big year from Col and everything else going right and we could make the eight.

Missed it - will it be on iView?

IMO the only real difference between the Hun and Age articles is tone. Both suggest we'll accept a fine and penalty for Connolly and Bailey. The Hun says we're prepared to fight if the penalty is unacceptable - wowee!!! "A fine of up to $500,000, and suspended or light penalties for figures including Bailey and Connolly, would prove tempting."

Sorry to rain on your parade Sue, but I'm the only poster to refer to the club reining Chris Connolly in, so some recollection issues seem to be reigning your mind.

Want to get a feel for what fans of other clubs think about this likely outcome ... http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/big-announcement-penalties-to-be-handed-out-to-melbourne-re-tanking.990131/ And the other side of the lunatic fringe here want to go to court. "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right ..."

You're quite clearly referring to me because I used the term "reining-in" - correctly. If you read my posts you'll see that I very clearly stated that it would be far more preferable from "our" side if DB was not charged with anything. IMO if the AFL were prepared to accept this then the negotiated settlement would have been announced over a week ago. Quite clearly something has been holding it up and I've pointed to this being the case. My prediction of the outcome is on the mark, including the argy-bargy around Bailey. I'm a centimetre away from the bulls-eye while you're still trying to find the arena in Google maps. We may have botched tanking but I suspect we haven't botched the investigation. I don't know what the findings will be against DB until they're announced but I'm supremely confident they won't result in Webjet and Opel pulling their sponsorships or us losing our gaming licences as the resident hysterians here fear.

Was that dream before or after the Bev dream?