old55

On excellent information Chris Connolly is a top bloke too.

Top bloke in my experience - wish him the best!

Quick - get out of my way - where do I sign!!! McLardy has already telegraphed that ""We will continue to defend the rights of all our past and present club employees where we believe it is necessary to do so." That caveat is there for a reason and it doesn't say "under any and all circumstances" We don't want to be smeared with a cheating conviction but we also don't want to take the AFL to court - even if we "win". We need a middle way out. If Chris Connolly is required to take a fall for the club, in association with his mismanagement of the process, then there are many ways to soften that fall.

That's why Evans, Robson and Hird were looking "ashen-faced ©" at their press conference. But there's quite a few "possiblies" in there.

As noted - a definition of tanking. Interesting caveat there.

Dean Wallis picked up the prescription in his Essendon polo shirt?

Thinking particularly of our midfield needs ... Ignoring the ridiculous like club captains Hodge, Watson and Van Berlo The highly improbable like Mitchell, Thomas, Corey and Wells The most interesting players in that list are Colin Sylvia, daylight second, Xavier Ellis

I think Colin Sylvia has the greatest potential to influence our performances and results. If he has an inconsistent or poor year like every other year we'll finish bottom 5. If he can play consistently to his maximum (and everything else goes right) we can make the 8.

Can't find any mention of a specific date for the next AFL Commission meeting. Some references to "February" is the best I can find.

Nothing. Grateful we got away with it. Hopeful the AFL don't hate us so much they punish is in indirect ways like fixturing and equalisation dividends. Talkback and letters to The Age is about as far as pointing out that Wilson got it wrong goes. Yeah we've been punished by the investigation and negative press, but if we escape without direct penalty then I'll be rapt!

It appears to me that you, like many others in this thread are confusing what really happened with our defence against possible charges. As B-H has pointed out a number of times - we tanked but proving it is a different matter. Jimmi's argument is sound to me - to some significant extent we brought the focus on ourselves by our actions.

Or people posting without reading the article?

Maybe you could go out to western China for say 10 years or so - where we can't reach with the internet and social media and drum up membership in person.

The only reason I had Garland as a lock is he is continuing in the leadership group so his contribution must be internally valued. I think his position is under pressure though. Probably only Frawley amd McDonald are really locks. Garland, Watts, Dunn, Gillies, Jetta, Nicholson, Terlich, Strauss, Tynan are all battling for 4 spots. To answer stuie's and autocol's point about running backmen rotations - they're not rotated for match-up reasons - they're rotated for fatigue reasons and I wouldn't sacrifice a rotation position for an extra backman from the list above - that player has to be a capable midfielder with the attibutes to play back. I think Grimes is the natural player to rotate from the midfield through the backline (a la Malceski) when runners are resting. Sellar and Macdonald appear to be depth and Davis and Clisby development.

We'd expect so but he won't make it easy to overtake him, he'll be setting a very high standard at training for hard work.

No it doesn't - I said there were 6 or 7 backs - the total time OFF ground of the small-mid backs is 54% - filled by the 7th back/mid Nick Malceski as confirmed by Rhyce Shaw. Malceski plays through the midfield (kicked 2 goals) and goes back as required (10 R50s). The points I made are that you want a stable back 6 or 7 (not changing by the week or in matches based on match-ups) and that interchange places are not for extra backs they're for midfield rotation - and both those points still hold.

Like Rhyce said Nick Malceski spent time back there too getting 10 rebound 50s - in between kicking two goals including the winner. The bottom line is we need to get a settled, versatile back 6 or 7 - horses for courses is bullsh1t

Yeah - most recently I went to last year's Grand Final. The winners played a stable back 6 of Richards (97% TOG), Grundy (98% TOG), Shaw (83% TOG), Mattner (83% TOG), Johnson (87% TOG) and Smith (93% TOG). They played this set-up in all 3 finals against 3 different oppositions except against Adelaide when Grundy wasn't available and LRT had to go back. Rhyce Shaw said after the GF: "How have you viewed the form of the backline this year? "We’ve done pretty well. Our back six or seven including Nick (Malceski) is really a tight unit and we play together and probably complement each other a lot in a lot of different areas which is fantastic and is just a great support for each other and it was a great end to the year. The guys really stood up in the Granny and it was fantastic." http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2012-11-06/rhyces-season-wrap-the-best-moment-of-my-life The Swans had the lowest points against in 2012. How about you?

I think the forward line is the opposite of the backline. In the forward line you want constant rotations to try to get a mismatch (or no match) so there's only a couple of fixtures. In the backline you want stability - a consistent 6 or 7 who have flexibility and understanding to can take any rotations the opposition can present. I'd say Dawes and Clark are two fixtures but I'm not against Clark rucking if the structure is better that way. A defensive forward on the attacking back is warranted - Tapscott or Bail appear to be training with the forwards and one or other could fill this role - Magner did it last year. Pedersen, Sylvia, Howe, Byrnes, Davey, Blease, Rodan, Toumpas, Barry and any number of others could routinely rotate through there from the midfield and bench

Disagree - we need a settled back 6 or 7 (if we play a 7 man backline) that's flexible enough to combat any opposition structure - it's more important to work together effectively. Frawley, Garland and Watts should all be capable of playing tall or small. And interchange is for midfield rotations not the backline. I've posted elsewhere that we have 15 players in our defensive group at training so it's difficult to settle on 6 or 7. Frawley and Garland are in the leadership group and Tom McDonald finished 3rd in last years B&F, that's 3. I'm hoping Watts is in there too but he'll have to earn his place. The other 2 or 3 slots are up really for grabs.

It's interesting if there is a single response from all parties facing possible charges - Bailey, Connolly, Schwab and the Board. IMO that's highly desirable from the everyone's pov but may not have been easy to achieve. I can imagine some discussion and negotiation right down to wire including "well we'll submit our own response then".

I'm guessing it's something to do with player availability for the NAB Cup - but I don't know waht because I thought rookies could play anyway.

Fear of "climate change round"

That's unknown. If we defeated Richmond they would have finished last and had first pick and we would have had second pick. It's unknown whether Richmond would have selected Scully, Trengove or Martin at pick one and therefore whether Scully or Trengove would have been taken by us at pick two. As Jose and Clint point out - what is known is that Scully was the priority pick - not Trengove. The priority pick went to GWS and we got 2012 pick 4 and 14 in compensation - that's what has to be weighed up in the "tanking" debate - not Trengove.

IMO there's little doubt we did a deal with GWS for passing on Viney, there had to be a sweetener for GWS in there - when you bundle up a quite complex deal 3 +13 for Hogan + Barry + 20 this becomes very hard to unravel - great work I reckon. That's the deal from GWS pespective and it's a great deal for them but from our perspective it's 3 + 13 + 26 for Hogan + Barry + Viney + 20 which is a great deal for us - massive win-win (yes I know those picks beyond 3 are all +1 after the Goddard compensation, but that's what they were when the deal was done).