old55

It's painful to prefer losing - however one comfort may be that if we lose this weekend then that should be the bottom of the bottoming out and we should not have that ambiguity in future - we can always hope and barrack for a win from then on. If we lose this week I don't think we can win 5, it would mean four wins from Port, Richmond, Freo, North and Sydney and that would some sort of turnaround. I'm looking at just one more week of pain ...

This is the week to lose - breathe deeply.

Wow a bit of dog quality in that Seagulls line-up.

You do have a reputation for being a lame brain, but surely even you can see that you're not helping your argument that Cale will never put on any weight when you point out the fact that he's put on substantial weight since he joined the club.

give me their BMIs at the start of their careers - I repeat - you just don't know at the start of the 2006 season Mitch was listed as 184cm and 77 kg = 2.39 at the start of the 2009 season Cale was listed as 192cm and 83 kg = 2.31 i.e. at the same age (because Mitch is almost exactly 3 years older) they were very similar builds, in fact Cale was relatively heavier

Quite frankly, you just don't know. Troy Simmonds anyone?

Mitch Morton has a strong body now, yes he's shorter, but there's every reason to believe that Cale will follow his brother's morphology.

It's not tough at all - there's an excellent chance that Miiller, Davey and Rivers will be around to enjoy the fruits - if they're good enough. Green and Bruce will be gone but can enjoy being part of a team on the rise - they had their time in the sun under Daniher but couldn't pull it off. There's no guarantee of a flag from this rebuilding because we're up against it in so many ways - fixture, resources etc. But there's an iron-clad water-proof dead-set-certain guarantee of NO flag if we don't do it.

OK fine. It's on record that mo, iva and rojik reckon that Tom Scully wont make any difference to our club. Anyone else want to jump on board their bandwagon. I'm tipping it's going to end up a lonely 12 year ride and they'll be denying they were ever on it in 2 years from now. Let's see. BTW I think youi'll find Rhino has the memory of an elephant ...

exactly 7 more losses this year

Good idea. There's no doubt they're tanking. If we win less than 5 WC is the only team who can prevent us from having pick 1. I want us to lose this game - it truly is an 8 point game. It's the most important one to lose and it gives us more scope to win others which is important for morale. One advantage is WC %, their points difference is something like -150 whereas ours is -400, that's 250 points we'd need to make up in wins or closer losses. That's quite a bit considering we've got Geelong and St.Kilda to come and they've got a lot of home games. I think % is worth a win to them. If we lost the WC game we could win 3 of the remaining 8 and still finish below WC on % However I think we'll win because WC are completely ruthless, already have less wriggle room and haven't won away for years.

And for a brief second there I thought you were going to offer something to RPFC's debate.

Norwood has nailed it. Why wait until next year - commit now so Bailey doesn't need to worry about wins this year on his CV. Justification in the media - he's doing a great job developing our list and getting games into our future stars - that is all. You've got to give a little to receive. I cannot over stress how important all these inter-connected parts are to us having any chance of winning a flag - we need a fully co-ordinated effort. Think about the end of 2007 when Mark Riley was coach - we got the wrong outcome but it was the only outcome possible because we failed to see the big picture. I'm hoping Jimmy, Cameron and Chris can see the writing on the wall! I'l make it quite simple: "2014 Norm Smith Medallist - number 9 Tom Scully"

We need Bailey coaching for long term aims. He should be given a one-year extension to the end of 2011 right now. Wins this year are counterproductive - we must win less than 5 games. Bailey needs to coach with that in mind and a decent term is the best way to give him the freedom and incentive. Bailey needs decent scope after this year to show improvement in the team. Somewhere in the 5-8 wins range in 2010 is likely and that wont provide a basis for a decision on a 2+ year extension at the end of his contract. A 1 year extension then would be an insult and destabilising - it will force him to coach for the short term. If we extend him now until the end of 2011 then we can look for an upward gradient of performance a wins from 2009 thru 2010 and 2011 and make an informed decision on whether he's the man to lead us to the 2014 flag.

Things can change quickly! Dunno how to read the Laidley sacking - they may be joining the tankathon before it's too late The AFL says it doesn't happen Clubs pretend it doesn't But we know it does

We're disadvantaged in every way - fixture, facilities, FD staff budget, salary cap (Judd/Visy) - the list goes on. To win a flag we need EVERYTHING to go right. The one area we can steal an advantage is thru the priority pick - we must secure it - we wont win a flag in my lifetime if we don't. New teams, free agency and all sorts of other horrors unimagined are going to push us further away as time goes on. As things currently sit the ability to get the PP is entirely in our hands. WC could not be tanking harder, Worsfold has stitched up a 3 year contract extension and stated on radio a couple of weeks ago that he is looking to turn his list around in 4-5 years after their last flag. You can bet your house on WC having a PP this year. We have to finish below them. Looking at the Tankometer this is how I think it should pan out: North 28pts wins: Richmond, MFC, WC (the wild card with North is what happens with Laidley's contract renewal) West Coast 16pts wins: Richmond Richmond 16pts wins: MFC Freo 16pts wins: WC MFC 12pts wins: WC, Freo MFC and WC will go into round 22 with 3 wins but MFC's % will be inferior guaranteeing bottom position. Richmond will already have 4 wins and will have a greater incentive to lose than WC.

Ignoring North - maybe risky because some have them as 16th best team - there's 4 teams in the race. Freo, WC, Richmond and us. Let's assume those "list managing" won't win against anyone outside the group. There's 6 matches between teams in the group so 6 wins have to be distributed. Freo on 3 wins have 2 matches: WC, MFC WC on 3 wins have 4 matches: Rich, Freo, MFC, Rich Richmond on 2 wins have 3 matches: WC, MFC, WC MFC on 1 win have 3 matches: WC, Rich, Freo We should not win more than 4 matches. Let's assume we win all 3 above, that leaves 3 wins to be distributed and we have: Freo on 3 wins have 1 match: WC WC on 3 wins have 3 matches: Rich, Freo, Rich Richmond on 2 wins have 2 matches: WC, WC MFC on 4 wins There's a pretty good chance we wont finish last even if we only win 4.

It's on a knife's edge, we've got Richmond and North, and the weak interstaters WC, Freo and Port all at the MCG. Richmond and WC do play each other twice so that is helpful. Worsfold was unambiguous about what it takes to turn around his list and be successful within 5 years. He is tanking for sure. WC haven't won away from Subi since Adam was a boy and at Subi they've got Geelong, St.Kilda, Hawthorn, Freo (who seem to always win the derby), Essendon , North and Richmond in R22. Expect this last one to be a nil-all draw unless the Richmond caretaker is auditioning. I would not be surprised to see them lose the lot and finish on 3 wins. However WC's % is very good at 88% cf ours at 73%. Freo are a worry too, they could do anything. They have 3 wins and should win the derby, beyond that it's quite possible they'll lose everything. Our R20 match v them will be significant to the final standings. At least Harvey will be trying to win to save his job. I'm less concerned about Richmond, their caretaker should be trying - I think they'll beat WC twice and have the talent to pull off an upset. Again our match against them in R18 will be significant. North only need one more win for 5. Laidley will be trying to win. If I had to call it now I'd tip us winning more than WC and that would give them 1st pick even if we don't win 5.

Hating Collingwood is yesterday. They're a joke of a club who has won one flag in 50 years and despite their riches can't buy one. I feel sorry for them.

I would be much more comfortable with the idea if there was some form of compensation for the club losing the player. Ideally this would be draft picks (not cash). Some formula to calculate the value is required. Exactly this is going to happen when GC come in and sign uncontracted players so we'll get to see how it works. I think in that model GC is not going to give up the picks themselves but new picks are going to be "created". It's probably impossible to fairly set the price for someone like GAJ or Judd but at least the losing club gets something. In FA generally that would be a key decision - does the acquiring club have to give up the picks or are they "created". I like CTD's analogy above where draft picks are like a player lease, it makes sense for the acquiring club to have to pay something to take-over the lease. If the club has to give up the picks then it's really like an enforced trade - the player wants to go, the value is set, the price is paid. PS. Just a note on Eddie - FA would benefit the Pies and it's great that he argues for the bigger picture on our behalf. He also puts his money where his mouth is on QBW. Sure the Pies get a great fixture but Eddie has the game at heart.

You're right, I'm wrong. 1,2,18,34,50 is more like 1,2,27,51,75

Assuming that there's an even spread of talent across the year, the GC's abilty to pick 12 17yos will not pillage the 2009 draft pool. The pick value is only dropping about 1 spot every 3 picks to a a maximum difference of 12 at a pick somewhere in the 3rd round. So if we had 1, 2, 18, 34 and 50 - assuming the best 2 players are available e.g Scully and Butcher it'd be something like 1, 2, 24, 45, 62 in any other year 45 is somewhere between Bennell and Jetta and still offers good value, 62 is somewhere between Jetta and Bail and is worth considering. Talk of pick 50 = pick 75 in any other year doesn't take into consideration that GC can only take 12. Worst case for 18, 34 and 50 is 30, 46 and 62.

What do people think about playing our low drawing games at Geelong? I heard that break even is 10K people, the AFL and Geelong might chip in to make this even better . The ground is available every weekend now, is not that far away by train and the new highway (not much further from the CBD than Casey), and has a unique shape that would give us a home ground advantage over time.

No-one said "easy". But I'd rather try to change Newton's attitude than improve Godfrey's skills.

You've written him off and would have him play for Casey if they see any value. But the FD haven't. The attributes he's got can't be learned. The failings he's got can be overcome - they're choices he makes (as posted elsewhere). The best place for him curently, given he's on the list and we're rebuilding, is playing for MFC. When he doesn't do what's required he should be dragged and have his error explained. We could do that at Casey but we may as well do it at the MCG at the required level. Right now we've got the luxury of trying this. In some ways there's a positive for Bailey in a player who wont play as required - he provides an example.