KozzyCan

Seems pretty excited to get back into it. Will be good for him after how slowly he had to progress his training post-surgery.

Saints looking really busy.

Reckon they might live on the peninsula because of its proximity to Casey. Or are they all going to ask for a trade to the Hawks and the Saints? Think being closer to the city is probably a good thing tbh.

I'm confused by this. Why are we waiting a year for the business case to be made if the financing has already come through.

So what's the next step after the business case is made? Will the business case unlock the funding or is that a seperate step that needs to be taken? Do we then need to find an architect and a builder? Then the building can begin once those plans have been completed?

Idk why I was expecting a little more than that. Good news that it's progressing but blimey the road is a long one.

Fair enough on the Swans/Saints link. I don't understand your second point at all. If we didn't think we could convince the Eagles with that deal then why did we bother offering them that at all, especially if they preferred our first offer as you said. Bit of mental gymnastics for mine.

That's the first I'm hearing about the Sydney and StKilda links. Regardless, time will tell if he was worth trading up for. I'm not sure I understand your second point. We offered Eagles the lower picks as you said, they knocked us back, we traded up and offered them that hand and they knocked us back again. We were clearly trying to come up with a deal they would accept. It was our ideal scenario. There's no conspiracy it's literally the events of what happened.

I like his energy but so far he's lacked a bit of composure in the heat of the seniors. Not writing him off by any stretch but I don't buy that trading up to get him was some great coup. Darcy Wilson was taken with the pick we traded and has looked better early doors. Trading up the draft was clearly us taking a punt on getting pick 1 out of West Coast as we made our offer to them as soon as the previous trade was done.

What are you taking issue with? Look at the draft rankings from last year. Most had Tholstrup in the late teens to 20s.

Jury's out on Tholstrup but it's likely he would have been available had we not traded up the draft. It was clearly an attempt to get pick 1 off West Coast that didn't work. The criticism of Lamb is pretty fair imo. Firstly, when you look at who we have traded in since the flag, none of those guys are getting a regular game while others aren't even at the club. This gives me a sense that there is a bit of a disconnect between Lamb and Goodwin. He also hasn't been able to get the bigger fish over the line. We've also lost quality players like Jackson, Bedford and Jordon, although some blame has to be placed on Goodwin for the latter two since he didn't give them regular game time. The long lucrative contracts we've given out under Lamb have proved to be problematic. Brayshaw on 6 years is going to hurt us, Oliver's contract seems crazy to me given we were aware of his personal issues before we signed him to that. More recently we've got Viney and Gawn being signed up until their mid 30s which, while they are champions, could leave us with players who are no longer up to it while they still have a couple of years to go. If we have to look back at 2019 to find a win for Lamb then that's a long while between drinks.

Hopefully the announcement happens when we're on page 186.

Wouldn't matter much to the MCC since there is a 25 year long waiting list of people who will willingly take their place.

MCC members have just about the best deal in sport as far as value for money goes. I doubt they are going to jump ship.

Jeez how bad is the blood there?

Will be a massive achievement for the club if true.

Huh? You reckon we should offer him another contract?

Kind of pointless to think this way when our direct competitors are all better set up in this regard. Telling players to harden up isn't going to attract them to the club.

Would be nice if we knew how the eligibility works. Why is he eligible for the NGA but not the priority access.

Christ, people on this forum like to have a sook about the media.

Personally I think that the clubs actions are doing the opposite of controlling the narrative. The media has told the story the whole way through. Take the review. We first hear Pert saying he'll be doing a review in the SEN interview, and he does one every year so its nothing remarkable. When Roffey goes Green says he's reviewing the board. Then a few days later we get a report that the club has 'backflipped' and we are actually doing an external review helmed by Darren Shand, then we find out that Green and Pert will also be on the panel of the review. All of that confusion could have been avoided if the club announced the review when it was called for explaining who would be conducting it and what it's parameters are or if Green had given us a mission statement when he took over.

I don't think it is. We've just seen our previous president swiftly pushed out and a new person given the top job. Would be nice to hear him speak and tell us what is going on. From the clubs perspective why did Roffey decide to step down a year before her term ended, what is the club's plan going forward, what can we be told about the review? I think these are pretty reasonable questions for the club to answer.

Only if an outcome favourable to Petracca is reached.

I just don't see a world where Petracca risks voiding a contract worth $5-7m

This is my gut feel. Wilson's report felt a bit scattergun tbh. You have the initial misdiagnosis and the decision to go back on the ground but then you have stuff like the three ambulances and the paramedics taking him to the Epworth instead of the Alfred. Feels like a reach to put that on the club or the AFL.