KozzyCan

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.

Doctors aren't a monolith though and they won't agree on everything. Doctors working in a high performance sport environment are going to approach injuries differently than a doctor in another environment might. I think the AFLPA are investigating it because they are concerned that either the correct processes weren't followed or the processes followed aren't correct.

Yes, I read it the first time it was posted. I don't know, maybe they do, maybe they don't. It's not like the AFL haven't covered their [censored] in the past over stuff like this. Obviously there are still aggrieved parties who feel they have been wronged. We should be taking this very seriously.

Everything from the club feels so reactive.

They're a union representing one of their members. This sort of dismissive attitude will not serve us well.

That's neither here nor there.

I'm curious about the bit about him going to the Epworth instead of the Alfred. The implication is that the paramedics weren't given the correct information but at the same time the assessment seems to be that the doctors didn't or couldn't diagnose him correctly at the time. What information did the Paramedics miss that could have gotten him to the Alfred sooner?

The report here is that the AFLPA aren't satisfied with the AFL's assessment.

What a mess.

If the outcome of the review is to overhaul the football dept and surround Goodwin with fresh people and we rock up next year with all the same problems then he will be gone pretty quickly I would think. Only way he goes is if the review turns up some massive red flag that makes his job untenable. I doubt that happens.

What year are all these kids eligible for the draft?

Bad attempt at a joke. All Blacks are one of the most successful teams ever and we're well.. Melbourne.

"The All Blacks don't have a home." Just one of the many similarities the Melbourne Football Club shares with the All Blacks.

I think it's reasonable to say they were a fair way off with that vision then.

I reckon their skills helped! We're talking about Oliver here.

Why is it all or nothing? Yes you need ball winners but I'm saying the balance has shifted from when they were 90% of why teams won games. For a while footy used to live in contest and repeat stoppages so having those guys was gold, it was a war of attrition. These days teams that can't move the ball properly are being left behind.

Pressure yes, clearance and contested ball not as much. Take the Geelong and Hawks wins. Both Hawthorn and Geelong have pretty average midfields on paper and were up against two of the best midfields in the comp. Both dominated by stiffing their opponents ball movement and getting the ball quickly into their forwardline rather than contest/defence. Same thing happened to Carlton who were pretty even at the contest but got murdered on the outside.

No because turnovers are a thing.