Whispering_Jack

I have 4 out of 4 so far but only because I voted 5 minutes ago. Looking at the battle for the eight, I suspect that whichever of WCE, Carlton or Adelaide has the easiest draw could stumble into 8th place with the rest settled. Wild card might be Gold Coast if they can keep it up.

- http://wap.news.bigpond.com/articles/Sport/2013/06/05/Brad_Scott_says_Demons_will_be_okay_877549.html#.UbPLDaYazCQDon't really mind what he said but I reckon he should leave that sort of stuff to Brayshaw or his CEO because they're the ones who determine club policies. Scott should be concentrating on getting his team to win the close ones.

I like that. From memory, he was played down back at times for SA Under 18s while slightly hampered by the hip injury that later led to his surgery. He was very good in starting attacking moves with his good football brain and finishing them off with accurate disposal. It won't hurt his education there and it's the perfect place from which to eventually move into the midfield mix.

Good question. The signing of Evans last week reduces your number by one and a few others will be re-signed. My guess is that there will still be a largish cull by both circumstance (some wanting to leave) and by design (us moving them on) and the number of pick #80 plussers will be diminished if we continue our philosophy of trading. Hopefully, we can snare a couple of good ones via FA and/or trades as mentioned in other posts above. One point I would add to Redleg's list that relates to list management is my concern about how the FD handled it last year. I think it was a poor strategy to make a blanket announcement that the club would not sign certain players on new contracts until after the trade/draft period. I sense that this might have led to some added pressures on many players contracted or otherwise about the security of their positions in the future. Added to the way some players were handled under the Bailey regime (Chris Johnson, Junior Mac, Brad Miller etc.), I don't believe it helped the general atmosphere around the place. (That's not to say that I disagree with the decisions to move those players on but rather, it's the way we go about it that has to be better).

I don't have a problem with King making those comments if he is well informed. I heard similar talk from one or two of the people at the Melbourne Community Breakfast on Friday but when questioned about the sources, there was embarrassed silence or that the information came second or third hand from a source like the person's taxi driver. I am bemused by those in the media and elsewhere who criticise the FD's list management at the end of 2012. The only player dropped/traded or FA'd off who is currently getting a regular game is Beamer who hasn't set the world on fire (except against us) and who wanted out at the end of 2011 when his management approached Essendon. Sadly, this didn't come to fruition - we might have picked up someone have decent in a trade at the time. Rivers is on his last legs and injured, most of the others are no good and we know about the tragedy of Liam Jurrah. Most of the criticism of incoming players centres around the recycled players coming in but the only one who came at any significant cost was Chris Dawes who was recruited as a forward line foil to Mitch Clark but that has yet to eventuate. He showed against Hawthorn that he can add value to the team. Byrnes was a FA who cost us nothing. Gillies was a delisted FA (ditto) while Peterson cost us Gysberts who isn't getting a game at North. Rodan cost Morton (ditto at WCE) and who was rated a #88 pick in a whacky trade. The recycled group were the equivalent of our 9th to 12th selections ahead only of the rookie picks. Neeld did explain that the likes of Byrne and Rodan were selected partly to set examples at training because of our lack of experienced players who work hard in these areas.

Things must be on the up and up at Fairfax. They can now afford a ghost writer for Wilson. She couldn't possibly have written this pap because nowhere in the entire article does she call for anyone's resignation.

Ronald Dale Barassi - he wasn't just an ordinary match winner. He was a match winner on premiership days.

He can play, gets the footy and his disposal's good. Make him an offer he can't refuse. If he refuses it, somebody else overpays.

Schwab - you're right. Water under the bridge like Szondy, Gardner, Ellis, Harris and McNamee although you could never tell me any time when I asked what he was supposed to have done wrong. You want the others back?McLardy - reckon he's been great for the club in difficult circumstances especially under fire as a result of the tanking inquisition but I feel let down by the club over the Dank issue and, as the club leader, he has to bear the responsibility. I sense that he's preparing for the day when he steps down and let's just hope that he leaves the club in good hands and not with a Kennett or similar type main chancer who would lead us back to the Szondy era from which many of our current issues took their root. Neeld - the greatest conundrum of the lot. He was given what I now concede as one of football's toughest gigs and circumstances (including people undermining him from day 1) prevailed to prevent him from carrying out the cultural changes necessary to rebuild the club after the recruiting and list management disasters of the past decade. He's made some mistakes but if he doesn't survive, the next in line will still have a challenge but one made easier by what he's. brought to the table. Unfortunately, the benefits of what he's done are intangibles that won't be felt for another couple of years. Today was more than another good result. It demonstrated that we have talent coming up that will have our supporters back on the bandwagon sooner rather than later. Hogan, Gawn and a handful of others look good. Monday - I've long gone past the stage of expecting our blokes to show character like some of the other lowly sides have done this year, including GWS today. I still expect us to perform in front of what I hope will be a big crowd but I'm not sure of even that (the performance or the crowd).

Really? I don't believe we ever disagreed on the principles but rather, on the personnel.

They would stone you, throw rotten tomatoes at you and then burn you at the stake.

... and at the present time, #18 is ...

Redleg, at yesterday's Melbourne Business Community breakfast PJ stated that there would be an announcement of a review of the board. I know you've alluded to changes in personnel (President and individual board members removed/replaced) but I think this goes a few steps further. There needs to be a review of the board and its functions and in particular, the role of the football director, the size of the board and its powers. That's the fundamental, followed by the role of the CEO, structure and composition of the football department including coach, recruiting and list management. PJ said the list manager was the most important person at an AFL club but I disagree - you need to have the right people everywhere but most importantly, at the top.

About ridicule:B-H, in case you haven't noticed, ridiculing politicians is a national sport. One of the most predictable pieces of television I've ever seen occurred on Thursday night when Sam Newman opened TFS in an MFC blazer with an unfunny, pathetic impression of Jeff. It says plenty about the audience that they actually laughed with him and not at him (Newman). There's a debating technique known as "reductio ad absurdum" which is used around these parts and is often misunderstood. You can endorse or unendorse people using that technique but some think you're being absolutely serious. To me, there's nothing wrong with taking the mickey out of people who seriously claim that the CEO of a football club can't be involved in making football decisions or that the only honest people on Demonland are those who are anti Neeld. I have my own views on Neeld (and he's made some poor decisions) but I have no doubt that some of the things he's done during his tenure have been beneficial for the long term future of the club. The problem is that in the short term, we suck. Therefore B-H, although I don't question your right to hold the views you have about Mark Neeld, when you do call him a nutjob, aren't you also just "ridiculing the guy and fobbing him off with the wave of a hand" yourself or are you in contact with his shrink?

Thanks DeeVoted. Therefore, we could already go out and get a commitment from him to join up. The difference is that there is no GWS Mini Draft any more which is the thing that probably prompted us to go early with Jack Viney. From what I've heard about Billy, he wants to be a Demon. I have a feeling that it's possible that there been work done behind the scenes to ensure that's what he'll become.

Are we really "doing the dirty" on Casey? The Scorpions are aware of the way AFL clubs work these days and fully know of the possibility that some AFL players may not be available in finals for various reasons be they eligibility, the need to go under the knife or contractual reasons. I made this comment last week in the Casey Scorpions v Sandringham thread:- I've been reminded that the "worst" example in recent years was about four years ago when Melbourne had an injury list of about 20 players and about eight players were sent off for surgery which was absolutely necessary because it was either impossible for them to play because of injury or unsafe because playing might exacerbate their injuries. They came up against Collingwood VFL whose seniors were also in the finals (and had an injury list of two) and were thrashed. Hardly "doing the dirty".A good VFL coach will take these things on board and prepare his local listed players accordingly. I thought Brett Lovett did a fantastic job last year with his team and IIRC they had their own injury problems and weren't disgraced in going down in both games which were played in shocking conditions.

Holmesby on page 2 of Inside Football Solves the mystery. Holmesby is a Saints fan and given that club's own history he should be checked out for memory loss.

History shows that in tough and desperate times, people make some bad decisions when electing leaders. Some of the worst dictators the world's known were elected or came into power with popular support in the wake of the Great Depression of the last century on the back of replacing supposedly incompetent or failed regimes. Whether or not you think Gutnick was a good or bad leader or what he did was right (he believed it to be good governance to reveal salary cap breaches and minimise the extent of the sanction), the people of this club then went out and elected Szondy. I don't believe that Kennett (a man who, when questioned, didn't know the club song) is a realistic candidate but our greatest fear should be that these latest rumblings might see the emergence of another group of people of the ilk of the Szondy regime which left tax bills unpaid in a cupboard and the club chairman walked out without facing the members at an AGM. That's governance? Can we see worse than what we have now? We've had them. My oath we can.

I just want to clarify the thoughts behind this thread. It was to reiterate the comments of the new CEO to the effect that the club's financial position is being put under strain partly because lower attendances mean we won't be reaching budgeted figures. Nobody is being forced to go to games if they don't have the stomach to watch or simply want to stay home and do the knitting or go out and play golf. It's their choice. I did pass the opinion that a true supporter needs to follow their club through bad times as well as the good and IMO you're most entitled to enjoy good times if you stick with it through the bad. That doesn't mean you're not entitled to be critical of club policies or personnel. It all reminds me very much of the Richmond supporter who rang SEN in a hysterical state after their loss to the Suns (the first time) saying that he'd just put his membership and that of his family in the microwave. He was just pleasing himself and those who don't want to support their club are entitled to stay away if they like. I'll be there on Monday with my family nevertheless.

Could someone please remind us at what stage Jack Viney made his commitment to us? I stand corrected but I thought it was at least at this time of his second last season in under age ranks i.e at around the stage where Stretch is now.

Are you able to quote Holmesby exactly? I'm afraid what you're saying Holmesby's saying doesn't quite make sense given Connolly's most recent role at the club.

Er ... OK ... The answer's "yes".

I hope that at least you come by to visit here, if only to find out whether Dom Barry's hit the 70kg mark yet.

Good question. Jackson is highly experienced at what he's doing and more importantly, comes with the imprimatur of the AFL which means he has a great deal of weight behind him. There was also no doubt that he was going to perform well in front of this audience and no risks were taken. There was no question time. It's been said before that talk is cheap, particularly in our situation but the fact that he's had a good look around, taken an extra twelve month contract and is planning measured steps to bring about change fills me with some confidence that we are going to see the sort of action that will make us a much better club at the end of his tenure. His final words about taking us on because we present a great challenge echoes precisely what I've been saying for a while now - you simply need a positive mindset and an appetite for hard work to make it happen*. (* and, as Essendon found out tonight, a bit of luck helps too!)

Another thing you might want to consider is to practice jumping on bandwagons. It might come in handy one day day.