Whispering_Jack

The problem is that for many VFL clubs there's no alternative because without alignments they will become extinct. On the MFC side, if we go alone it's an extra cost that over a team can be prohibitive. Like it or not, the alignment continues for at least another year.

I'm not sure that getting a "big name" coach was ever going to be a realistic option for the club given the contractual and actual situations of the leading coaches such as Malthouse, Lyon and Clarkson. My favourite from the outset was Mark Neeld but Scott Burns has grown on me lately so it looks like Adelaide is definitely going in the right direction. Burns is now the one I would prefer but I suspect that he's going to win the Crows' job. The important thing is for the new coach to have complete authority to work with the team and his assistants and to be able to do things his way to mould the team. When the players see that there's a new direction and new standards to follow then they'll either accept it and progress as members of the team or fall by the wayside. I suspect that if we've chosen the right man, we will see significant improvement on an individual and a team level and that there are going to be some pleasant surprises. Much of this is of course, predicated on choosing the right person.

I wouldn't say that we've completely contained our off field issues if we look at what happened around the time of the Dean Bailey sacking*. There remain the issue of the Andrews Report, how it was dealt with and the rumblings about our CEO position and the head of the football department. I have no idea what's going on there but the situation isn't one that inspires comfort or confidence and things need to be resolved. There's also the leaking of information to the media and whispers about the goings on at the club that should be kept in house. On the field we have many issues to deal with and the poor performance of our blokes at Casey today reflected the club's on field woes throughout the season. However, I'm confident that many of these can be overcome by the appointment of the right man for the MFC coaching job (and his assistants) and some clever and creative trading and drafting. We need to resolve the Tom Scully Saga © and/or get the best result out of whatever compensation we can get out of it but IMO the key to the future is the coach. I think he needs to be a strong personality who will take control and do things his way which will hopefully be different to what we've had for the past four or five years. * I didn't have a problem with the Bailey sacking per se but I think it could have been handled a hell of a lot better.

Is that the totality of the compensation rules? I'm sure that someone wrote that clubs could apply for special compensation in anomalous situations where the rules didn't provide adequate compensation and that a panel of two appointed by the AFL would determine the issue. Was this something that was dreamed up by a journalist or just a figment of my imagination? Also, I think the fact that first round GWS compensation picks can't be traded this year is a change from the Gold Coast rules because last year the Cats used their first compensatory pick to get Billie Smedts. I wonder why the rule was changed?

FINAL DRAFT ORDER 1. GWS Giants 2. GWS Giants 3. GWS Giants 4. GWS Giants 5. GWS Giants 6. Port Adelaide 7. GWS Giants 8. Brisbane Lions 9. GWS Giants 10. GWS Giants 11. GWS Giants 12. Brisbane Lions 13. GWS Giants 14. GWS Giants 15. Richmond 16. Fremantle 17. Western Bulldogs 18. North Melbourne 19. Essendon 20. Fremantle 21. Sydney Swans (F/S) 22. Carlton 23. West Coast Eagles 24. Gold Coast Suns 25. St Kilda 26. Richmond 27. Adelaide 28. West Coast Eagles 29. Fremantle (Gold Coast Suns Compensation) 30. Brisbane Lions 31. Essendon 32. Geelong 33. Hawthorn 34. Geelong 35. St Kilda 36. Melbourne 37. St Kilda 38. Hawthorn 39. Western Bulldogs 40. North Melbourne 41. Adelaide 42. St Kilda 43. Sydney Swans 44. Carlton 45. Port Adelaide 46. Adelaide 47. Brisbane Lions 48. Geelong 49. Western Bulldogs 50. Collingwood 51. Port Adelaide 52. Melbourne 53. Hawthorn 54. Melbourne 55. Richmond 56. GWS Giants 57. Western Bulldogs 58. Fremantle 59. Essendon 60. St Kilda 61. Sydney Swans 62. Carlton (FS) 63. West Coast Eagles (PR) 64. Adelaide 65. Collingwood 66. Geelong 67. Collingwood (SP) 68. St Kilda 69. Brisbane Lions (PR) 70. Western Bulldogs (PR) 71. Fremantle 72. Fremantle 73. Western Bulldogs (PR) 74. North Melbourne (PR) 75. Essendon (PR) 76. St Kilda 77. Hawthorn (PR) 78. Geelong 79. GWS Giants 80. Gold Coast Suns (PR) 81. Port Adelaide 82. Adelaide (PR) 83. Fremantle (PR) 84. North Melbourne (PR) 85. Sydney Swans (PR) 86. Geelong (FS) 87. GWS Giants 88. Gold Coast Suns (LT) 89. Adelaide (PR) 90. GWS Giants 91. Gold Coast Suns (LT) 92. GWS Giants 93. GWS Giants 94. GWS Giants 95. GWS Giants 96. GWS Giants (PR) Promoted rookie (LT) Local talent selection (FS) Father/son (SP) Scholarship promotion

Saw the picture of Buddy's father on page 39 of the HUN. Now there's a different cat! Very cool.

During the last week, I've had a bit of a cold so whilst at home the other day, I decided to catch up with my backlog of unwatched TV programmes which included a recent episode of AFL360 and last week's Footy Classified. The AFL360 programme was from Wednesday 31 August i.e the week after round 23. David King who seems to promote himself as an all knowing expert on everything tactical and strategic about the game was discussing Geelong in the wake of it's first home ground defeat since 2007 at the hands of the Sydney Swans. He was scathing about the Cats' set up and many of their players and, if you listened to his argument about them, you would be convinced that the Geelong dynasty was over. Since then they have beaten Collingwood by 97 points (albeit in a dead rubber) and Hawthorn in last night's qualifying final. Having only recently heard King's voice from 10 days earlier, I couldn't help but have a chuckle at King's pontification which was way off the mark. I also couldn't help but wonder how much else of his so-called expert comment,I had given credence to over the year. The next one was even better. The Footy Classified Panel on Monday night were discussing the breaking news that the AFL assistant coach in the middle of the latest betting scandal was Essendon's Dean Wallis. Now, ever since the 2000 Grand Final I've always harboured a grudge against this person and (at the risk of facing demands that this should be placed in the TS thread) his coach Kevin Sheedy for the thuggish tactics applied on a Brad Green when Wallis punched the then young Demon forward in the windpipe and sent him off to hospital. On FC, Grant Thomas, one of the Monday experts I've also never particularly liked, commented that at least with Dean Wallis the AFL would get the absolute truth because Wallis was a man of integrity. Wrong again as the AFL's Adrian Anderson pointed out at the presser when he outlined Wallis' sanctions. I couldn't help but think that both Thomas and Wallis were exposed as absolute dickheads over this stupid affair (as is Anderson and the AFL for constantly ranting on about "integrity" when so much of the AFL's operations are unfair, unjust and conflicted). Then again, in many cases these people are only expressing opinions (which to be fair is what I also do here and I'm often wrong too) so feel free to fire away.

A cruel blow which will no doubt harm if not destroy Hawthorn's 2011. The last quarter also produced a very puzzling marking decision when Trent West flew grabbed the ball and came all the way down to the ground with it but the ball bounced out of his hands as they hit the turf. Strangely enough it was paid a mark unlike last week when umpire Shmitthouse disallowed an identical mark to Jeremy Howe at the Adelaide Oval. Strange indeed.

I think the thread should be merged with something and since I'm a moderator I propose to move it to the GWS thread on the trading and drafting board when I get home tonight. The reason is that I think the whole issue of compenation for players plundered by GWS should be treated separately and is an important issue for the club and for all AFL clubs for reasons beyond the simply one of the players involved. Does that make everybody happy ?

In other words if Tom decides to leave, he says to GWS - "Trade me and make sure that it's an honourable trade". That's exactly what we expect in most trade deals between clubs behaving in a civilised manner instead of how the AFL is running things by trying to bludgeon clubs into submission on unequal trades. Bear in mind that this would leave the door open for GWS to continue raiding us so we might be prudent and offer them an uncontracted player deal to go with it.

The question really raised by this is whether the AFL is above the laws of the land? The AFL is a big business. The TV rights alone generate well over $1billion over five years. It's not my area of expertise but there are laws that govern the ability of participants to maintain a competitive position in the marketplace and I would suggest that the way these rules have been established fails all of the tests. The AFL is badly conflicted in the way it's administering the rules with GWS receiving unreasonable benefits ahead of all of the other clubs in bidding for uncontracted players and the compensation rules are clearly inadequate. Further, the AFL is in a position to intimidate other clubs into submission if they were, for example, to challenge the level of compensation applicable. The fact that it appears the AFL is telling clubs in advance what the level of compensation would be is outrageous given that there's not even supposed to be a contract in place. In short, what we are witnessing is a disgraceful sham and supporters of affected clubs should not be standing for it. We've been told that the clubs agreed to this farce but the anecdotal evidence appears to be that if the clubs did agree (and that's by no means certain), then it was agreement under duress since certain clubs don't want to lose their rights in other areas. We already see an uneven playing field in so many other areas such as fixturing etc where the stronger clubs get the biggest and best slice of the pie but where's the transparency in the case of these concessions? Why is it that the main targets of the GWS raids that look like succeeding are all from the bottom clubs? Why do people believe that the main beneficiaries of the 17 year old "mini draft" are likely to be clubs in the top half? Is it because the rules are unfair and unconscionable? If so, why is the AFL so concerned about "integrity" over betting issues and not with "integrity" when it comes down to the competitiveness of it's member clubs? Do we need to wait for one of the traditional clubs to be killed off before people sit up and start taking notice?

I think you might be onto something there. Anyone who has heard Scott Burns talk about the game or seen the way he played would understand why someone like him would be the perfect solution for the Melbourne Football Club. He is a strong character and would most definitely impose his own style on the way football is played at the club. He would bring a point of difference to the place and shake up a few of the passengers on the playing side who contributed to making 2011 the disaster it turned out to be. In other words, he's the type who would clean house at the club and that is something which we need to happen very badly. Appointing Burns would fit in well with the comments attributed above to Malthouse because Burns is a protege and also with what was indicated by Garry Lyon about an appointment being imminent. And who knows? It might even sway a particular player who might possibly be on the move to decide to stay at the club given that he faces the choice between being coached by a tired old hack who's been removed from the game for far too long and a fresh young innovative coach with new ideas. But then perhaps I should be posting this in the other thread?

On my reckoning the players eligible who might have been selected but weren't were Sam Blease (concussion from last week), Neville Jetta and Addam Maric (leg) along with rookie Cameron Johnston.

Anyone else enjoying the second test v Sri Lanka? Have we uncovered a new offie?

Buckley wasn't offloaded at the end of last year, he's been with Collingwood for two years at least. Bruce is out with "soreness" and on last week's form would have been very close to keeping his place in the side.

I've taken your advice. Obviously, the ethics and standards of the way the AFL operates is irrelevant and a non issue. The threads are merged.

This is not just a Scully thread. It transcends that and goes right to the heart of the AFL's integrity. I have maintained for some time that there is something very wrong with the AFL determining the compensation for players taken by GWS at the same time that the AFL has made it very clear that one of its main objectives is to ensure that the same club is as strong and as competitive as possible in its formative years. It's called a conflict of interest and I dare say that if someone was to look into the situation they might discover that what the AFL is doing possibly contravenes the law. Wouldn't that be interesting?

I should add by way of clarification that I don't know either way which way the decision will fall but I think it's time for all AFL supporters to combat the AFL's stand over tactics. I have no issue with a new franchise but the rules giving them clear unfettered access to recruit 20 and 21 year olds like Davis, Ward and possibly Scully is an attack on the integrity of the game.

We are about to get shafted big time. I can see it happening in around 24 hours ... We lose a first draft pick after investing two years into him and in return ... we'll get bubkes (aka bugger all). Thanks Demetriou.

According to Caro in today's Age, Butcher is off the table:-

The highlight of the past 24 hours must be the sight of Kevin Sheedy looking into the cameras and telling his interviewers that he'd never met or spoken to Tom Scully. Sheeds might have sometimes stretched the truth in his time and I have no reason to disbelieve him but I can't help thinking about the comment attributed to him in one media article that GWS would have two co-captains next year, which comment was followed by the journalist suggesting Scully would be one of them. If Tom goes to GWS, and good luck to him if he does, then his appointment as captain would tell me a lot about the process that saw him go there.

Thanks btdemon. One of our posters has promised to write a review of the book. We hope to have it up on the site shortly.

The article was also wrong about missing a large chunk of the team that impressively thrashed the Bullants. Casey had 10 AFL listed players in the team against the Bullants and only eight against Port Melbourne. They lost Campbell to injury, Bate and Fitzpatrick to the MFC and Dan Nicholson was an emergency but got back Joel Macdonald who was emergency the week before and Juice Newton came into the side as well. It's a few players difference but not really a large chunk.

This mini draft is open for two years and allows GWS to trade four 17 year olds. I think it would suit GWS to trade no more than two this year and keep its options open for next year. My guess is that GWS is likely to have first pick in the 2012 national draft if the AFL puts an end to priority picks at the beginning of round 1. They would do that in a heartbeat if GWS are struggling and they want to give them additional benefits. That said, I'd say that only Jaeger O'Meara and Brad Crouch will go in this year's version of the mini draft. Competition will be solid.

QF Casey player review