Ron Burgundy

Jnrmac - for what it's worth, I argued until I was blue in the face that letting Junior McDonald go would be an absolutely disaster for this club. And it was. Many here strongly disagreed at the time - 'too old, too many soft tissues, need to get games into the more talented kids' etc. Clubs don't always get these decisions right, even with the best intentions. That said, I think we have a quality administration here now. The Watts issue has been their first big wrinkle for me. The club may ultimately prove to be absolutely right on it, although it has the hallmarks of decisioning made on the run at this point in time.

Well done MFC. Yet another quality player brought into the club in recent years. I'm pumped about this. No excuses for not playing finals next year.

I genuinely don't get what the trade-Watts crew here don't understand about the other perspective on this, which is hardly a controversial point of view. Much of it has to do with value - many here (and most journalists I have read recently) think Watts' trade value is worth less than his value to the MFC going forward. Simple. This is not a remotely intellectual or conceptually challenging issue. It baffles me that some here think they are legitimate geniuses for seeing what others, in their view, fail to see. Put simply - we get it. We just don't necessarily agree.

Even if Watts had his head firmly up where the sun doesn't shine on some of these issues, the home truths in his exit interview shouldn't have been such a surprise to him. It still wreaks of being poorly handled. That said, I suspect the club may have sought to curtail his lifestyle going forward (pre-season and beyond), something that he is not wishing to do in circumstances where he possibly think his on-field performance has been good enough. No evidence though. Just a gut feel. Since that time, Watts has had to decide whether he wants to be great. At the MFC. Or elsewhere.

Just watched Trenners speech on the club's website. He's a fabulous bloke. Such a pity injuries can cruel a footballer's career. Godspeed Jack - I'm sure every Demons supporter wishes all the very best.

Your recollection is spot on. Powell was a great player, and he was super important to our resurgence in 2002. We were unlucky that year - took some big scalps whilst playing really exciting football. Crows got super lucky in the semi final at the G (Powell was knocked out with his first touch of the ball in the first quarter - one of the best games I have ever seen). The club made a very big mistake in not retaining him following that year. Woewodin too. Got smashed culturally as a result. Problem was Yze and Johnstone just had belter seasons and were out of contract. Collingwood really wanted TJ, and Carlton really wanted Yze, and they commanded big bucks to stay, which the club paid. I was on Demonology at the time, and it was virtually a facsimile of the Jack Watts thread here. Those who blindly supported the FD's message on exiting Woey and Powell were ultimately wrong, although many of them then called for Daninher's scalp two thirds into the very next season. Even though I petitioned strongly to have the club retain Woewodin and Powell (and got criticised heavily for not seeing the light on the club's decision), those very same posters castigated me for defending Daniher 8 months later when they wanted him sacked as head coach. The irony ...

I am wondering whether curtailing his 'lifestyle', whatever that actually looks like, is one of the club's expectations.

The club has repeatedly stated - if Jack Watts stays, he knows exactly what expectations he will have to meet. I'd be interested to know what exactly the club does expect of him (in the unlikely event that he stays). Does anyone actually know? No generic 'be more professional, train harder, be harder at the ball' stuff please.

They've got a few players that I'm sure we'd happily introduce to the squad.

Hawks loss at the G was pretty poor too.

Are you talking about Jake Lever or Jack Watts? Kidding ...

Watts is gone. I've accepted this. I just hope we get an okay pick for him and don't have to pay any of his salary going forward. What really concerns me is not this though. It's about professional management standards and principles, something that the club is saying it's delivering in spades at the moment. Despite the noise here, it is abundantly clear that this situation has been handled poorly. And, relevantly, it need not have been. In this regard, it seems clear that Watts did not know that this was a likely outcome, even at exit interview stage. That he should have worked it out, he should have joined the dots on it etc, is in my opinion irrelevant. I accept that he did not know. And he strikes me as being a reasonably intelligent adult. He's also been in the system for a long time, so I expect he generally has some idea about how this stuff rolls. I don't know what anyone else here does for a living, does in their life etc. We just share a love for this football club. In my day to day life, I manage a team of people, all of whom have finished in at least the top 1% of the State, have achieved a distinction average degree from a leading university and have options with employers other than where I apply my trade. Managing them in an appropriate and professional way is critical to my success, to their success, and, relevantly, to the success of the team. In this context, regular and constructive feedback is essential. Clear and effective communication is critical. If any of them come to their bi-annual performance review, and they don't know exactly how they're tracking, I have let them down. They're all very clever, but, if they genuinely don't know where they're at, it is my fault. Not theirs. They 'should've known' is simply not an excuse, not remotely. Some of the dinosaurs around me manage their teams like that, suffice to say they're talked about like Harvey Weinstein. Their behaviours and management style in not sustainable in 2017. We had an unusually gifted people manager in Paul Roos. He is a very rare individual, particularly in footy circles. I used to observe him in a management sense, and wish I could be half as good as him. He would be better than most CEOs in this country if he ever had the inclination to get into the corporate world. He's far too zen for that, obviously. How he turned around this basket case of a club after the Neeld years is simply astonishing. He created a decent culture. He rebuilt trust. He communicated in such an assured and deliberate way. He commanded respect. That people here are dismissing his views is regrettable. He is not on the outside. He knows this club. He knows the players. And the coaches. He knows footy. I'm concerned that this unfortunate saga is being managed by a few ex-footy players who lack the sophistication of Paul Roos. They lack the soft hands. It's blunt instrument territory. And, in my view, those skills are needed on this one, even if it is ultimately in everyone's interests for Jack Watts to be elsewhere. Something is clearly not good here - that we have 150 pages of heated discussion on the issue on a supporters forum is sufficient evidence of this. You can bet that many of the players are furiously texting each other about it too. Here's to a good 2018. I hope we land Lever for not too much pain. And get a good player in return for Watts. I'll be very disappointed with anything less.

The guy legitimately saved this club. His words count. Terrible post.

I have to say - the above neatly sums up my view in relation to the Watts situation exactly. I don't know why it's such a controversial viewpoint to some here.

I think I read here previously that the Swans wished to move Sam Reid, Rohan and Tippett a while back. Since then, the Swans extended Sam Reid's contract by 4 years. Obviously an unreliable rumour. That said, any chance Rohan might be on the trade table this year?

Just google 'high performance culture' - you'll get hundreds of articles on it from publications such as the Harvard Business Review. It's a very well known (and much abused) phrase.

Perhaps they've formed the view they we're not wishing to honour the contract.

I really hope this isn't true. Clear communication and role clarity are absolutely critical in running a high performance work environment. I also still don't understand why Goodwin and others have spoken so openly about Watts' limitations in circumstances where they are not wishing to keep him and he: - is known to be an enormously popular figure within the club; and - has expressed his love of the club and desire to stay. Makes no sense to me. Maintain a modicum of class and discuss the various trade options with other clubs more discretely.

I'm an Orwell fan. There's a bit of Animal Farm to the way the respective attitudes here hit the road. I suspect he would've sympathised with Jack Watts in the circumstances. But I don't blindly accept what those in authority have to say all of the time. I'd probably be on the outer too if I was a sufficiently talented footballer. Goodwin's clearly setting a very high bar for himself in terms of performance and expectations. If he's fair dinkum about assessing himself, his coaching staff and his players by the same lofty standards, that can only be a good thing. As an aside, I find it ironic that some posters here are seeking to characterise those posters here who are not uncritically falling into adopting the club line on the Watts situation as the Pollyanna ones. Plainly that is not the case. I hope we get a good deal for Watts. Charlie Curnow would be nice.

On the flip side of the coin, I'm very impressed with how invested in this club the leadership group are to have endorsed this decision despite their close personal associations and affection for Watts. I too am a Jack Watts fan. And I too remain very disappointed about this.

Weideman is clearly behind so many players from his draft - just google the list, there are too many players to mention. In fact, you need look no further than the MFC. Clayton Oliver was from his draft. Charlie Curnow makes him look like a teenager. Even though the same latitude has never been extended to Jack Watts (who was unfavourably compared with Nik Nat from day one), I am loathe to do this with Weideman. Why? Because it lacks a proper appreciation of his development curve and it would be unfair to do so. I think he has enormous potential and I have high hopes for him. But, as compared with say Charlie Curnow, I have to say his performance thus far has been a bit underwhelming. I'm not slitting my wrists about it though, nor am I putting the slipper into him. Because I am rational. And fair and reasonable.

Yet in front of our other two key tall forwards. Plainly 21st is not good enough, but, if you're going to base such assessments just on his B&F tally (sans any context such as missing games and his form prior to his injury), you need also to put the slipper into our prize forwards who finished well below him (again, ignoring any context for their poor performances). Surely?

The other question is - how did Oliver NOT make at least the AA squad of 40 this year?! Bloody outrageous.

Possibly picked up some votes for his performances in the coaching box when he was off injured. Pleasantly surprised Sam Frost finished as high as he did.

Pick 7 seems always to be the one to have.