Hazyshadeofgrinter

He is not up to it and he should step down.

And my point is that you need to take the rose tinted glasses off when it come to ex-players and get over the whole MFC messiah schtick. We can agree on one thing through, Jim sure as hell isn't up to the job either.

So in essence what you are saying is that we have a bunch of ex-player mates who need to be pulled into line "without fear or favour" and your solution is to add another ex-player mate?

Well then maybe Schwabby should have looked at replacing the General Manager of Football then so he could get back to looking after the club's finances or desiging logos or whatever he is supposed to be doing. Hard when it's your mate though. Are you giving credit to Schwab for interfering in the football department more than he should have or less?

Whilst you're sending "stick to your job" memos, could you flick one to Schwab please? Ta

I'm more interested in whose side the board is on

Erm, the good friends ended up with contract extentions...

Is it still OK to say "Ranga"?

I hope they don't cover it in black plastic...

Just heard on the news that we could be playing at Adelaide Oval in the final round of this season. It could be woth heading over for I reckon - a winnable game and, depending how the cards fall, may even decide if we make the finals. It should make a nice change from moron park where we haven't had a lot of luck lately anyway.

Pros from today: - Gysberts is the real deal - Amazing debut from Pickles - Jetta took a step up - Watts just keeps getting better - Martin is a fair dinkum ruckman - Sylvia looked out for blood - Great to see Jordie Mac back in action - Jones - every team needs one. Beyond reproach. - Beamer (again). Cons: - Davey is a squib and must be dropped - Newton is a squib and has had too many chances already - Bate is simply not up to it - Jurrah inconsistent - Another low impact game from Ricky - Another good player injured We would have won if everyone came to play today. We simply aren't good enough to have passengers on the oval. I'm interested to see the response from Bailey. If he won't drop the squibs, then he has to share the blame.

All squibs must be dropped. Give it back to Beamer.

...I might add that you would have to be incredibly harsh to make out that Bell's total on-field commitment amounts to "negligence"!

It is "compensation" of a sort - but he is only asking for what he is entitled to under his workplace agreement, he is not "suing" the club. It is the akin to you asking to take paid sick leave after suffering an injury. This isn't a matter of doing the right thing by Bell, it is a matter of honouring the legally binding terms of the collective bargaining agreement. AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUEandAUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS’ ASSOCIATIONINCORPORATEDCOLLECTIVEBARGAINING AGREEMENT2007 - 2011 Schedule B, Clause 11: 11. Injury Payments 11.1 (a) Where a Player: (i) suffers a Final Year Injury; and (ii) makes an application to the AFL for compensation in accordance with this sub-paragraph, the AFL Club shall pay that Player 50% of the Player’s contract base payment as at the last year of the Contract. ( B ) In this Agreement: “Final Year Injury”: (i) means injury which: ( A ) occurs in the last year of a Player’s contract with an AFL Club; ( B ) occurs in the course of the Player’s employment as an AFL footballer, including travelling to and from training, Matches or other activities authorised by the AFL Club; and ( C ) in the opinion of an independent medical practitioner, will prevent or be likely to prevent the Player from ever playing football at senior level in any competition; (ii) does not include an injury which: ( A ) is caused or contributed to by the Player’s own negligence; or ( B ) in the opinion of an independent medical practitioner, is part of and principally caused by a Pre-existing Condition or Injury or a de-generation of a Pre-existing Condition or Injury.

Just on this point, it should be made clear that Bell is not actually seeking legal damages or "suing" the club. He is exercising his entitlement in accordance with the industrial agreement that governs the terms and conditions of employment for all AFL players. It is really no different to asking to be paid out the balance of your annual leave on termination.

Actually, far from "self promoting" I am simply trying to address the many posts directed at me without making myself the topic. It is tedious to have the same arguments every time I contribute to a topic involving the Gardner Board. Here are the facts: - You said Leoncelli put the "previous administration" to shame. - Leoncelli was part of the "previous administration". - You praised Leoncelli's contribution to the club. - You criticised the Gardner Board for spiralling debt. - Gardner oversaw profits from 2004-2007 (his first year as Chairman was 2003). - Leoncelli was on the Gardner board for the 2008 debt. Your criticism does not stack up. Sling as much mud at the previous Board as you like, Leoncelli was still part of it and you still look stupid for saying that he put the "previous administration" to shame. Furthermore, the credibility of your accusations against the "previous administration" is undermined by your obvious ignorance and willingness to take not just irrelevant but utterly nonsensical shots at them. Arguing that Leoncelli doesn't count as part of the previous Board because he has since spent more time under the current Chairman makes about as much sense as blaming Leoncelli for single-handedly bringing the club into debt, that is, none. I am not going to enter into a broader debate about the merits of the Gardner board in this thread. Feel free to start a new one and I may even bring myself to rehash that argument yet again.

Your first post was relevant but it didn't make any sense. It is ridiculous to praise Leoncelli by stating that he "put the previous administration to shame." Leoncelli was part of the "previous administration" and there is not a lot of room for debate as far as that 'fact and truth' is concerned. It is a pity that you could not have constrained yourself to expressing your gratitude for Leoncelli's work in your initial post, instead of feeling compelled to take a gratuitous and misguided dump on the pre-Jim Board as well. That way, I would not have felt compelled to point out your error and your ignorance would not have been made so plain for all to see. If you really want to give Leoncelli the praise he deserves you should acknowledge the contribution he made during his entire tenure on the Board, including that portion which was spent as part of the "previous administration".

Hey mate, your previous, more relevant post indicates that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you should just take a moment to get your facts straight before spouting off further.

Hey guys, this is an old discussion. Let's not de-rail this thread with it. If you want to start a conversation about the nature of the threads I contribute to then by all means do so, but it does not belong in this thread, nor in the "footy" section of the message board. Having said that, I will offer a brief, partial explanation (again). That is, most football discussions involve unquantifiable opinions - I am more often moved to comment when I read demonstrably inaccurate information being paraded as fact. In any case, my propensity to provide input on this subject should not detract from the legitimacy of my comments which should be considered on their own merits.

Ha! Thanks, glad I'm not forgotten.

I find it odd that Leoncelli put the previous administration to shame given that he joined the much reviled “previous administration” in October 2007 at the invitation of Paul Gardner and his Board, and was part of Gardner’s legacy along with Bailey, Connolly, Casey, Olympic Park Headquarters etc. I still can't work out if people like you persist with such bashing out of ignorance, a need for simplicity, or because you feel it is necessary to slander the last board in order to make the current board look better.

And YOU were talking about the "adminstration we have now" and the "people back then." People who, as I have already pointed out, appointed Bailey and Connolly, amongst other things.

The people we had back then and not "the people in place today" commenced the process of rebuilding the list and renewing the Club. Their initiatives included: - seeing off Daniher and replacing him with Bailey and the appointment of an entirely new coaching panel, recruitment manager and key Footy Dept support staff - appointing Chris Connolly as GM Football Operations - total overhaul of the list including the dignified retirement, delisting or trading of much loved and respected stalwarts like Neitz, White, Yze, Brown (whose retirements occurred at the end of 2008 but which were decided at the beginning of that year) and Johnstone and the recruitment of the young guns who will form the backbone of our next premiership campaign such as Grimes, Morton, Garland, Frawley, Bate, Jones, Davey, Moloney, Wonaeamirri and Sylvia. The way this was done contrasts starkly with the Woewodin debacle at the end of 2002. - the Casey alliance and access to the superior training facilities at Casey Fields - the new training and football administration base in the Olympic Park precinct None of this is to suggest that the current administration is not doing a good job - they are building on the good work that went before.