timD

I agree. It is dead easy to sell - just say so. When the baord say it is for TPP, I belive that they are not lying to me. When Don says that he didn't know why the club was playing poorly earlier in the year, should I assume it is because he genuinely didn't know? Did he really know and just decide to not say? RPFC is sugesting that nudge-nudge wink wink deception is all good if it is for a good cause. Why is it needed at all?

IRW, I was questioning the factual basis of one claim, not the basis of the entire weight of evidence. He's got great skills and it would be a pity to give him up: if he is not willing to go then he'll be a liabilty if we make a grandfinal.

BH, no-one can question the effectiveness of the fundraising and for the remaining time alloted to the MFC, we all will carry a debt of gratitude to the late Jim Stynes that can never be paid. I don't want to foment trouble or pick at any one person's performance to score smart-alec points. It gives me the the sh12's when I see it in others and I'd hate to find myself doing that. So how can we be positive about the club and hold various decisionmakers accountable? I presume that is our job as members.

rpfc, BH's post is cheap. He has ignored hazy's argument entirely. Instead he trying to undermine hazy by implying that hazy's argument is crap because he a garnder suporter and gardner's board was not that good. It completely bypasses the points that Hazy is making. I think Hazy is clearly agenda-driven but i think he is writing good stuff. THe two are not incompatible. The good bits about the club has nothing to do with schwab and the bad bits have a fair bit to do with him. We've had posters come on an dsay that we lost two sponsors because schwab + team were hard to deal with. The debt reduction was not a schwab plan. He has massively expanded theadmin side of the business and I'm not sure if it is a good idea (and if anyone does it would certainly help this debate). We are holding fundraisers to help the TPP. WTF? Questioning this board and CEO should be done by everyone. Hazy has offered some interesting insights and criticisms and is being dismissed regardless of, rather than because of, the quality of his writing. That is poor.

Didn't watts play his first game back last week?

Fence, go and listen to what he is saying. The responsibility of performance is put there for the players. When he sees something he can re-inforce, he will. We have all bemoaned the weak attitude and endevour demonstrated by so many for so long. What does he make clear? That attitude and endevour is what he wants. The rest he can build. The rest they can learn. He wants them to hit in hard, win the ball, protect their mates and fight. Urgent, intense, hardworking etc. He's also keeping a lid on things a lot. You'd want to be in the huddle when we get to the big time - he'll have them jumping out of their skin. And he's mad. And I like that.

Jnrmac, he is worth something. WE hang on to bit-part players for too long. He wont hold down a KP. He is a shithouse kick. He cannot mark the ball. We have three spares. TRADE HIM!

Get honest. The mother theresa notion is rhetorical junk. You've implyed that he's used jurrah and that is just a bit sick. Unless you have some clear evidence. Which you don't. Which leaves us with you big-noting yourself and having a pot shot at someone 'cause you can. What a great bloke. Please post more and and other topics you have no idea about, too.

He did his hammy quite a few times and that, homesickness and his father's passing all combined poorly. If he has found peace about the home issues and his hammy problems were fixed by the fitnes crew, then the 'problems' behind his weight have been addressed.

i like Stef and would actively seek to trade him out this year.

I don't think it is reasonable to be banned for stating facts.

I very much doubt he could come back, but if there was even a somewhat realistic chance I' d jump at it. I have a strange & sentimental attachment to Aussie.

I thought by definition that suckers could not bite? I think the mindless "sack everybody" comments are pointless, but i do think that questioning in reasonable. We lost two sponsors that were gained by members - Hancook and Kaspersky. Posters (I've forgotten who) commented that people at both places found melbourne hard to deal with - to the point of not returning calls and not knowing who their club contact would be week to week. Now, these complaints are effectively rumors, so the amount you can invest in them is pretty weak. Then we signed up with energywatch, a company looking too good to be true. They were. All the while, Cam's overseen a huge increase in admin numbers. But we cannot make our TPP. I think a little scrutiny is more than reasonable.

People with an agenda can still have a valid point, H. Methinks dismissing the point because you did not see it exercised earlier doesn't weaken the point; it allows you to understand the biases of the person. And EVERYONE has those.

Definite keep for me. He costs little, is a good backup if others go past him, is average at his roles and provides that "bigger body" that so many moan about not having. If we are going to have big body players but lose sellar we then cannot get rid of all our older blokes. I'd prefer Seller to Bate, Rivers, Green (and Martin if it comes to it).

Is there even a single post in the four pages that says that donations are bad or that the idea of regular fundraising is wrong? If people said that taxes were all good and no-one should be concerned about how they were spent we'd have a riot on this site. Raise a similar concern (that donations are all fine but that how they are spent is important to consider) and there is some great flaw in the reasoning. Sometimes I wonder how anything gets done, ever.

Damn you, facts and reason. Damn you, evidence and argument. I will now slink back in to the dark, to make obscure references to topics I cannot define and issues I won't argue or give example to. If only I barracked for Adelaide!

I think what the board spends money on and how it makes decisions is important. I think that fundraising is a great idea. These two things are not mutually exclusive. TPP should not be funded by members. TPP should not be an extra at the end of the day we have to scramble to cover. Anyone one thinks that this is ok is kidding themselves. It's like saying that you've got the grog bill covered but need to scramble for the mortgage.

It is grasping at straws to suggest that the football team has been bad because of the judgement of supporters. That is just magical thinking gaga nonsense. Trying to defend yourself by bagging others when you've been smarmy without cause just adds to your online character nicely. Notice the difference in the way brad is treated in this thread and the way you are. Take you time. Just sayin'. And I am being disengenuous.

I think the word 'clown' is not used nearly enough.

Robbie, I'm not sure neeld is a pri**k. He is known for his good relationships with players. Players ahve come out and spoken highly of him in the media. He'd know that you cannot just be a belligerent toad and expect people to follow...surely.

Jimmy, I think that the team won in 2011 when they could dominate the clearances and otherwise sucked because of the lack of defensiveness. You've already talked through the wins from 2011 and my bet is that we won when we were either very much more experienced than the opposition (GCS) or won the cleareances. The problem is that (as ben hur is another incarnation already mentionned) is that we actually don't have really good clearance players. Moloney and Jones are both more 'predator' than '1st dibs'; McKensie and gysberts are better but both a bit small/young and have identified limitations and trengove appears slow/hindered/... So the lack of held structure around stoppages reflects a past coaching x current personnel issue. I do also wonder about performance management and teaching. Both magner and moloney have been given forward defensive roles this year, tacking them away from where they are best. It has given me the odd "hmmmmm" this year. As for getting the best out of the team, we've been in more games for longer this year than last (IMO). We've won fewer games but those wins of 2011 were pretty unimpressive. THe other thing to consider is th forward line. LAst year gree, sylvia and jurrah kicked most of our goals I'd guess. Neeld's barely had these players available this year.

Excellent post. Perhaps the only question I have is about the link between player ineptitude and Neeld. The same issues were evident last year and the recruiting disgrace has been now highlighted by many...but why sheet home responsibility to neeld for things like 'being sucked into contests' and failing to win contested ball given the recruiting problems and the failure of the team to lern to do basics until bailey? Regardless of my question I think yours was a really good post.

We were awful and did not work hard enough to make position. That said, the suns were genuinely bad. If we had ablett we would have won by 100 points (and still have been pretty poor).

Dress her in footy gear and sit near women. They will think she is gorgeous and tell her so. She'll be rapt and think the footy is great. Easy win.