timD

I have watched the stuff in the 'manson' thread with some interest. I thought that it might be interesting to thrash out ideas raised in the Manson thread here - not polluting a footy thread any further but not stifling discussion either. When is it racist to consider 'racial' issues? One possible take on Barry Dawson's post was that aboriginal players are a greater risk of not having their potential drawn out at AFL level than other (white) players. It is an idea that is based entirely on 'race' as a deciding factor. While I have been raised in a anti-racism context my whole life, I do wonder about this issue. I wonder about the different between 'race' and 'culture'? Are we confusing the names of factors - aren't they cultural rather than racial (i.e., genetic)? Aboringial people have been treated in an abominable fashion for significant lengths of Australia's history. Disadvantage is endemic within Aboriginal populations. Is it 'racist' to acknowledge the realities of this disadvantage and the effect that it can have - the added burden it creates, the hurdles it creates - when recruiting players? Isn't it fair to say that life will be harder in melbourne for Jurrah than Trengove (for example) because of factors uniquely associated with aboriginality? Young Jack knows english as a first language, for example. The things Jurrah overcomes to just get this far are bloody extraordinary. Shouldn't we acknowledge the 'risk' in recruiting terms - and the welfare demands that success will require? And is this race or culture? I'd argue that it is cultural - that there is nothing 'genetic' about risk and that culture creates disadvantage which plays out in the lives of individuals. I think that many 'risk' factors exist at the level of the individual, their family, history and culture. Doesn't this apply to aboriginal players too? And are we getting hung up on the name of the type of risk that exists and arguing about issues that miss the point?

Terribly sad news. The OP is such a raw, gutsy effort - no b/s, no pretense - just honest and far too real. It's just not right. Cancer is such a bastard of an illness. I'd like to echo jaded and extend my sympathy to his friends and family.

Perhaps this is best seen as advice from one princess to another: "You needn't worry about your reward. If money is all that you love, then that's what you'll receive" And again..."Your friend is quite the mercenary. I wonder if he really cares about anything. Or anybody." Sweet Leia, tom cares about himself and he' daddy.

I absolutely agree. Doing by phone was poor - especially from Stynes. Here's a bloke who by his actions and manners sets pretty high standards and sacking a bloke over the phone who had done club dirty work was well short of standards that Jimmy and the board should have set themselves.

I don't understand coroporate behavioiur or decision making processes. 31 goals is 31 goals. You cannot ritually [censored] the players but christ knows they deserved it. So you ritually [censored] one bloke. Immagine week after week the joke we would ahve been made out to be in the media: Melbourne, the only team to tolerate 31-goal losses. Imagine the atmosphere at training with the dead coach walking. Cauterise the wound.

Argh! I was joking. I'm not sure if you are. Damn you, stupid internets!

rhaz you do not understand. Unless we exercise CONSTANT VIGILANCE over all aspects of the everything that is the MFC it will surely fail.

Nice work RPFC. I appreciate logic and argument. Of course, when you are beaten to a standstill, I guess you could resort to empty bluster and chest-beating. There are plenty of examples you too could learn from. Yoda's given some pointers in this very thread. I love a good chest-beat, i do.

It is often harsh and unreasonable to call opinions stupid...but by the grace of sweet baby jesus it is temping. Spencer is developing well. He is a competent VFL level ruckman now and has further scope for development. You need 'spare' ruckmen on a list and he does this. So he isn't 'wasting' a spot at all. Further, clubs will pay for competent ruckman. Just look at the last draft. It is a benefit to the club in every way that we develop spencer: either he'll be good for us or help us get someone good. There is zero waste. He definitely does not 'clog up' the list.

Poor ol' sammy blease started off in the 2nd group, but after falling off the end of that, joined the third group...and fell off that too. Gysberts did not look particularly comfortable running either. Jack Watts got a lot of encouragement when running with the group of death...but had just about had it by the end. Viney ran along and looked unencumbered throughout. He is a short fella, but well muscled for a teenager.

RPFC, calling it classless is weak. say it for how it is. Thomo, that post is...no, I won't say it....Losing is easy - done it much? Done it deliberately, earning the scorn of thousands, media attention and done so against your own grain (which is to win if you had forgotten)? Losing is easy if you don't care at all. Bailey deliberately lost games to get picks, the result of which was fielding under-strength, poorly experienced teams week after week. Then he'd be front a media pack interogating his adequacy, week after week. That you describe this as 'easy' is the strangest opinions I've read. Perhaps you've just not had the time to think it through. After all, it only went on for 3.5 years.

Franky, I'd remove davey from the mids at this point. That's where I'd see grimes having his spot. I'd prefer a backline of Riv, Frawley, Bennell, Garland, Tommy Mac and Blease. Davey can find a spot forward or at Casey. His last year was woeful and I think that it needs to be respected as the awful display that it was. My mids would be Jamar, moloney, trengove, mckensie, Bail, Grimes. My forwards would be Clark, Jurrah, Watts, sylvia, davey, howe. On the bench are Jones and one of gys/morton and Martin My sub is tappy or wonna. Yes it means that our mids are one-paced, but our forwards and backs have some good speed, and you can rotate the flankers and wingmen perhaps.

I also think that he goes missing for chunks of games and chunks of seasons. When he is involved he is excellent. But it is my impression that there are frequent number of games where he 'just goes'.

I think you are totally off the mark! Actually, I think that you have just got the definition of "star" wrong. Bartell is not a star in the same way (or to the same degree) that Kerr is not a star. Both are bloody good players. Stars are rare - players like Judd, Ablett, Franklin, Reiwolt are rare. I've been in the "star" camp for a long time and am only leaving it due to necessity - I don't think we are going to get one through drafting that will be ready for the "push". We need a midfield that pushed Jones and Moloney to bench players picked only after the core mids are injured. That means greater depth of talent, so I'd activate the compo picks for next year's draft and load up then.

I think that you are wrong, old dee. We did not recruit Clark "for 2012". We recruited him because of the massive structural hole that has existed since BIg Neita. So, we've actually recruited him because of 2008. We've also recruited him "for 2015", when, after three years of playing the system (and we will have been able to because in part of his presence) we are genuine contenders. We definitely did not recruit one 23 year old for one year. This is not a short-term topping up exercise.

That's the spirit!

Sceeendenfreeek? schaendfrank? Schaudenjung? I just can't quite find the right word for it - but I'm sure it is German and a little bit wrong

Not sure what the point of the twitter response in support of Denham was all about. It's like saying bill shorten is a good bloke because he talks to a lot of people on the phone... The criticism of Denham is b/c he acts like a jerk and people get sick of big pronouncements with regular errors (in the media that is). Who gives two hoots if he knows how to use a phone?

BANG on the money! I don't care! I don't want to be liked, hated, feared or joked about. I want ot club to be ambitious, run a tight ship and win me some effing football games so my 4 year old doesn't grow up thinking that we only win when we play freo and adeliade!

I wouldn't do this b/c bail is the only one who can play his role: fast, tough tagger who can hit the side of a barn; barts is all that w/o being able to hit the barn. I will not forgive bartrum for turning ball over against the saints this year.- he killed us through turnovers and will continue to do so. I also have no interest in Caddy unless (A) he is a geniune clearance player; (B) he is quick; © he has good skills and d/m ability. If he is not two of these three, then we do not need him. We have 57 HFF's already. I'd trade petterd ahead of bail. And if Caddy Is two of three off my list, then I'd do the deal.

It's more the inevitable nonesense about how we 'failed' again, Redleg. How long to you reckon it wil be until robbie or old dee or diablo start the wild rumpus about how the club is a long-term failure and we can't recruit any talent and we can't snare anyone in the trading period and we overpay when we do etc...

I'm horrified that we couldn't use cash to persuade someone to uproot his family and leave his desire of living and playing at home. I mean, how could anyone resist cash...oh wait...maybe he is an adult with his own soul and brain...

My point was that carlton being cheats for decades is irrelevant to their "image" and how they are perceived and marketed and thought of by most people. Who cares. That pissy truth gets largely ignored, the CFC is just known as a football club who try anything to win games of...wait for it...football. Which is what they stand for. Which is what we stand for. Which it all any damn footy club stands for. BTW, I'm absolutely stumped about where you got the idea that I was being righteous about melbourne. Point it out would you, because I'll be damned if I can see it.

This whole argument about what we 'stand for' is an empty, intellectually vacant heap of horse excrement fired under extreme pressure...or under almost no pressure. What do hawthorn 'stand for'...what does essendon 'stand for'...what does brisbane stand for...? They are football teams and they stand for playing football. That is it. RPFC is right - it is all down to PR. Are we really going to start thinking about the value the club has based on what a PR company wants to say about us...really? Seriously? The blues stand for cheating - have done for years - and the cats were called 'handbaggers' for years - does anyone really care? If you give a stuff about what pony-tailed, suit-wearing mouth-breathing bogans say about you then you need an appointment with the oft-sited cup of concrete. Lord save us from our own!

Also good for 'closure'. To see finished what he had started. To move on without a backward glance. Ours now.