Choko

My goodness me. That's twice you have said Newton. If you seriously think Newton is the answer, then you are asking the wrong question. We're not tanking any more. Let me tell you, it's daylight before Newton. The only reason he is still around is because inexplicably, we signed him for 2 years instead of 1 (instead of zero, really!). I think the pen slipped.

I think a lot of people have over-rated our team. If we look at it, we have minimal depth/challenge on places, which is just about the first fundamental of success. Our forward line is suspect over 22 weeks. We have no crumbing forwards - Wonna has never given us the output that his potential suggests, and after a shocker of a pre-season, he is not likely to be influential. Maric is never going to make it IMO. Our key position players are Watts, Petterd and Jurrah. If Watts makes it, it won't be for another 2 - 3 years minimum. Jurrah has a real challenge to deliver consistently. Petterd is injury prone and again, has never delivered consistently. Our best forward is still Green. In the middle, we have lots of potential. Trengove, Scully, McKenzie. We have lost McDonald. Moloney and Jones are similar players. No-one has a real turn of speed, and Sylvia will attract all the midfield attention. We have significantly less quality midfield rotations than a lot of the good sides. Jamar is a gun, but has no backup. In the backline, we have Frawley who is a gun, Garland, who is/will be a gun (or will he be played forward because of the deficiencies there?) and Rivers, who, due respect, is almost past it. In terms of flankers and rebounders, we have Grimes who is a fantastic reader of the ball and usually a creative kick, and Davey likewise. Otherwise, we have dodgy kicks out of the backline. Tactically, I have seen nothing we do that would particularly worry sides. Probably our most noticeable targeted area of improvement has been in bulkig up/tackling. Don't get me wrong, I could run the case for the positive. If Maric comes up, Bennell improves in his attack on the ball and consistency, Martin taking the next step, Strauss or Tapscott coming in and giving us what we need. I definitely think Morton, if/when he recovers, adds class and versatility, and Gysberts is going to be a gun one day. But at the moment, I am running the case for the realist.

Well I was speaking to a guy tonight who was a little more drunk than he might have wanted to be. He is a pretty connected person - I would say a reliable source. He said that GWS are red hot and pretty confident of getting Scully over the line, but that he has absolutely not signed yet. I know it's nothing new, so take it for whatever it's worth!

Agreed. Though you can't exclude that pink!

Watts was awesome tonight. Very exciting signs, for what it's worth.

The jumpers tonight in Adelaide were absolutely terrible. I cannot seriously believe we were wearing a colour that looked dead set pink. Compare the colour of the socks to the colour of the jumper. That was just not good enough tonight. They better fix it, and soon.

James is a magnificent character. He wore the disappointment on his face, but never slagged off the club, publicly or privately. I agree it is good that Bailey has come out and admitted fault. Hopefully demonstrates insight and learning. But let's face it, on his own account, he is not the only one who stuffed up. The fact we can treat a magnificent character that poorly despite all the advisors, etc... raises some questions.

Yes, true. So where's the MFC's take in your proposal? I know where it seems you are suggesting we take it....

Absolutely that's how Tom would probably respond. However, that can be challenged, because hiding behind a representative is actually a copout, as they act on instructions. With regard to coach being in charge of playing personnel, I disagree entirely. It's only Bailey that will cop the sack for personnel performance. It's only Bailey that is ultimately judged. It's Bailey that needs a cohesive list on the track. And Bailey can veto anyone there, possibly including Schwab, on footy issues. Also, if you look at Geelong's criteria for a new coach, just have a look at the weighting/importance placed on HR/personnel management.

Agree about the hysteria, but I do think Bailey has a clear responsibility to speak to Tom. He is ultimately the manager of the playing personnel, and the interests of the club are paramount. The reality is, Tom has every right to do as he likes. But so does the MFC. And we cannot have 41 players held to ransom by 1. We have been going to market for the better part of 4 years with Scully front and centre of our youth pitch to supporters, and Tom has literally overnight stopped becoming a marketable commodity for us. I am in the Paul Roos camp. By holding off on contract negotiations, like it or lump it, Tom is putting his name and himself ahead of the club. If Tom is going to sign with us in the end, which of course we all hope he does, then I reckon he will regret the way this looks. If Tom wants to stay but wants to make sure he is getting a fair deal, there are many ways the MFC and Tom can make that happen without this "embargo" to season's end. For example, he can force GWS' hand to give their best offer and then get MFC's response. We could sign him up and draft a clause that revisited remuneration against a formula that took account of increases to the player "pie" and to the salary cap allowance. Unfortunately, some football clubs, ours included, are actually not particularly adept at industrial relations. If Tom goes, then the way his management have been doing things is totally understandable. And I will hate him forever as a mercenary!

You're not at risk.... you're far beyond that. Honestly, that dinosaur attitude is so ignorant. Golf is a mans game, so women shouldn't be allowed to play?

He's a ripping bloke, and he performs a very important counselling and mentoring role in a non-judgmental manner.

I do have a funny Cameron Bruce story, which I think I can tell now that he's gone! The MFC was training at the MCG one day when the Ponsford was being renovated. It was a freezing cold wet winter's day. There were lots of workers standing around watching the boys train. Cam was taking a shot at goal from 45, and some poor unsuspecting worker copped his helicopter smack in his glasses. The glasses fractured, and the bloke had to go to hospital. Cam made the point that the guy wasn't expecting it.... I responded to the whole table with "That's probably because he was standing behind the goals"! I have to say, he took it extremely well!

You truly hope the hawks win the flag. Seriously? Seriously.

It proves how hard it is to get good ruckmen. Hawks are in dire need of good ruck stocks, so you would have to assume that they have assessed the likelihood of Campbell getting up as being extremely low. However, good luck!

I have to say, seeing that sort of thing does make you realise that the club is puttng together a fantastic narrative. It is very deliberate, but the choice to start at "base camp" and sell the journey was a gutsy one for the oldest club in the world. In relation to the things within our control, it is being executed brilliantly. Stynes, McLardy and Schwab in particular deserve enormous credit.

Yeh I reckon it has to be as well. And? Who is it?

If it is the unveiling of players, calling it an "important announcement" rather than simply stating that it is our player unveiling is quite silly IMO. It is a bit like the boy who cried wolf. But let's see.

This is such a silly fight, even by demonland standards. BP said that we skewed towards talls. You can safely assume that he thought Cook was the best tall available. If we rated Cook an 8/10 and there was a midfielder also rathed 8/10, it's clear Cook would have been our preference. The interesting balance is if Cook was say a 7/10 and a midfielder was a 9/10. Then what do you do? No-one knows the answer to that.

That's a HUGE call! You're obviously not a lawyer like I am!!

Correct. We thought Tapscott would be gone, but we KNEW Gysberts would be gone by 18.

You're both right. We actually took Gysberts at 11 because we didn't think he would be available at 18 (if my memory serves me correctly, Port had pick 16 and we knew they wanted him, and Geelong had pick 17 or something and they also wanted him). So we might not have thought he was the best pick 11, but we did think that as a combo of 11 and 18, we would be doing best with Gysberts at 11.

Except for Jetta and Maric, who I really don't think will make it, I agree. I mean Barts no disrespect, but I think if our best side in 2 years has Bartram in it, we have a problem.

Yeh, it's possible. But an 11 year player at the club trying to hold the club to ransom is actually unlikely, and I suggest not in keeping with his personality (although I am sure he is a good self-advocate!). I actually think Cam left because he thought he would get a longer career elsewhere and he felt undervalued (rightly or wrongly). If, as media suggests, he ends up on a substantially similar contract to the one we offered (with less money is even being suggested), but with "triggers" for a second year, that to me seems much more sensible thing for us to have considered than losing him for nothing. Also, to the extent that Cam had leverage, we had it before the draft. We could have put a time limit on his decision rather than just sitting on it, then sought to trade him if he didn't sign.

Good points made there. But at the very least, I don't think there is much denying that a better outcome would have been trading Cameron rather than having him walk for nothing. So I think the club has to take some responsibility for, as Bailey said, being "totally shocked" that this has happened.