Choko

Nah, that's a cop out. We were missing Clark - who may never play again and hasn't played for a long time, Dawes - who hasn't played many games and Hogan - never played. Other key misses were Viney and Garland. We lost Fitzy. They were missing Hayes, Montagna, Jack Steven, Schneider.... Dal and Milne out since last yr, plus one down on their list because of Saad. Please, we were no worse off than them.

If we couldn't beat that St Kilda side, where are wins going to come from? I think our possession style is going to limit the damage at times, but I am finding myself disproportionately deflated and unhappy about last night. Maybe because it's round 1..... but I think the reason is that I can't see a way out for years. These players are totally screwed between the ears. They just think they are losers. Then they are. Vicious cycle. Roos is going to have to be so ridiculously good - and again, the buy in from the players to his message is surely at least particlly tempered by the fact he has committed to no more than 3 years.... Depressing.

Look, for a marketing guy, I'm a good lawyer!! I have no idea about marketing, but I just don't get that a logo is likely to make one iota of difference to our brand. I would have thought marketable players, winning, presence in growth corridors and at schools and incentivising new members is the main game, not having an emblem and a logo. If it actually would help attract more members if we had a simple demon logo or whatever, then I say go for it!

Well I think the logo is fantastic. The pitch fork incorporates the demon, so I just don't see the logic that the demon isn't at least represented. Also, I hate to tell some of you, but one of our key differentiation points is that we are Melbourne, the name of the city, and we are the first. I reckon the Bombers and Hawks logos look ridiculous.

This thread is funny. Caro isn't a fan of the succession plan, but says we need to celebrate Roos. If you have listened to Peter Jackson speak, there would be no Roos without a succession plan. Basically, it was a choice for the MFC between Roos and succession, or no Roos. We are a club on our knees... I personally think we had to sell the China to get Roos for commercial and in fact survival reasons, but also to sell hope. I therefore think that the succession plan is just the way it is - no point liking it or not. The way I see it, Roos wouldn't leave us worse than he found us, and if the succession falls apart, then Roos stays on or it's a new coach without succession. Either way, we win by having Roos for 2 - 3 years.

I totally agree re Trengove. There is no player I am more excited to see develop this year than Trengove. He has been liberated from the captaincy, and finally has a few big bodied and experienced midfielders to give him a chop out. Our midfield is still poor, but finally he can concentrate on his game, get clear direction from a master coach, and build some confidence. I think it's going to be a massive improvement year from him.

I wouldn't write Taggert off yet. Patience....

Strong word Byrnes will retire. Not sure who else is going, but expect at least another 2.

The article is just another reason to say no. He clearly thinks the only thing between him and greatness is McKenna's inability to appreciate him enough.

He barracks for Melbourne. Whether he is a supporter or not, I can't say.

Swallow, followed by Thomas

Agree highly unlikely. Although I absolutely believe has been gone from Collingwood since mid year.

If he's unhampered by the injury, he's an A bordering on A+. Would have him in a heartbeat.

I'm not saying we will get him, but I understand that we are into Daisy in a big way and are making a big play. It is almost certain he will go to Carlton, but with Roosy on board, we are having another go.

I am the lowest common denominator

I don't know. Does Adams Swallow?

He's a journalist with an opinion. Shock. Horror.

Dockers were always on this trajectory and Harvey very very stiff to lose his job. Agree re Port, their rise has been nothing short of extraordinary and to me is the greatest indictment of Neeld and the MFC, but also our greatest source of optimism.

Admittedly I haven't gone through 238 pages, but am I the only one whose enthusiasm is somewhat tempered by the 2 years (plus possibly one) bit? I have read the rationale, and I am not critical of the club, because it's clear from what PJ said that we wouldn't have gotten Roos at all if we insisted on 5. But in terms of Roos' motivation, I am just a bit concerned he has set himself up in a "can't lose" situation without enough skin in the game. At the end of 2 years, he may do a 3rd, but after that, he has made it clear he would walk away to a coach he anoints. We all know you can maybe set the course within 2, but the real test of whether this list can deliver success will be in probably 4 - 6 years. Given that he would be appointing his successor, all things being equal it would be hard for him to stay should be wish to "stay the course", as that would involve screwing around a successor. If Roos' motivation is not right, then time might prove we would have been better off with a Choco Williams, who may not be as compelling in the immediate term, but is absolutely committed. I trust in Roos' professionalism, and I just really hope he is doing this for the right reasons. 2 years is not long.

Great bloke, but disagree about some of the plaudits of his coaching. I make two points. Firstly, I don't think we did any better in the second half of the year, which included a loss to GWS. People wanted to convince themselves that the emperor had new clothes, but in reality, it was more of the same and in fact I think in some respects worse match day coaching. Clearly better communication, mind you! Secondly, Craig backed Neeld all the way and still does. So I find those who bag Neeld and compliment Craig to be absolute hypocrites.

Mate of mine watching ABC coverage of Collingwood v Port Melb says that it was announced that Roos has signed with Melbourne. I didn't hear it personally, and this mate is about as reliable as a chocolate teapot.... but still...! Anyone else hear it?

My major objection with Caro is that when she is taken up on her articles, she regularly denies saying what she has previously said, and manipulates it as if she was saying something else entirely. To me, you can't do that and be righteous at the same time... well you can, but then you're a duplicitous hypocrite.

I am absolutely convinced that Mark Robinson has started 10,000 sentences, but never finished one.

We are about as bad as Fitzroy when they were on death row (with apologies to Fitzroy!), and yet worrying about Basil Zemplis? FMD - it's degenerated to a grief reaction focused on anything but our peahearts and the lack of optimism that things can get better!

Bugger.