Nasher

Not funny.

More worryingly, I think he believed everything he said over the pre-season. I don't think he lied to us, he just didn't recognise what was going on, which is probably worse.

...that said, how about Gardner giving his CEO the boot as soon as he realised the man made poor decisions? Contrast this with McLardy arriving at the same conclusion about Schwab and then sitting on it for two years. (Assuming there is some truth to this story)

Sounds about the right number of sequential cockups to be true.

I laughed far more than I rightfully should have.

This thread isn't going anywhere good. I'm closing it.

You're not suggesting that we drafted poorly circa 2008 are you? My God. Thank heavens you are here to point that out, we may not have noticed otherwise.

This thread is a prime example of why I will never trust the greater membership to vote us out of this predicament.

Relevance? Mahoney is probably (surely) one of the primary people Jackson talks about when mentioning people too inexperienced for the role they are in. It seemed apparent to me at the time that he was appointed that it was because he was contracted but not required as a coach.

Repeat after me: Presidents aren't just figureheads. Presidents aren't just figureheads. Presidents aren't just figureheads.

I think David Schwarz would make an excellent media personality. When PJ said we needed to bring in the best people in the business, I'm very doubtful that he was implying Ox. Your "good source" is yanking your chain.

At risk of being seen as a stuie-apologist, if you weren't suggesting that we should (hypothetically) play Franklin as a midfielder then I'm not sure why you dropped the "would be Ablett like" line. You didn't explicitly say it, but it was the only logical inference I could draw.

That vibe is just a psychological defence mechanism, sorry to break it to you. I feel illogically optimistic most weeks; I've learned to ignore it. We are going to get reamed.

Our first priority IS to get back to an even keel, but it isn't the ONLY priority. We have an obligation to help promote and grow the game, that is why the AFL is trying to save our butts now when we probably deserve the euthanasia route. This helps to continue the long path of obliterating discrimination in our society as an added bonus.

No argument from me there rjay regarding directors knowing their place. As I understand it, crossed boundaries is amongst the biggest failings of the present board. I don't reckon it takes wholesale change to repair it though, just a strong leader and a handful of quality, experienced directors added to the mix and the dynamic of the group will change completely.

I don't know what others are expecting, but as someone firmly in the camp of wanting the AFL to save us from ourselves, I can say that I'd expect some of the board to remain intact. I've said it before that on paper the talent is there on the board, it just seems to lack the necessary leadership to harness it. Given the recent history of board handovers, I can't see how this is going to happen without AFL intervention. I certainly don't trust the membership to get it right.

Yeah, me too. Random person making small talk: "Sooooo, do you follow the footy?" Me: "Nah."

Actually, if he plays in the forward line, it's been forward to tagger to backman to forward to backman to tagger to forward. I'm assuming that sooner or later, one of the bloody coaches on the revolving door that is this club will work out that he's not good enough to play in any position. What's the bet that we get a new coach for next year and they keep him on though, just to see what they can make of him?

I can really see how you could draw a parallel between Garry Lyon and Peter Jackson.

Letting the AFL appoint the board, and keeping some or even most of the board aren't mutually exclusive.

In case Billy, Tricky et al haven't made you look silly enough, there's also the transcript BB posted that is from another person present that doesn't contain any editorialism at all, just the words that were said, verbatim.

Classic WYL logic. There is only one man on this forum who could arrive at the paradoxical conclusion that we're too crap for a priority pick.

Byrnes is firmly in my "looks much worse than he really is because the team is so poo" group.

He is on my TV screen more than any other player, meaning he must run his guts out. Lacks polish at the moment, but that may come with experience and he's improved significantly already. Overall I reckon he's been a great low cost midfield option - certainly players like this look a better option than a Weetra, McNamara type speculative young player.

Exactly what I was going to say. My loyalty and patience has been sorely tested and found to be bottomless, unfortunately for my mood each weekend.