Nasher

On this system, what is the earliest point in the year in which a player can have an unassailable lead?:-D

Maybe I'm turning in to a Grinch from years of torment, but I don't like that they sung the song twice. I was thinking after the game that it was a positive that they didn't carry on as if they'd won the flag, but this spoiled it a bit.

Now I know how other teams must feel when they play Melbourne.

They certainly rolled over. I haven't seen a team wave the white flag like that since... Last week.

6. Byrnes 5. N.Jones 4. Grimes 3. Howe 2. Evans 1. Gawn

Staggering that there are a few without Byrnes in their top 6. BOG is up for debate but I thought it was beyond contention that he was top 5.

I've always understood it to be the latter and I reckon you will understand how I got that impression. I would love to know for sure.

Is the alternative of holding on to players who won't fall in to line a better one? Like you I was all for the cleanout, but now I have doubts. Just reinforces to me that I have NFI about this stuff. As supporters we have to just hope those in charge do know best.

Stick to not posting.

Sue, surely that is because the way we're performing on the field is tied to a number of problems for which the board are responsible (ie how Neeld was hired et al)? The point you seem to be missing is that it isn't one issue in isolation that has pushed people like myself beyond the point of forgiveness, it's the very long sequence of mistakes that just seem to keep on coming. This isn't a knee-jerk reaction to one issue, it's the straw that broke the camel's back.

I'm assuming you didn't read Baghdad Bob's very clear post on why this is a breakdown in governance.

This doesn't change anything, Stuart. It's still shoddy corporate governance and it's still in the President's domain.

Robbie, this post is on page 19 of the thread and will be buried in no time, but it is the absolute biggest question of all isn't it? The talent is there on the board, but they seem to have hung their skills up on the coatrack with their suit jacket on the way in to the board room. That's probably the most frustrating bit.

In fairness, Clint, surely it's obvious why many would believe every bad rumour they hear at the moment. It's hard to imagine how the last three years could possibly have been more tumultuous.

You don't think there would have been value in spilling the beans before Vlad even asked anything? I really struggle with this argument that we did nothing wrong because we answered the question to the letter of how it was asked. That is an exercise in pedantry and nit picking. It's clear what the AFL needed to know and to me it's even more clear that we should have just told the story in its entirety when Essendon landed in hot water. The only reason I can possibly think of for us not telling the AFL what was going on was if we didn't know, which is an even worse proposition.

Amazing guess, Paul!

I can't believe the club would hire someone so manifestly unsuited to the j.... oh.

Oh, whatever.

old dee, there will be a replacement. Szondy unseated Gutnick, Gardner unseated Szondy, Stynes/McLardy unseated Gardner, and so too will someone unseat McLardy. Tickets won't form until someone sees a need to form one. I would be staggered if nobody in a position to help saw the need to do so this time around.

Bing, I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should have told the world we had an association with Dank, but we sure as hell should have told the AFL. Lying to head office is a recipe for disaster, and that's what we've ended up with.

Mate, you've been a member of this forum for three years now, have I ever struck you as a torch-bearer before? I've spent half my Demonland life deriding posters who go off half cocked about anything. Sometimes you've got to recognise though when the people who are pissed off might actually have a point. It also shits me a bit that I spend a few minutes of my life trying to articulate a point and you respond with a patronising meme. Go jump in the lake.

These are the things that have gone to poo that could have been influenced by the board Tanking coming up in the manner in which it did; this happened because we had the wrong mix of people in our footy department 186 Sacking Dean Bailey over the phone EnergyWatch Sacking Cam Schwab, then extending his contract for another 3 years(!), then sacking him for some fluff reason (right course of action, but years too late and for the wrong reasons). Hiring Mark Neeld on the say-so of Garry Lyon, on the say-so of Mick Malthouse This latest epic Dank disaster I excuse them for the Jurrah and racism disasters. The rest happened under their direct line of influence. So what that they're not the ones pulling on the jumper or coaching the side or whatever? They're the highest level of management at the club. They are charged with making sure the right people are in the right senior management position. Hardly a thing has gone right under their watch, I can't understand why you can't see that they are responsible. They are the the highest level of management at the club - they must take responsibility! The thought of this group being the group charged with getting us out of this endless marsh of faeces terrifies me.

The club has lurched from disaster to disaster on this board's watch. There has hardly been a minute in the last two years where we haven't been under the pump in one form or another. What will it take for you to decide that enough is enough?

Bloody well said Tim.

No, and didn't even before it was cool.