Nasher

Not in the least bit interested. I'd rather redraft Adem Yze.

You're nothing if not persistent Hazy.

Excellent post. Summed up my feelings in one.

Good post. At the very least, this thread provided me a good afternoon of entertainment.

Too hard to vote, as I was happy with the loss and completely nonchalant about Watts.

I guess that's where our true difference of opinion lies Jarka. For all the reasons that you statede above -- everything I've heard and had to do with him -- I don't believe Coglin would fly off the handle and abuse the president in a manner he is being accused of. Period. I also don't think he'd hit the media unless he was genuinely concerned about the impact of Stynes comments and felt he had no other option to make a wrong a right.

1. It is entirely false. Stynes was not talking about exclusivity, he was talking about exclusion -- or at least it would seem so -- and ignorance towards women. I've got no idea why you're talking about past administrations hanging their hat on the Melbourne name. What's that got to do with exclusion (of women) and ignorance (towards women)? 2. Again, who says it was heated other than Jim? Besides, the whole issue didn't need to be sorted out there and then, but a dialogue could've been opened. Jim, instead of responding with silence, could have said "this isn't the time or place to discuss it, let's discuss it at X time/place". It might not have been the time and the place (and I agree there) but it didn't need to be the end of the road. By zipping his lip and staring with no response, Stynes ends any chance of reasonable discussions. 3. To motivate Jim in to action over his poor comments. Discussing it with him clearly went nowhere, he was talking to a brick wall. We're going around in circles here. 4. What use is thrashing it out away from the media now? It's too late for that. Stynes might as well just let it slide now, Coglin has already well and truly been painted as the villain.

Coglin's end goal was to get Stynes to retract it, or at the very least, clarify it, because what he said to a room full of guests did look bad. Wouldn't you say talking to him about it at three quarter time is, at the very least, opening a dialogue for solving it in house? Did you miss the bit where he tried to have a conversation about it, but was greeted with silence? Oh that's right, we're still assuming that he was "abusive" about it. Tell me then. What would you do in this situation. Here is the potential scenario. I'm trying to see it from Coglin's POV here. - The President, in front of a house full of guests, makes a remark that the club is promoting ignorance and exclusion (exclusivity). As a former board member who put a great deal of effort in to dealing with womens' issues in his time as board member, you believe this to be completely false, and a kick in the guts of the club. - You seek out the president at a football match, in an attempt to open a dialogue. You make your point. Your point is responded to with complete and utter silence. Your attempt at solving the situation in house has now gone out the window -- the President clearly has no comment. - Dispite this, you're still aggrieved with the comments, and are still concerned about the president himself damaging the reputation of the club. The boss himself won't listen. What's your next plan of attack?

"Doing the club a favour" is a reason, and an entirely valid one, even if you don't think so. The comment Jim made about exclusion (exclusivity) and ignorance is nonsense and just as damaging to the club as anything Coglin has done or been quoted as saying, from what I gather in this thread. BTW how is what Coglin has done in the media "self serving" as so many have put it? He has -- presumably knowingly, because the guy is not an idiot -- opened a massive can of worms upon himself and has brought the wrath of a very large portion of our fan base upon himself. He has risked alienating himself from the club altogether when he should be in a position of high standing given his previous role as a (voluntary) board member. Enlighten me, in what way has he been "served" by all of this? What you've said in this post is akin to "la la la I'm not listening".

What's the definition of 'abusive'? If Coglin is being hung because 'Jim said' he was being 'abusive', then our justice system has gone horribly, horribly wrong.

Different Luke Williams I think.

I'm one of the non-believers when it comes to Valenti. I saw nothing today to make me change my mind on his future. That said I'd be disappointed if he got the chop this week. If they're not going to give him a genuine opportunity to stamp his spot on the list then there was no point playing him today. As I said in the delistings thread, give the fringe youngsters a real chance or don't bother at all.

Let's not get carried away with the so-called injury to Moloney. Since there's not even a whisper of this anywhere else other than DD's post, I'd assume it's wrong. I'd be tempted for no change. Dunn's always my default 'out' when there's someone I want in, however I don't think he was as bad as he has been today, and is Rivers really worth an automatic selection? He could come in as it'll be all hands on deck with the Hawthorn forwards, but who else can come out? The alternative is to leave Bennell out, but I don't really want that either. There's nobody else I can think of that would be a reasonable out. Tough week for selection I think. In: One of Bennell or Rivers (haven't decided which yet) Out: Dunn

I agree -- and Robbo without a doubt got a couple of gifts. I hate seeing it no matter which way it goes.

If Morton signed with GC17, my metaphoric wrists would be slashed. Well and truly. That said, I'm extremely confident he'll stay with us.

?

I highly doubt that what numbers we get in the draft will have any bearing on whether or not Bailey's contract is extended.

What tangibles can he possibly deliver between now and round 22?

That's the whole point Mo -- list management should affect the team selection process, especially when you're obviously not going to make the finals and are already planning for subsequent seasons. Prudent list management is why, in my opinion, the like of McNamara, Cheney and Valenti should start getting games right about now. Not necessarily a large string of games (unless their form warrants it), but at the very least a few games here and there. It gives them a large amont of time -- ie between now and round 22, to press their case for retaining a spot on the list. The later you leave it in the season to do this, the less of a chance you give them, so the less of an informed decision you make. Round 16 IMO is cutting it far too fine. Round 20 is too late. It's simple, you give them the opportunity to get their names out from under the gun. If they can't, then the list management committee will start planning how they're going to manage these players at the end of the year. The options are a] find a suitable trade if possible, even if it's a giveaway trade, b] delist them and pay them out as per hazy's post or c] suck it up and keep them. Just because they're contracted doesn't mean there's no 'management' required. As I said, the further out you begin your information gathering process, the more of an informed decision you can make. I'm not suggesting that final decisions be made on any player at this stage, because it's obviously too soon for that. I'm saying that now is the time to begin to really assess the future of players.

In my opinion in order to make the right decisions, a list management comittee should definitely be looking at who might go at years' end right now. I have my opinion on who is in the gun at this exact moment in time. No doubt my opinion will be different at years' end, but that's the beauty of footy. Heaps will change between now and round 22. For me it's just about trying to get a feel for the issues that our list management team will face at the end of the year. I find it interesting. You clearly don't. re point 1: I believe the McDonald appointment was the correct one. I also believe he should not be on the list next year. Right now, he's our best leader, and an automatic best 22 selection. Next year, with his age and young guns coming through, I don't believe that will be the case any more. It's about adjusting to the current situations. Wanting McDonald as captain this year and wanting him retired next year aren't mutually exclusive. I want both. re point 2: It's hardly a surprise that the most common names to come up are probably the five least valuable players to us at the moment is it? And your sweeping generalisation is complete nonsense. Please point out in this thread which "masses" have "bleated" on about how bad our list is? All lists need tweaking at years end. Ours is no different. If you think there are better candidates for the chop than any of the above mentioned names, you're welcome to name them.

Your example makes sense, but it still doesn't change the fact that you're paying for the price of two and getting one. In your case after you've pensioned off A and drafted C, you've got two choices: - Keep B, miss out on D for a total payment of $500/year - Pay out B's contact $500 per year, list player D for $200 a year, for a total payment of $700/year Bear in mind that by this stage, D is a 6th or 7th pick in the draft. Obviously it depends on many things, but how many players of this calibre are going to be worth such a large expense? I imagine that this is why this rarely happens. Me neither really, upon reflection.

How does it work with the salary cap? I imagine the player you have paid out is still counted towards your salary cap, so you're essentially paying for two players when you've got one playing. That doesn't sound very realistic or inexpensive to me. Not to mention the negative impact doing that all the time would have on the players remaining on your list.

I don't think I have ever watched us lose every week and been as pleased as I currently am. It has nothing to do with the tantalising prospects of draft picks either, it's because our current football department has gutted the team to the core and is rebuilding it from scratch, and the big picture is starting to become clear. Last season for me, however, was utterly demoralising. I've always said it's pretty hard to judge coaching staff from the outside, but I for one am very excited about the direction we're going in, and I hope DB's contract is extended to give him the opportunity to see out his work, much like Clarkson and Lyon were allowed to.

Robbo is the only forward we currently have who can reliably turn opportunities in to goals. There's also a very slight chance he could still be about when we're back in our window. Every other forward we have on our list is either flaky in some way or completely speculative. I'd be stunned if he was axed, assuming he wants to go on.

There is no way we would take the minimum three picks. That's laughable, even in a thin draft. Picks 1, 2, 18ish, and pass on pick 34? No draft is thin enough to be passing in the very early third round, and I really don't think our list is strong enough to be passing at that point. It'd be close to the earliest pass of all time.