sue

Is it draft tampering for club A to make an over-the-top offer which they intend to withdraw if the player surprisingly says yes? If not, I can imagine deals being done between mates at different clubs to push up a departing player's value in return for something else in the draft. (Not saying it was in this case of course, just wondering)

re Bomberblitz, it continues in the usual way, dominated by people who think Hird is god, those who think the real story is the conspiracy by the AFL (though they never make it clear why the AFL would want to cause one of its major teams grief) and with the occasional non-delusional poster. This one was amusing and will be familiar to us: Between the people with info, the people who think they have info, the people who wish they had info, the PR trolls, the blatant trolls, the Hird evangelists, the Hird haters and the posters clearly using this thread as a platform to challenge for the board... This thread is an unreadable cluster fark. I wish I had the self control to stop reading it. But I don't...

Tore C'Wood apart? Great, I love him already.

ho hum http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/james-hird-likely-to-be-sacked-by-essendon-today-despite-surge-of-support-from-players/story-e6frf3e3-1227081061437 BTW, if you can't see articles at the HUN, just go to Foxsports. It's all one big happy Murdoch family.

Don't know, but looks like a few significant ones are at least. There were reports of Jones visiting him and Dunn posted a defence of him.

The problem with anything like that (which might satisfy those supporters seeking revenge for real or imaginary slights to the club) is that many of the players still at the club are mates with the offender and would be p!ssed off with the club management if it did that.

I wonder if that is right. After all the AFL is not an open market - I can't get a group of people together and demand to compete like I could if the AF was a normal business. And could I run a the sex discrimination case if some of my players were female? The AFL clearly is able to make its own rules so maybe it can about players too. Legal experts?

Well at least one journo sees the obvious: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/we-were-told-free-agency-and-equalisation-would-help-the-strugglers-think-again/story-fnp04d70-1227079574288 though 'huge overs' for Frawley makes the assumption that a high pick = an established good player which we all know is nonsense.

http://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/2014/10/02/james-hird-went-untouchable-unmentionable/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The+New+Daily+Friday+3102014+Aus+Super&utm_content=The+New+Daily+Friday+3102014+Aus+Super+CID_0ffcdb25cd301b52759783654e15483b&utm_source=&utm_term=How%20James%20Hird%20went%20from%20untouchable%20to%20unmentionable Quote: When it was announced Hird would take over as Essendon coach in September 2010, the returning king said he was putting his reputation on the line by taking the post. “There is no better time to come onto the Essendon Football Club than right now. It probably doesn’t get any more rock bottom than this,” Hird said. Well, it can and it has.

We just have to hope against hope that sense will prevail. But we know the AFL is more likely to bow to the big clubs especially when the media has whipped their supporters into a frenzy based on ignorance. I'm sure a poll on how many of those supporters know how the tier system works would show less than 1% did.

aren't we all.

I think you are inferring too much from too little. You may be right, but I wouldn't put my house on it just yet PR's comments could have been directed at others, including players we have heard nothing about who may have been whinging about something. Or they could have just been standard pep talk - whatever it takes etc. And possible alternative explanations of why the MFC hasn't 'explained' have been posted.

Total misunderstanding of the relevance of small number statistics to this topic. There is little data now, but there is common-sense to help predict what a particular policy will result in. Sure look at the statistical evidence once there is enough data and change or keep a policy as needed. But no need to implement every insane policy just to wait and see what the result is.

Very interesting. But when are those so-called media professionals who run these pressers, and especially the post-game pressers, going to make the questions that are asked audible?

All true. Looking back after 20 years the satisfaction of winning a flag with a team you just joined must be a lot less than winning a flag with a team which struggled for years before winning a flag. Give the AFL time and we'll have players changing sides during the finals - maybe even at half time in the GF.

LC posted that It is more likely to be that EFC did not have the systems and processes in place that ensured it fulfilled its Duty of Care to players. This will enable him to sue for damage to his career and lost future earnings because he won't be able to coach in the AFL etc etc. One mouthwatering option is for the EFC is to suddenly find all the paperwork showing that Hird was responsible for the 'whatever it takes experiment'.

1. Both, but poor teams, as well as desperately needing better players, also tend to be more poorly managed, so it is a downward spiral. 2. No, but they just bring in a star from a lowly team or a player who suits their specific needs from another top team. 3. Do you wear a hairshirt?

There is some fracturing on Bomberblitz but still plenty living in delusion-land.

I find the 'consistent' policies of the AFL are sufficient to keep my blood at boiling point.

Sentence 1 - OK have to accept that Sentence 2 - maybe we know something the Cats don't. But it is a strong point. Sentence 3- depends on if it is indeed a fact So there are 4 possibilities: we wanted him but he is just a rat we dumped him because he did something bad within the club which other clubs either don't know about or don't care about, we dumped him (or offered a poor contract) because we knew he still had problems which the Cats etc are prepared to overlook. Roos felt we could get some more required players by letting him go.

I'll bet Hird will now say he is dropping his water-tight and bullet-proof appeal which he was sure to win just for the good of the club.

Is that based on something more reliable than rumours we have seen on this thread?

Have I missed something? Is there firm evidence that the MFC wanted Clark to stay and didn't effectively show him the door? If so, I'll polish my pitchfork and dip the torch in tar and ask you for a light.

"Won't appeal despite being advised they would win." hahahahahahahahahaha - they will say anything to keep their supporters sufficiently outraged with life, the universe etc, to ensure the outrage doesn't turn on them.

forgive me for not bothering to trawl through ancient posts, but I recall most people saying he'd never play for us did so because injury would end him, not that he'd go to another club. Happy to stand or sit corrected. In any case, the general proposition is true - predict the worst and if it comes off (and with MFC the odds are good) say you are a prophet. If it doesn't, join in the general rejoicing and hope no one recalls your prediction.