sue

BB, my comments were in response to and quoted C&B. Are you and he the same person?

It's pleasing to see how many posters who despaired during the year about how crappy we were have suddenly become so positive and bought into the AFL's 'potential' argument. So unusual to see so many positive posts. Let's hope they are right. If not, I wonder what the AFL will say when we are half-way through 2014 without a win and being thumped every week? Even if you are supporter of the 'harden-up, we can do better without any help' school, I can't see how you can think anyone else will ever merit a PP.

Unlike you I don't always have an expert opinion. I am modest enough to know that never having played or coached at AFL level and not being close to sources closely involved with AFL, and being buried in NSW where I can only get a limited idea from TV of what the team is actually doing, my opinions on players/coaches are not worth much. But when you rule out Miller as a coach on the grounds you did, even I can see that what you wrote is rubbish. Since you ask for my opinion of Miller appointment, here it is: If Roos thinks he can do it, that's enough for me. (But still happy to read reasonable comments from others amateurs and comment on their comments which seem reasonable or otherwise.)

At first I thought perhaps you were being ironic. But I fear you were not. When someone with whom I find I frequently disagree expresses such an opinion, it boots my self-confidence. Thanks.

To those who think if we don't get a PP, the AFL will never be able to grant one to anyone in the future, the cynic in me says there is only one thing the AFL is consistent in - its inconsistency.

We can only hope that the AFL is so embarrassed about how patently they have been leaking that this time they have leaked the wrong info. Then when it turns out to be wrong it will somehow show they don't leak. ::>) Fat chance I'm afraid.

Yes, I think it relies too much based on 'potential' and not enough on how bad we have been. Perhaps we should send the Commission the Demonland postings on the subject of potential. ::>) Gosh I hate it when someone makes a rational argument against us rather than the usual crud about tanking etc. Am I right to assume we don't get to present and argue our case at the Commission beyond what has been put in writing already? If so, hopefully that submission responded to the 'good potential/injury' line in advance. Edit to add: Interesting I don't recall (may be wrong) any of the anti-PP posters here arguing we had too much good potential and were fouled by injury in 2013. That is far too positive for many of us. Nor do I recall the press excusing us because of injury during the year.

On the AFL website: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-09-22/dees-priority-pick-in-doubt At least it is a rational argument related to need rather than past sins and stuff-ups.

So you cannot at least add to your last sentence 'except when it involves Richmond'. You don't have to join the village antics, but don't go to the opposite extreme and say the sky is red just because all the villagers say it is blue just to show your independence of mind. You imply there is no evidence that there were bad things involving Richmond which she had ignored? Funny how she herself suddenly found and published things about Martin that others had published before and she had ignored. In any case, there was enough scuttlebutt about Martin that any serious unbiased investigative journalist would have looked into. I doubt she had investigated and found 'all clear' so didn't publish (though rebutting those who had would make sense in that case). Instead in her recent article she suddenly discovers all the bad things about Martin. Smacks of Richmond protectionism to me in the past, and possibly she is still acting in Richmond's interests if one believes the village conspiracy theorists. Sure CW is more of a journalist than most of her colleagues. Sadly, it doesn't take much to do so.

I don't think you have understood. Try this - If Pravda writes extensively and critically about the US invasion of Vietnam but fails to write about the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, we conclude Pravda is inconsistent in its criticisms. And no, I'm not saying CW is evil enough to work for Pravda, or that this is a perfect analogy. I'm just making the point that we know from other sources what things she hasn't written about. Others have written, but she ignores. That's against what we assess her inconsistency. Cannot for the life of me understand why you defend her all the time. Just because some others attack her all the time? But why go overboard? Why not at least say 'she is good, but her approach to reporting her own club is not good'?

What I see written and what I don't see written. Others have spelt it out.

It could be a different story on a wider ground where there is more room to spread out and thus harder to keep the pressure up. As interesting as it was to watch, largely because it was a final, I'd prefer to watch skills rather than pressure and an endless scramble.

Nothing to get over RR. As much as CW may be your heroine, the criticism is that she is inconsistent in trashing people's reputations, not whether the person deserves to be trashed, and she changes her position to fit in with where her club is at. The behaviour of a partisan, not a journalist.

Since he said he wasn't interested until the possibility of the shorter term/assistant grooming was put to him, I think you should take some deep breaths to counter the nausea.

What if... OldDee actually looked on the bright side for once. I'd be so confused. Cheer up old fella.

A good reason to not 'move on'.

What do male pigs squeal like BH? Did I miss something in AgSci 101?

Looking at the amount of time Vlad is appearing on TV programs and making comments on all sorts of things that he should not be commenting on as AFL CEO, it looks as if he is preparing a career change to media guru pretty soon.

We really don't know how much of a hand, if any, the AFL had in us getting Roos. Even the money question is in a fog.

Look forward to him cloning himself 21 times, no 43 times, and fielding 2 teams of himself.

It's fun reading all the opinions about the benefits and drawbacks of hiring Martin and the hints as to why he is a very naughty boy or maybe the messiah. But I expect none of us really know the extent to which he is a reformed or reformable character, Richmond's real intentions in acting as they have etc. Whereas Roos and co would be closer to the inside info. So once again I'm in the namby-pamby sitting-n-the-fence camp of saying "in Roos we trust". At this stage we don't have much option.

There is also a quote (can't recall details) which counters this by pointing out that circumstances change and if you blindly rely on the past repeating itself then you are in for a surprise. I kinda suspect we have changed circumstances.

I'd like to hear from those posters who defend Caro's principled journalism to comment on her silence about Martin up until the moment he thumbed his nose at her beloved Richmond.

Quite likely young'un. I'm even older than you. But I bet you could find several such cases at every club. If I'm right (memory too faint to be sure) then clearly something different was happening at MFC.

I often find myself in disagreement with C&B, but here he is spot on. I can't recall many selections we made which at the time were controversial. (Hindsight not permitted.) Maybe a bit of arguing around the edges but nothing jaw dropping. Clearly development is a big part of the picture, maybe mixed with a bit of bad luck in taking players who were also popular with other clubs but who turned out to be duds.