Fat Tony

Schwab is a divisive figure both within the club and the media. This is untenable in a role where hundreds of suitably qualified people have the skills to replace him. Moreover, as a small club, the MFC needs its CEO to put the case to the AFL for greater equalisation measures. We have no Friday night games this year and our fixture is horrible from a marketing and sponsorship point of view. Schwab can’t do that while donning Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak. And he has no credibility to do so in light of the recent history of the club.

There is no inconsistency. Our list is poor but we should have continued with a youth strategy. Mature agers will only ever get us to mediocrity at best.

We have recruited very poorly. That is the reason Bailey failed. Where would we be if our recruits were replaced with Nic Nat, Dangerfield, Shuey, Fyfe, Reid and Jetta? Jones looks a likely type, but striving to finish 12th with a team of mature players with limited time in the game is not the best strategy for us in the age of free agency IMO.

We would have been better off drafting kids than going for mature age journeymen to try and save a failed coach.

We just signed or re-signed most of that list. It speaks to the competency of those in charge.

In your opinion. Add Pederson 2 years

Dawes 4 years McKenzie 3 years Jamar 3 years Byrnes 2 years Dunn 2 years Tapscott 2 years Bail 2 years Dear oh dear

How right you are. The history of the current administration leaves us without credibility in pushing the case for greater equalisation measures in the AFL. A fresh administration would give us a voice again.

Firstly, there is a massive difference between going down the youth road and tanking. Secondly, I think the club made the right call in 2009 in securing the priority pick. But the club still needs clear air from the issue and the best way for that to happen is for fresh leadership to come in. It is not about personalities or how fiscally successful the current administration has been. It is about what is best for the club going forward. My only ‘agenda’ here is to see the MFC succeed. There are plenty of people out there who can do Schwab’s role who are not divisive and who do not carry his baggage.

Schwab either a) orchestrated the events of 2009; b) turned a blind eye to the events of 2009 or c) was oblivious to the events of 2009. Either way, his presence is divisive and his role untenable. Add to that the negative media coverage he attracts makes him unsuitable to a position in which media/PR is important. We cannot allow the same people to remain in charge after two failed rebuilds. And those giving him credit for the club making a profit need to get their heads out of the sand. We are only profitable because of the AFL’s support.

Watts on the wing. He is hopeless in the contest but is one of our best users and we are too slow in the midfield. Garland needs to play as the third tall defender. He is being played out of position at the moment and our backline needs one or two extra runners. Dunn and Watts may be good kicks but we need players who can break a line with run off half back. If Tapscott is going to make it it is as a small defender. His lack of pace is obvious in the forward line. Still he needs a week at Casey to find form. I prefer Davey over Rodan. And use the corridor and play on.

They didn't kick the goals, but how many failed rebuild attempts do they get?

I see the club’s current situation being the culmination of three separate issues. Our recruiting has been terrible over the last decade and so we have very little talent versus the rest of the competition. The Neeld game plan has been rendered obsolete. We are very predictable by being unwilling to use the corridor or play on quickly. As a result of playing this style and losing all the time, the team has also lost all confidence to take the game on. The team selection has also been biased in favor of ‘grunt’ and height rather than speed and skill. The use of Colin Garland as a small defender is a prime example of this. Key leaders at the club have been divisive, particularly Schwab and Neeld. IMO Schwab’s role is untenable for two reasons. Firstly, the club needs clear air from the tanking saga and all those who were there in 2009 need to fall on their swords (whether they were responsible or not). Secondly, the media coverage we are getting due to him being in charge hurts the club. (Whether you agree with the media columnist or not, it is important for the CEO to have them on side to grow the supporter base and attract good publicity.) Neeld entered the club like John Wayne and tried to stamp his authority on the players. This has clearly backfired and many have wanted out and the ones who remain do not look like they are enjoying there footy or have any confidence. He has also replaced good club servants with NQR VFL types, which has probably left a bad taste in some players mouths and created a culture of disloyalty. This is not a good thing for a poor, bottom of the ladder club in an era of free agency.

Hughes wore 20 for Port and played really well. He looks like an AFL player both in terms of coordination and physic. Mark Neeld would have been concerned by how the demons went. Viney was clearly our best and is certain to play this week. In saying that, I wasn't overly impressed by his game. He lacks penetration as a player and while I think he will eventually be a reasonable inside-ball winner at AFL level, his size is a real disadvantage in this regard. McKenzie played a solid game. He is as courageous as they come, but I still cannot fathom how he got a three-year contract. Clarke barely got near it and could do with another run in the VFL. Kent didn't do much and didn't deserve a game. Fitzpatrick still runs around aimlessly and lacks skill but is still worth persevering with given his athleticism. Trengove didn’t do enough to play round 1 and hasn’t got any quicker since last year. (First run back I know.) His injury will make it hard to make a big stride forward this year IMO. Bleese didn’t get much of the ball but looked sharp and might be an option as the sub this week. Selectors face a difficult week given our lack of talent and the ordinary preseason of some of our better players. We should consider playing Jack Watts as a forward given Dawes and Clarke are so underdone.

We wouldn't offer anything other than a big juicy contract. He is a Free Agent. And you are dreaming. Buddy and Dale Thomas are the ones we should target. (To inflate their contracts if anything else.)

The Free Agents are named in this article. Other than Lance Franklin, the best ones are Dale Thomas, Beau Waters, Colin Sylvia, Nathan van Berlo and Nick Dal Santo. Sylvia is an Unrestricted Free Agent which is both a surprise and annoying. http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/every-2013-free-agent-listed-and-every-club-rated/story-fndv8os9-1226594977631

Our new kids look the goods, particularly Hogan and Toumpas. Howe is a gun. Our mature age recruits all look like being journeymen. Jamar looks past it and the rule change will hurt him. McKenzie is still too much of a liability. Tom McDonald is severely overrated on Demonland. Watts was good in patches, but our backline is too slow with him and Dunn as small backs. IMO he should play on the wing for team balance.

The real question is whether we would be a better side with Clark forward/Pederson rucking or Clark rucking/Pederson forward when Jamar is off the ground. I could see benefit in using Clark in the centre bounces and then drifting forward to let Pederson take over around the ground.

Let me preface by saying I would go for best available. In saying this, our midfield clearly needs pace and skill more than it needs grunt IMO. The only young midfielders on the 2012 list who I have confidence in being long-term AFL footballers are Jones, Grimes, Trengove and Sylvia. Of this list, only Sylvia provides any real line breaking ability. (You could add Watts, Blease and Howe to this list, but I doubt any of them will become full time midfielders.) Viney should also add a good inside presence, which lessens the requirement for other inside mids even more IMO. Moreover, inside mids seem to be generally attainable with later picks. (Barlow, Sewell, Mitchell, Tuck, Scott Selwood and Kennedy spring to mind.) Hopefully Toumpas is available with our pick and we take him. Otherwise I would even consider Menzel, despite the risks.

Regardless of whether you rate Schwab or not, the club needs to move on from the tanking episode. The best way to do so is with a change in the administration. No one who was involved at the time at either Board level or in the higher level administration should remain.

Or you could read that I wanted #3, #4, #14 and Viney.

As forced sellers, #4 would have likely been the best deal GWS could have got for Hogan. Port received two second round picks for Chaplin and Pearce, so we would have likely got another pick at around #50 had we take Byrnes later on. And as for Martin, I like him as a ruckman. He is not a witches hat around the ground like Jamar is and IMO hit outs are the most overrated statistic in the game. As for his demand from other clubs, it needs to be remembered that no club rated Ivan Maric last year either.

The backroom deal involving Jack Viney saw us overpay for Hogan, particularly when we had #4. The club has charged people in roles where they are heavily conflicted and, as a result, we let the emotion of the Viney situation get the better of us. We should have called GWS’s and GC’s bluff on Viney, because they didn’t rate him at #1 or #2 and they would not have nominated him if they knew they would then be forced to take him. The Martin deal was terrible. Going forward, he would have been a better first ruck than Jamar, who is on his last legs. While Martin has shown little as a KPF, he has always done well when given first ruck responsibilities and he would have added some much need pace around the ball to complement our slow midfield. The decision to take Byrnes and Rodan smacks of desperation from Neeld. While others talk of their leadership qualities, not enough is made of the opportunity cost from them taking up spots on the list that could otherwise be developed into long-term players. Moreover, the decision to take Byrnes as a Free Agent so early in the trade period diluted our compensation for Moloney and Rivers and we should have only ever taken him after he was delisted. The Dawes deal was fair in terms of draft picks but is risky given his form last year was hopeless. The four-year big money deal means that he must deliver more than a decoy role for Clark and he needs to kick 40 goals per year for the trade to be a success. I doubt Gysberts will come back to bite us, as his kicking is not good enough for a midfielder without pace. Pedersen looks like he will be a good pick up. The Morton deal made sense given he was never going to be successful at Melbourne. I doubt he will make it at West Coast. While Rivers loss can be covered, he was still better than the alternatives. I see his exit as a negative. While our list will improve over summer, it was always going to improve given the low base we are coming from and the draft picks we had. I just feel it could have been so much better.

The emotion of the Jack Viney situation saw us get bent over in the backroom deal for Hogan. We paid full price in draft picks for Dawes and well over with regards to his contract. I have a low value on Gysberts and Morton, but we gained little back from each trade. The Martin trade was a shocker. We lost Rivers and Moloney for below their full value. I like Rodan as a player, but he is not the right demographic and his recruitment reflects Neeld’s desperation to keep his job. Ditto Byrnes. Pederson might be a good pick up, but we now have a significant number of players of the same type and still have a bottom rung midfield. Overall, it is hard to get too excited with our trading given our strong starting position of #3, #4, #14 and #26 and the advantage of Viney.

Horrendous trade IMO