1858

I get the feeling that it is Nicholson's to lose at this early stage but mature bodied rookies are there for a reason and we have a new coach now with new ideas so my vote is a tentative for Nicho.

I don't want to jump the gun but things don't sound too good with big Maxy. If he looks like going on the LTI list prior to the start of the season then it really hots up between our rookies for the promotion. Assuming Nicholson gets the full yr nomination (in lieu of a veteran) then you'd think it would be between Evans, Couch and Magner for the LTI promotion but it will be interesting. I can't see our ruck stocks being tested tbh but if Clark hypothetically was earmarked for more ruckwork then perhaps Williams could be in the mix. Not sure where Lawrence is at and doubt Sheahan would be ready to play the role Neeld would want. If training wasn't intense enough already it could go up a notch for the rookies.

Thanks for the reports guys - much appreciated.

Interesting, I didn't know that. That flexibility should come in quite handy for clubs down the track. Yeah, easily. Does anyone know how long Sellar's contract is for? I would have thought 2 yrs but I suppose 1 yr isn't unreasonable.

Being a list thread, I thought I may as well add the age brackets and [games] of the list if anyone's interested. Nothing scientific here, simply the ages of the players at the end of this calendar year. The 20-24 age bracket is made up of a healthy 27 players. 30+ (1) 18 Green 30 – V [241] 25 - 29 (7) 36 Davey 28 [150] 40 Jamar 28 [110] 28 Macdonald 27 [107] 22 Moloney 27 [130] 27 Rivers 27 [128] 12 Sylvia 26 [121] 34 Martin 25 [50] 20 - 24 (27) 6 Bate 24 [90] Clark 24 [82] 14 Dunn 24 [81] 44 Bail 23 [18] 3 Bartram 23 [95] 8 Frawley 23 [82] 20 Garland 23 [58] 2 Jones 23 [114] 24 Jurrah 23 [35] 15 Petterd 23 [50] Sellar 22 [21] 16 Grimes 22 [32] 42 Spencer 22 [8] 7 Bennell 21 [51] 38 Howe 21 [13] 39 Jetta 21 [30] 13 McKenzie 21 [37] 10 Morton 21 [64] 49 Nicholson 21 – R [9] 47 Strauss 21 [11] 17 Blease 20 [5] 48 Fitzpatrick 20 [1] 37 Gawn 20 [4] 5 Gysberts 20 [18] 9 Trengove 20 [37] 35 Tapscott 20 [15] 4 Watts 20 [40] Teenagers (7) 21 Cook 19 [0] 41 Davis 19 [0] 50 Evans 19 – R [4] 45 Lawrence 19 – R [0] 43 McDonald 19 [2] Taggert 18 [0] Tynan 18 [0]

I suppose that leaves Macdonald, Bail and Nicholson as backup. Is it the club's plan to push Bail and Nicho more into the midfield this year (similar to Grimes)?

I agree with others wrt the shallow draft and how this year has been a good year to trade. There is no conspiracy but our recruiting strategy deserves a discussion I suppose. I tend to think that Neeld may have a less rigid view of the national draft than others. He comes from Collingwood who have a good track record at developing players along a wide spectrum. Collingwood have not had/used a 1st round draft pick since 2008 where they got Sidebottom at pick 11. In 2009 their first ND pick was Ball @ 30, in 2010 it was Fasolo @ 45 and on Thursday their first ND pick will be @ 50. So wrt the ND I am not surprised we chased Clark with pick 12 (for multiple reasons). This is not to say that Collingwood have thrown their picks away but to hilight they have gone about things a little differently of late. I don't know how much of a roll Prendergast will play going forward wrt mature player recruitment and trades etc but I highly doubt Neeld would consider his track record when making decisions about how we use our ND picks. I genuinely think Neeld is simply open minded in how we go about things and believes in his own ability to develop players and enforce a structure and gameplan. You could argue that Neeld's willingness to trade pick 12 suggested he saw no urgency to use it irrespective of the strength of the draft which could possibly be seen to endorse our ND acquisitions in the last couple of years.

The net value is $6mill. $9mill as a gross asset and $3mill in assumed liabilities.

Considering we had -ve equity at the end of 2009 to think it will be hovering just over $6mill at the end of 2010/2011 is a pretty damn good result (not withstanding the fact that there could be future revaluations downwards of the Bentley club venture where applicable). This acquisition is a gain and would make up part of Other Comprehensive Income on the P & L. I'm quite interested to see where our operating revenue is at, if "our business" constitutes operating revenue then $40 mill is quite an improvement and explains how we can cover our bigger budget,

Any news on this or can anyone elaborate?

I agree. I also think Neeld's reference to Mitch Clark and his work ethic rubbing off on others was not only a part justification of the price tag but some insight into his coaching methodology. So it wasn't just about isolating players like Watts (as a 40 gamer) but about showing how he will make our players better. Bing, you make a good point as well about the players Neeld has mentioned so far, surely he knows they have the right character to perform. Having said that, I can't imagine Neeldy doing the xmas carol clips like Bailey did.

I suppose we are all being put on notice. Obviously the players but the supporter base is being prepared for the road ahead and what to expect as well. Some favourite sons may "fall by the wayside" so we may as well get used to the possibility now. If you have a child who has his/her hero and wears their number or you just have your favourite players in general Neeld is simply saying if you don't see them out there then there's a simple reason why. As long as he goes about this in a way where the players are more likely to respond positively and they aren't needlessly publically humiliated then I am quite at ease with this approach. I think as time goes on and the players get used to the rigours and learn more about themselves it will sink in that what Neeld and co are ultimately doing is making them the best footballers they can be and shaping the way they think about AFL football - it's just going to take time I suppose for the whole squad to see it this way though.

Correct.

It isn't so much about defending the club it is more about understanding how fractured the club was leading up to the Bailey sacking. This discussion has been in the context of the Bailey sacking and text book operations but, if we are honest with our selves, we would acknowledge that the club had many more problems than just the coach and, leading up to the Bailey sacking, text book operations had been evidently absent. Every aspect of 186 presented a crisis to our board from the game itself to the factions within the club to the state of our players. In an ideal world we would have sent the VP around to Dean's place to keep things above board but the club was in crisis for multiple reasons and arguably did not function under ideal circumstances and this is without making consideration for Jim's health. A phone call is not appropriate on paper (no arguement) but our president acted in the way he thought best given the circumstances which I think many are underestimating. The moral of the story is that due process is not just 1 individual thing it is how a club functions in perpetuity and the sad reality is that by the time 186 occured we were bereft of a system. If anyone wants to judge Jim Stynes in the heat of the moment and in the health he was in then so be it. You can argue until the cows come home whether others should have ensured due process ensued but Jim was and is our president and acted how he saw fit during a very dark time of the MFC. Jim Stynes did what he did within his own constraints and anyone who wants to judge him on that can go ahead. Isolating this incident to express a bugbear about how the club functions is pointless.

I understand where you are coming from but you are predicating the entire process on a lack of decency. My point is that regardless of the cost of the phone call Stynes seemingly made a decision on this and I think it is unfair to conclude he or the club lacked decency without knowing his ulterior motives and how it played out internally. I think we all recognise that they strayed from due process. Look, I take on board what you are saying as you seem to have some insight of the inner workings of the club and I'm a little surprised if what you say is the case. To my mind I just get the feeling that with all that had happened Stynes wanted to take back a bit of the responsibility of things and do it his way - you used the phrase "asleep at the wheel" a while back and that was quite apt. Whether it was right or not isn't in question wrt due process but I think somewhere Stynes thought he was doing the right thing both by duty and by Bailey and I don't think that our lack of due process showed a significant lack of decency given the circumstances - not in a public way anyway.

IMO Bailey was heading in the same direction as Eade and Craig prior to 186 but after 186 his position became untenable - it's that simple. Adelaide and the Bulldogs are not comparative IMO. When a player or coach reaches that point it is incumbent on the club to act authoritatively. We could have offered him the chance to resign but it would have looked like a farce had he done so and people would be harping on how he wash pushed and how humiliating it must have been for him in front of the cameras announcing his resignation. If anything Bailey retains a certain amount of credibility and self-respect due to how the club went about things and his ability to move on to a support role at Adelaide is a testament to that. Just because we may not have done it by the book doesn't necessarily mean that the process lacked sensitivity and respect. If I were in the same situation I would prefer to hear from Stynes first whether it be by phone or in person but that's just me and we all have our own perspective on this.

What gave it away? The bit where I said "I'm guessing here"? Are you suggesting Bailey wouldn't have wanted to be contacted by Stynes first (irrespective of how)? I don't think there is an arguement about that as a general principle wrt any presidential role. In the way the Bailey sacking unfolded though I am of the opinion that it had little impact on things other than cause an internet discussion on due process. Whether the VP should have taken the reigns from Stynes may seem clinical from a due process perspective but Stynes' intuition may have included what was best for Dean Bailey at the time and it was his call to make. It may have meant more to Dean that Stynes made the call and wanted to be the first to tell him, we don't know but it can't hurt at least considering the possibility. What the...

Same. Also, I'm guessing here, but IMO Stynes would have been the person Bailey would want to hear it from first at that point in time. If relationships were so strained so as to have contributed to 186 then it would have been the ultimate insult to Bailey if certain members of the executive had wheeled up to give him the bad news. The way I see it, the club acted as best possible given the loss, given the poor relationships between people at the club and given the short time frame they had to work in. As soon as a decision was made, Stynes got on the phone to inform Bailey as soon as possible. Too much idealistic shoulda, coulda, woulda going on.

Fair point. The other thing is that GWS have another year at uncontracteds (is that a word?) and we could see a couple more 1st round selections (after regular 1st round pick) & mid 1st round selections (between finalists and non finalists) handed out to other clubs. There's 3 in total floating around atm (excluding ours). Having said that GC got their mid 1st round selection from Geelong so I'm thinking ours would be before theirs if the respective picks were activated and Geelong assumably finish above us next year. For mine it is a little early to tell without having any idea about next year's draft and our particular needs after a year under Neeld but I understand where you're coming from - we may try to trade some of our picks if they slip too far and perhaps some people have over-valued these picks. I think it will be more the pure number of picks we have that will give us the leeway we want that matters. Definitely, obviously we would want to use the lowest pick possible but I get the feeling whatever pick we have to use to get him it will be a massive coup for us when you consider how far our picks could slip.

...and mid year we get to nominate another.

Have there been any updates to the priority pick rules of late or are they due for review? If not then I'm thinking GC will probably have a 1st round PP next year and Port or Brisbane are remote chances as well. Given GC have a mid round pick as well, our mid round compo pick could end up being pick 10 at best and pick 14 at the worst or am I missing something here?

The Bailey sacking was clinical and swift and perhaps he should have been told face to face but I think on the flipside it wasn't turned into a circus like some other sackings have been in the past. I think of images of coaches being called into the club monday morning for a "meeting" with a media frenzy as the get there and then coming out afterwards without a job and it isn't a good look. Yes Bailey fronted the media after his sacking but I think a bit of the sting had gone out of it by then and the process was not as humiliating or drawn out as it could have been (on camera at least).

Surely a fair few guernsey # upgrades in light of more departures and only 3 picks in the ND. 1, 11, 17, 19, 23, 25, 26, 29 30, 31, 32, 33 all available.

I just find the whole "us and them" routine he's pushing kind of transparent and rediculous. We all know that as soon as his current contract is up as coach he'll be out of there quick smart unless they concoct yet another bogus position to keep him on board (which was probably pre-conceived in the planning stage).

Not sure if this has been mentioned elsewhere but it looks like our Darwin game will be in May - I'm thinking June/July would have been better but anyway... Darwin gets AFL quartet