Adam The God

Opinions are absolutely fine, as long as they're backed up with some sort of argument. Just saying they haven't connected with supporters is just nothingness. And no, Wilson's article talks about not prioritising the MCC relationship. You're making things up to suit your own agenda here. As for this nebulous connecting with supporters, how would you suggest one goes about 'connecting' with supporters as head of the FD? Would you like Josh Mahoney to text you our strategy going into trade week each year? I'd like him doing his job, rather than worrying about what irrational supporters think. I mean this is a ridiculous statement and if you put your opinion out there, you need to be mature enough to accept criticism and/or back up what you're trying to argue. To me it sounds like you're just whinging for the sake of whinging. As for my opinion on what they've done, I couldn't give two [censored] if they 'connect' with members. I care that they do a good job at their role. Josh's is to run the FD, not run supporter relationship groups. I've been a relative fan of our trading and drafting strategy over Josh's time as head of FD, but I'm not happy with Josh reviewing his own department last year (as Bartlett said in the Fairfax press he was). Given the way things have played out this year, if the external review shows poor strategy and decision making going into 2020 that is a result of Josh's leadership, then he has to take responsibility for that.

What are you talking about? And what are you even arguing? My point was we let Frawley explore his free agency and set up our defence without him. How is that rubbish?

For his position he's up there, so I guess by that definition he's A grade, but jeepers, I reckon his defensive capabilities are as limited as Salem's, if not more. I think he's quicker and takes the game on more than Salem, but he's not a mile ahead of him and I certainly wouldn't have Salem as an A grader.

And wonder where Jaguar are at with their commitment. I'd say from a financial strategy point we'd have to have already signed them both up. I guess they're waiting for another opportune moment to announce Jaguar.

Are we saying Saad is A grade? Not sure I agree. Would certainly fit in nicely on our half back flank though. He and Rivers would be handy and might enable Salem to play deeper and use his kicking to exit defence.

It would have been Garland and Tom McDonald in those years.

We played a defensive system with players who we knew would be there the following season...

And how are you going to argue that? You haven't really argued it at all. You've just put a baseless opinion out there, without anything to back it up...

Yep, you'd definitely lead with your strongest point if Lyon was an active target or at least if you knew he was. She's guessing.

You mean like pushing Watts and Hogan out the door and playing Frawley forward after letting him explore his options, ensuring we could train up a new key back and still get maximum compensation, which led to Brayshaw's pick? We've shown plenty of ruthlessness. There's a difference between being ruthless and careless with knee-jerk decision making. Further, Zac Williams is a FA, we don't need to trade for him...

What are you even talking about? Who is that post aimed at? Luke played at the Bulldogs after Melbourne... the rest are right though.

Good on you HFF. You'd be an Olympic level back pedaller.

I'm not going to let you get away with that. You've shifted the goal posts. You can't name Mahoney as a Port bloke and then when I point out an alternative, claim there's no comparison. You made the comparison. Are you backing away from it?

It really does not matter where they played footy. Neil Balme played at Richmond. Would you like him as GM or would you be put off because he played at Richmond? We need to get over this attitude IMV.

Yep, Pert was also saying two weeks ago (prior to the Sydney game) we'd get close and at the time, I think he was right. Had we won those last two games as you say mate, we'd be closing in on the $800k mark. A great effort from our supporters nevertheless.

This is a weak argument IMO. I don't really care about "Melbourne people" running the club. PJ wasn't a "Melbourne person", but he had us going in the right direction. Ultimately, as long as the club is heading in the right direction, I probably won't care who's running it.

Look, totally, this is how the media works in this country. Not saying it's right, but it constantly picks and chooses who to shine the light on and who to leave alone. Doesn't mean this particular light isn't warranted.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I completely agree with the idea that they are responsible for the shortcomings of the FD, but for micro operations, I don't think we can blame them at that level. But it could become part of an equation that they have to answer for. I think there should be a blow torch on the club as to why there was no external review done of the FD last year. This is something I remain strong on and I really don't see why Mahoney was allowed to review his own department's operations. Sure, he should have some input into the review, but it needed to be an external party. Mahoney had a massive conflict interest, with his position tied to the success of the FD and equally its failures and shortcomings.

I'd actually argue we've had too many factions and too many people trying to rock the boat at the wrong times and then not knowing when to act at the right times.

Hang on. This is football operations, almost certainly falls under the remit of the FD. You can't blame the board or the administrative leadership for the FD's failings on planning these trips. The distinct impression I got from Goodwin in his post presser after the Sydney debacle was that he was [censored] off with our management of it. If you go back to that press conference, when he's asked whether there was anything in this, he hesitates and then goes on to say something along the lines of all teams have had to deal with challenges this year.

I don't mind any of this necessarily. If Smith is a serious contender, it will keep Bartlett and co honest. There is one interesting point to note. Wilson says: "The president has never truly won back the trust or respect of those directors nor their networks despite the fact that several continue to give large donations to the club. Nor did Bartlett win friends at the MCC, a relationship he has never prioritised and one that Jackson did." I was speaking to an influential MCC board member not too long ago and the distinct impression I got of the MCC's view of the MFC, or at least the view of that board member I spoke to, wasn't particularly complimentary. In fact, I'd call it dismissive.

I've been pretty consistent on my views vis a vis Viney for a while.

It's all well and good to discuss not signing Viney up, but if I was the FD, I'd be saying, Jack, you're going to play defensive roles through midfield, pressure roles through the forwardline and if Oliver or Petracca is not starting at a particular centre bounce, by all means, we'll throw you in there. If he chooses not to accept this, then Jack is overrating his abilities. He's not as clean as Oliver or Petracca and he doesn't use the ball as well either. Now, I'm not sure what's been said to Jack, but it could well be something like the above. Or it may well be that the contract terms are lower than his expectations, because he isn't going to be the number one or even number two mid in our team. If he bleeds red and blue, he'll sign on the dotted line and perform the role we expect of him. If his ego is as such that he believes he's the best mid at our club, then off he goes. I am of the same view as some, that we don't want to 'push' him out. But offer him a contract that is equivalent to the third or fourth best mid and let him make up his mind.

Sad if he goes from a sentimental and family history perspective, but I think it's better for the our football club now.

We've dealt with this quite a bit. He completely changed his system this year. They rarely play to it and don't seem to entirely understand it.