Adam The God

Unless the decision is taken out of Goody's hands. Which, btw, could well have a destablising effect, if Goody isn't on board with it.

I reckon most people that are saying Trac shouldn't have done it through the media and crudely he "looks like a sook", also acknowledge that there are clearly issues at the club, and obviously these are issues that have been festering for a while and previously not dealt with properly. Otherwise, I agree with your sentiment. I don't however trust our admin, so I wouldn't expect changes there.

Tom sets high standards on the training track and has constantly reinvented himself, which shows great commitment. Like, say, his management team? 😉

I've already covered this. You get the leadership group together and you voice the concerns with management in the FD. If it was raised in the past and it hasn't been addressed, and has clearly derailed us, the conversations need to be more forceful. Not more manipulative.and external. And that's all I'll say on this.

I think so too. But the funny thing is if we win a flag next year, all of this will be forgotten. Equally though, the next time there is adversity, the playing group will wonder if Trac is going to whinge through his management again. It's toxic.

I never said it was a crisis, but Trac has made it so much harder to have constructive and grown up conversations when he's been seen to be whinging about standards through media outlets, instead of having direct adult conversations, face to face with his peers. Come on, I can't believe this is debatable.

Each to their own, Unky Bitters. I'm happy to shoot from the hip on this occasion.

I remember how annoyed we all were the last time the tail started trying to wag the dog at this football club. I'm surprised you've changed your tune. Again, we need rigorous internal discussions and IMV a proper external review of the entire club, not just FD, the admin as well, but you don't it through the media. It's manipulative, shows poor leadership and threatens to undermine more than resolve issues. Which begs the question, is he trying to force trade or is he just a poor decision maker with poor impetuous advisors around him?

This is very likely what's happened. His concerns were previously brushed under the rug and now he's decided to go the press route. Again though, not a good strategy, and does more harm than good. You're a leader of the football club. You have to be able to galvanise people and convince them that the standards are not good enough. I think Trac is getting some terrible advice from somewhere. And he's going to need to do some work to patch this up with the leadership group. I can only assume May, Lever and Viney are furious.

Me too. I had him as a leader of the football club, perhaps the next captain, and said as much before this story broke. But he's shown he shouldn't be the captain with this.

I'm fine with the internal discussions. That's what will make us better. It's the playing it out in media that potentially undermines the goal of getting better.

Houston and Trac are repped by Connors Sports, so I think it's more likely we said to them and Port that we won't be offering up a first or future first anymore, so we won't be able to get the deal done. I don't blame Trac for Houston allegedly cooling, because as if a story that Tom Morris reports would have a baring on whether Houston wants to come or not. Not to mention that they would have been well aware of the issues at Melbourne prior to the last week. Houston was supposedly on board with us in July. It's much more likely Connors are pushing all this.

We risk derailing this thread, but anyone that thinks playing this out through the media via his management was the right play and won't be corrosive with the playing group, has rocks in their head. There are problems, but if you're a leader, you have the conversations internally and demand change internally. If Trac were a team mate of mine and I was in the leadership group, I'd be having some pretty strong conversations with him.

Agreed, but I wish we'd tried Max behind the ball and Grundy in the ruck. We obviously thought it would wreak havoc with our defensive system and leave us vulnerable at ground level if Max were to play anchor. Anyway, as you write, we move on.

The huge mistake Hawthorn made was miscalculating the value of their leaders, and trading them out. By trading Lewis and Mitchell in the same off season and Hodge the year later, they decimated their leadership stocks, which IMO has seen them bottom out for too long. Compare this with Geelong, whilst not completely apt given their geographical and lifestyle advantages, their players have been allowed to play on until the very ends of their careers. This has meant standards have been maintained and leadership knowledge and know how has been passed on to the next generation of leaders in the club. We had a void of leaders when our current senior players were coming up through the ranks. Now we have them, we need to follow Geelong's model. We've already lost Gus who continues to be described as the glue that made everyone around him better, we don't want to follow this up with the loss of another leader. It's why I'd be re-signing TMac and Melksham for another year, so that around Max, Lever, May and Viney, we have a senior leadership core that can continue to mentor the emerging leaders like JVR and Rivers, and hold our players who might not be meeting required Melbourne standards, to account. I'm disappointed that this Trac stuff has come out, because I think a real leader would have made sure this stayed internal, and forced change from within. Having to resort to such public spillages may put pressure on the FD, but I think massively undermines Trac's leadership and ability to lead from now on. But that's an aside. The main point I'm making here is we need to ensure our best leaders stay, and if the FD and leadership group deem certain players are not demonstrating elite standards, they should be traded. If there's one thing you could never knock Jack Viney about it would be elite standards.

Haha, it's quite an aggressive thread title. It feels like that Simpsons episode where Tom Jones is chained to the floor and made to perform for Marge.

A Melbourne supporter's time to shine!

It might help if the midfield is half decent.

Lever for mine now...

I wouldn't mind Melksham as a forward coach. But I think he plays on one more year at least.

I'd expect this trade is still on. Alternatively, however, if an in principle deal was struck where we said at, say, the half way mark of the season, we'd give up our first rounder or even our future first rounder for him, and now the season has panned out how it has, you could see why our FD could have got cold feet. And with cold feet, told Dan sorry mate, we're going to take our two first rounders to the draft this year. If this happened, what would Houston's management do if he wanted out of SA? They'd spin it that he'd got cold feet at Melbourne's on/off field situation and apparent internal disharmony. This gives him an out to save face and we cop it, because we essentially reneged on a deal. Nick Gieschen at Connors Sports reps Houston, which adds a bit of spice to all this. I'd say more coincidence than them being [censored] off with reneging on the Houston deal and a [censored] off Trac though.

I wouldn't be ruling out Houston just yet...

They manufacture your consent pretty easily don't they?

I agree, it's more likely it'll take trading one of our players to get another pick in the top 10.

I don't know if it's just his number 5, but O'Sullivan reminds me of a less explosive Trac, but still nimble with good vision and smarts. I agree, I'd definitely have Langford ahead of him. I'd be happy with either Langford or Lalor. Wouldn't be disappointed with Draper either. If we could somehow nab two of these guys, particularly the first two, Lalor could play forward, and Langford at half back and in the mid rotation. I want Houston as well, so we're likely to swallow our future first with a trade for him, but if we can use Nibbler and a future second for Houston, and trade our future first into this year's first round, getting Langford and Lalor would mean our midfield under 22 would be set for the next decade, with Rivers, McVee and Windsor. It'd then just be about filling holes in that 25-27 list demo over the next 2-3 years.