Dr. Gonzo

Link? Having trouble finding it.

Just to clarify - was there an article on this about a new meeting between some club Presidents or is this referring to the meetings a couple of weeks ago between Coll, Carl, Ess, Rich & Haw discussing the AFL's equalisation proposals such as cap on FD spending, taxing bigger clubs gate receipts etc?

The problem with only addressing the issues in the fixture with monetary compensation is that it is only a band-aid solution to what is really a long-term problem. You can throw a few million at us, North, Dogs etc and keep giving us home games in poor time slots against teams no-one wants to watch but that will only keep us barely afloat and beholden to those who "compensate" us (as is happening now). The real need is to make the fixture an even draw (many ways this could be done) so that there is transparency in who plays who and when & where they play. The reason being that without an even draw clubs may stay afloat through being compensated but they will never be able to grow their support base which is the bottom line of being able to improve the financial situation. There is also the knock-on effects of less sponsorship revenue, less corporate match-day revenue, less exposure to new supporters etc that the AFL policy on maximising attendances leads to. I've been saying for years that some of the smaller clubs should be forming a bloc within the AFL to challenge the financial heavyweights who dominate the league otherwise in time the big clubs will get sick of "propping up" the small clubs and we will go the way of South and Fitzroy i.e. relocated to new markets. It's all very well and good to say "let them stand on their own two feet" but it doesn't work if you first cut them off at the knees.

Mate it clearly had a question mark and the OP was posting it as a point if discussion on this, a discussion forum. Just chill the [censored] out and don't take everything so seriously. No wonder this site is going to the dogs anyone who dares put up something for discussion which is outside the 15-20 regulars "status quo" is immediately ridiculed and bullied. Just take it for what it is and if you disagree say so but don't attack people just because you read things into people's comments that aren't there. Whether the OP was clumsily written or not the guy has since clarified his opinion so why the need to beat it into the ground?

There's a difference between saying a player could be cut and suggesting he should be cut It's a fair question because he is yet to cement a spot in the side going into his fourth year. I'm a fan and am hoping he can turn it around this year but if not his spot will definitely be reviewed at the end of the season.

[censored] me i thought this was a footy forum???

I prefer "Jimako" Loved the look of this kid and so wrapt we were able to stitch him up with pick 4 (thought he would go pick 3 for sure though GWS have enough midfielders and needed a defender). Loved the fact he showed he can kick a goal, loved his class love the fact he's Greek (it's been a long time coming and I don't see how someone with the name "Beveridge" could be considered Greek) and love the fact he's already extended to a third year. His run-up to goal was funny but what was funnier I thought was how skinny his calves were, looked quite amusing but I don't really care as long as he can kick the ball.

You writing off the season already?

If he were deemed ready he would've been eligible for the 2012 National Draft and we would not in all likelihood have been able to draft him. The rules around drafting are pretty concrete don't think there's a hope in hell of the AFL overturning their rules (and nor do I think there should be). Let's just be happy he's on our list at all and develop him this year with the aim of bursting out chomping at the bit R1, 2014. Look on the bright side, now we can have consecutive Rising Star Winners either Viney/Toumpas in 2013 and Hogan next year.

The rule is good in theory - it's application will be rubbish. The free kick that Sylvia got was an absolute joke. In all likelihood they will go hard on it for a few weeks then it will level out to where we hardly see any paid after media/fans crack it over some dubious ones. Sliding in to take out the legs should be banned (similar to Hawks/Pies tactics over the last couple of years) but bending down to pick up the ball should not. It shouldn't be a free kick for too high either, just play on.

He's not the next Carey, Schwarz or Lockett - he's the first Jesse Hogan!

Norm's home now, the curse is dead. B)

A champion team over a team of champions. Champion players are only anointed retrospectively (for the most part) anyway it is because they won flags people consider them champions (rare exceptions like Buckley or Ablett Snr for example). If Geelong lost all 4 GF's how many champions would you name in their side? If they won the 2 or 3 in the early 90's how many champs would their side boast compared to how they are viewed now? Just worry about working together as one cohesive unit and winning games/flags and let the media worry about subjective terms like "champions".

Yeah not quite the same though.

Was very good early, dropped a little in the second half of the North game (conditioning?) but still did some nice things. As others have said though the fact he showed strength, poise, positioning and goal smarts bodes well. I very much don't want to get ahead of myself considering the amount of "next big things" we seem to have that never come on but you get the feeling if he can work on lowering his field kicking and not having such an up-and-under technique he would have all the tools to be a "complete package" type player if he can put it together. Having the tools and actually doing it are two different things but the signs from his first practice match hit out are good. Just spewing we have to wait another year to see him again (not on TV next two weeks).

Which is why the club were not given any more significant sanctions other than a fine for the conduct of one of their managers. Although they were not aware of it they are still accountable for the actions of their managers to an extent especially if some/one staff member felt threatened/bullied to the extent that they undertook actions prejudicial to the interests of the AFL although not to the extent that it could be said their misconduct specifically violated one of the laws of the game.

Relax, we've got this. B)

A person in a managerial position at a club making comments to employees that, although taken out of context, were perceived to have been of a bullying/threatening nature. That is the crux of it. Regardless of the intent of Connolly's comments someone in a managerial position needs to take ownership for them regardless of the intent. If a manager at a bank, for example, makes a light-hearted comment in a meeting that staff should charge extra fees in order to meet monthly targets or face the sack and a couple of people in the meeting take it seriously the manager will be held to account because being in a position of authority they need to be aware that their comments, although of a joking nature, could be misinterpreted or taken out of context and acted upon by people who may feel threatened or bullied by those comments. It's pretty simple yet the media and the public seem unable to comprehend this concept which is unsurprising considering the way McLachlin butchered his press conference yesterday.

Well, no - the outcome was conduct prejudicial to the interests of the AFL but don't let that stop the Henny Penny's around here.

"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!" But seriously not too fussed about this except that I hope it blows over before the season starts so we don't have more off-field distractions - and does anyone else see the irony in the VCGLR inquiring into suspected rigging of matches in order to take away a licence to have pokie machines which every man and his dog knows are rigged by a computer chip to only pay out 83% of the time?

They also probably wanted to avoid some difficult conversations with betting agencies which provide them with some decent cash.

Playing the devils advocate - a football club, or any professional sporting organisation, is now seen as a workplace. OH&S includes bullying or threats to your job etc Whether those were made in a joking manner or not is irrelevant as it is not the intent of the comments but the perception that is important. Therefore if Connolly did make comments which others perceived as threats or bullying then the club takes responsibility for that as he held a senior position within the club. This is all semantics anyway - we tanked, others have as well but we got caught, we got let off with a slap on the wrist after an investigation no-one else wanted was initiated by a cowboy looking to make a name for himself while the chief was overseas and the outcome was worded in a way to ensure the integrity of the club was kept intact. Bloody good outcome all things considered if you ask me even if it does make little sense once you start poking at it. We got the good end of it though (could have been much much worse if the AFL really wanted to whack us) so lets just let sleeping dogs lie and get behind the MFC, Neeld, the FD and the players and lets hope we can start winning games of footy. Of course the outcome makes little sense but not much that comes from positions of authority does these days because they are talking complete [censored] in order to cover their arses.

If anyone has an AFL Membership I strongly advise you to cancel it and take up a Premium Membership with the MFC - I did it 5 years ago and it's the best thing I've done relating to footy.

Don't be daft - he is the fall guy you really think all that happened during that period was a comment made by Connolly? If we didn't get the PP in 2009 the supporters would have rioted.

IT'S OVER!!! Can we get on with playing footy now?