DeeSpencer

She’s presided over 3 strong years (including a flag) and then a step back that was just about inevitable this year. Or was after Oliver and Petty’s preseasons, Gus’ retirement and Tracc’s injury. 11 wins and a percentage around 100 wasn’t even that bad really. The issue isn’t the on field product this year even if it wasn’t good. The issue is rather than galvanise the playing group, spend cap space on bringing players in and/or hit the draft we have our best player desperate to leave and all sorts of other questions. Whether you blame the board for those issues is irrelevant, they have to have a plan to fix them. Instead of some semblance of a plan she’s offered nothing.

I didn’t vote for him because it’s Brad Green. Epitome of the [censored] footy we used to play and are heading back towards playing. Big red flag when this board decided he was going to be their footy director.

Was excited to find the audio but having read the posts I really can’t be bothered. I was fine with board silence as long as they had a plan for changes. Or were at least working quietly on fixing things. Instead it seems they’re doing nothing?

Parfitt was a very good defensive inside mid for a fair period of time. Could really tackle and crash in hard. But he's had a lot of injuries (hamstring and other leg problems) that have robbed him of that power and explosiveness. When that happens with guys his age my initial suspicious is that aren't doing the work to get rock hard fit again and build back that explosive movement and fitness to repeat it all day. I'd want him to train with us over summer and prove his body and work ethic are up to it.

What part of it is damning? The closed shop nature of AFL club boards is widely accepted across the competition as being not ideal but better than the alternative. Elections are costly and turn in to popularity contests and destabilase the direction of the club. And there's no guarantees you'll elect good candidates with the right skills mix. Where as if you appoint a candidate selection committee they can vet candidates, pick the best ones and get the right skills. Again, it's not ideal, but who has any faith in the MFC members being able to elect the right candidates? As for the player sponsor stuff? You can't sue the club in the Federal court and have them keep taking your money and granting you special sponsors benefits. That's fantasy land stuff. Hopefully now the legal action is resolved they can work on a path towards reconciliation. Or at least they might if he's not calling for wild all of club reviews. The real shame here is the board and Peter clearly both compromised on a number of points and left the judge only 1 thing to actually rule on. Had Peter just let 1 more thing go they could've avoided the costly and frankly embarrassing for all sides trial. Nothing wrong with wanting some election rules reforms but clearly the judge didn't agree at all that the board couldn't propose rules that restricted elections from turning in to all circuses.

Bit of hypocrisy there? I certainly think Roffey and Pert have to demonstrate why we should stay on board with them but the worst possible thing to do now is to not let them have a chance to justify what's gone wrong (and there's a couple of things I'm not blaming them for) and how they are addressing them.

Bevo clearly lost faith in Daniel as a half back last year, without elite speed he gives up a lot defensively. Tried him on ball, which resulted in him running and winning the ball well but his lack of punch out of stoppages hurt them. Sanders, Harmes, Gallagher and eventually settled on Ed Richards for that role. So this year he's been used a bit here and there and played in the 2's, now he's back in the side and playing wing and half forward. We need half back depth but I don't think Daniel is a clear upgrade on Salem and Bowey. We need overall depth and having a theoretically versatile player who can play forward, wing, half back would be nice. It's not a total no but it's certainly not a resounding yes from me. He's certainly a player we need to cast a keen eye over to see if his 2024 form is exactly up to the standard. We can't do a Hunter or Billings and just expect out fitness and coaching program to elevate players who just don't have it anymore. Glass half full recruiting should be for younger players at bad sides rather than doubting Bevo.

Jay Clark's fine most of the time but he bats about 1 in 100 in trade times, he's completely all over the shop. That said, why would anyone join Melbourne? Because there's still only 18 clubs in the comp, and only 9 in Melbourne. St Kilda and Essendon appear to be going nowhere fast. Richmond are in full tank mode. The Dogs cap is surely full to the brim, hence why they're trying to offload Daniel in the first place. As bad as things are looking right now it shouldn't be a complete disaster.

Having read the judgment and the election rules I now understand the case better. Ridiculous that it went all the way to court, from both sides I guess. That said, now sure how he feels he has the power to demand an independent review? By whom? In to what? The board should review the CEO, that’s their job. They shouldn’t need any help doing it. The CEO should review the football program and bring in outside football expert help if needed. Richo and Goodwin should review their teams of staff and the players. I’m struggling to see just where this review is needed or will be helpful. The President needs to make a statement when the appropriate offseason reviews are done and changes made or arranged. Until then, unity is vital and stirring things up when you lose isn’t.

I really hope these are summations because if he actually called it a bump as part of his defense he's already lost.

He’s as good as Tracc at his best, maybe even better at times because he can really kick. But lazier, more consistently injured (if not currently recovering from major surgery) and all the off field baggage. It would be one of the strangest lateral-ish trades

I’d like to see evidence of his character is anything but fine, obviously that would be a factor. Our list is now in a different stage desperately needing to replace Gus, Nibbler, JJ (never replaced) as well as Hunter and effectively (if not entirely) Billings too. You can’t replace that kind of experience - and what should be 10+ list changes - just with kids. Of even with valuable players traded for picks. I’d have easily a dozen list changes which means picking up guys for nothing. I’d first focus on younger players keen for a second chance and state leaguers but there’s probably going to be at least 1 more dodgy veteran pick up.

Hunter was, but we didn’t see what was plain for all to see that he was spent, hence why the Dogs were pushing him out to begin with. Billings was always a myth.

I realise how low the bar is set but we’ve picked up Hunter and Billings the last two years it really can’t get any worse. For all his faults Zak might actually put his head over the ball. But yeah, he’s very low down an already ordinary list.

Brayshaw (veteran mid/wing) Peatling, Zak Jones, Setterfield, Nathan O’Driscoll JJ (defensive mid) Alex Davies, Sam Berry, Will Brodie, Finn Macrae, Parfitt, Phillips ANB (defensive forward) - Owies, Wicks, Matt Guelfi BBB - Tom Lynch! Membrey? Hibberd (back pocket) - Sean Lemmens, Ethan Hughes We’ve got to do some serious shopping at the discount bargain bin this year and try to beef up our depth. Obviously not many good players out of contract at this time of year so it won’t be great options but we need to grab up to 5 guys just to replace the experience we’ve lost. And if we can do it without burning too many picks we can get quality through the draft and inject them in to the side when they’re ready.

Trainor, Shanahan and Armstrong all look like guys you’d take in the top 10. If the state of our midfield and recent/future draft picks were different I’d be open to any of them.

My point is: Key forwards don’t need to be good at pressure. Their job is to jump at the ball and crash packs and they only need to do token amounts of pressure to defend their rival key backs. As a medium forward who doesn’t have the structural role of a pack crasher Fritsch has to defend his smaller running opponent. He has to be compared to similar medium forwards. Hayward, Ollie Henry, Rayner for instance. He does play deeper forward and a different role to those guys so I get the numbers won’t be the same. But the eye test of a guy who is so lazy to chase and an awful tackler is pretty clear.

Very roughly and I’ll change my mind 1000 times as we get more info and footage: Langford O’Sullivan Lalor Reid or Draper Smith I wouldn’t rule out a tall either, although the academy kid last year on the back of JVR and Jeffo makes a tall forward unlikely, you’d have to be completely in love with the pick.

O’Sullivan seems the standout athlete for mids with run and some decent pace, Draper the most zip, Lalor the power burst, Jagga Smith the clean link running. It’s very tricky because they all have different strengths and weaknesses.

He’s fantastic at getting first hands at the stoppage but I’m not convinced by what he does when he gets hands on the pill. When Langford gets hands on something happens. And outside the contest Smillie seems below par. Smillie reminds me of the bad Oliver games (this year and others) where purely getting the ball without any momentum or power in the legs doesn’t help you. But he could also be Cripps or Tom Green or the good Oliver who turn that first possessions in to drive.

If that was the logic we should keep Ben Brown, he’ll play the next 100! Lynch has a bad knee, but I don’t think it’s BBB level bad. A hammy injury this year might be related but you’d at least have hope it’s just bad luck and the good news is he was back training I believe, they just had no incentive to rush him back. If it was 2021 and we had the games best midfield and backline I’d be stoked about the plan to get a few games in to him early in the season, put him on ice through winter and fire him up around late July for a finals run. Thoroughly less enthused about that plan now.

Very different situation. The Suns needed that money off their cap, they were bursting. Richmond can easily afford to pay Lynch. The questions are: - Do they feel they owe Lynch the right to go play for a contender (or at least a not totally full rebuild club)? - Do they feel Lynch has benefit as a leader or is he just taking up time in the medical room and not connected with the young guys coming through? - Will they pay 500-800 of the deal to save 700-1M? That’s not an insignificant saving even with their cap not needing it. That’s a huge chunk of front loading on someone like Noah Balta, which then lets you pay top free agent money to anyone coming in down the track. Yze so far has seemed very benevolent to his older players and keen to turn the page quickly. I don’t think Richmond will just give Lynch up and pay a fat chunk of his salary, but I expect they’d actually pay 500-700 to move him on if they can snag a future 3rd rounder or something and bring in a young tall. The better the pick the more they’d pay.

Tell our CEO who’s yapping about needing a key forward. Petty back. A mature key forward to cover Jeffo/Disco would be ideal. If Richmond can swallow 5-750 of his 1.5 it’s worth a try if we can fix the midfield and flankers with some speed, skill and aggression

He didn’t have the tank for half back, he was never getting picked to play on ball this year. Half back was a good way to get him in the side given our lack of depth. Also got him an easy 25 touches a week at Casey. I hope he’s training as a mid/forward over summer.

One bad bomb to begin with. 4 of the other 5 inside 50 kicks shown hit the forwards in the hands. I’ll take 4 out of 6.