DeeSpencer

It’s either Andy Brayshaw now or we’ll wait for next year (at a minimum). No way we move him for picks.

I’m sorry but when the reports are that Tracc has a major problem not with the coach or players but with the club as a whole the President can’t sit back and allow him to speak purely with some combination of Pert/Richo/Goody and the players. She has to roll up the sleeves and talk to Tracc directly. Chain of command is all well and good if the people along the chain are working and the people at the bottom are expendable. But we’ve got a star player and the staff in the middle aren’t fixing it. Everything else Roffey said was fine. Her lack of direct action on Tracc js either a lie or horrendous leadership. Not sure which is worse!

Things are really bad when that clown bobs up.

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.

If we could get McKay and Cerra for example, fully fit prime Clarry and then use pick 5 on a ready made mid that would be enough to at least think about keeping the ball rolling. We don’t have to be Melbourne 2021 to win the flag the way things are looking this season. But it’s certainly a very narrow path to keep going without Tracc. A sub 24 year old star on the rise is the more logical conclusion if we could identify and snag one. Otherwise just pack it in.

I’m inclined to agree on the McKay part, unless it’s part of a bigger trade that gets us back a very good ready made midfielder as well as tremendous confidence with Oliver.

Logical reasons: N. Daicos. The coach/game plan/general fitness of the side. Otherwise sure there’s age concerns. And Im sure he’d look past them for the big crowds, big sponsorships etc. But N Daicos alone puts Collingwood closer to a flag than we are.

Remember when we nearly had Tracc killed I said we needed to announce an investigation, find some room for improvements in our medical protocols and show Tracc a little love. Did that happen - no. I’ve also been saying all year Gawn’s time was up and it was well and truly time for a fresh captain. Nope, didn’t happen. I don’t agree with what he’s done but maybe Tracc will change his tune if we put someone in to the head of footy or CEO roles who represents a fresh voice with new ideas. Why would you want to stay to play out your remaining prime years at a club that’s clearly in decline?

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

No but there’s not a lot of management coming either. Where’s the work done to make sure Tracc and the club never got to this stage. Same guys manage Clarry.

By the way, we took on Paul Connors’ biggest problem child in Hunter and one of his biggest flops in Billings and gifted them a bunch of games and he’s not exactly rewarding us here. Player managers are such slippery 🐍

He can rent Max’s old food truck and film TikTok’s on the way to Casey! Im not buying it’s an issue. I am buying that he saw our crowds of 15,000 against GWS and Port and said bugger coming back to play for these quitters. As fans we quit faster than the players did!

Be interesting to time up the travel time from Tracc’s place in an inner south east suburb to Carlton 4 days a week (35-60 minutes), vs to Gosch’s 2 days (15-25 mins) and Casey 2 days (45-1hr). Net result would be negligible.

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.