Rogue

For starters, there's probably a Mummy and a Daddy. Prendergast was referring to the families of Daniel and Nicholas. I think you'll find that the family of Daniel Rich share the 'Rich' name - likewise with Nicholas and his family. PS. I know what you're getting at, but that's not the case in this quote.

When you got to this point, maybe you could have decided not to click the 'post' button

I'd suggest that if anything, this deal will further root us in Victoria. Having read most of the Casey-related posts, I can't remember that view being pushed by (m)any. It's certainly not a worry that for me. More like Waverley IMO. Perhaps we could play the odd game there in future *shrug

What cost is there? Do we need to reimburse the players for sending them to a school etc? Are the costs anywhere near what we decide the 'appearance fee' is worth? I don't know any of the details, but I don't really put much stock in the $600,000 figure. We may incur some 'real' costs, but I can't see that there'll be anywhere near the $600,000 mentioned. I think of it as an investment in building support in the Casey area. Although there doesn't seem to be much progress. we haven't canned the rectangular stadium. The Club has continued to say that our home is in Melbourne. It's planned that Casey will be our summer training venue (not our permanent all-year-round base).

I think it's set up as 3 x 10 -- I imagine we have the option to continue/cease (but am not sure). However, what's the cash-strapped part got to do with it? The '$600,000' worth of community involvement is like the '$100' worth of calls on a mobile plan -- the dollar figure's virtually meaningless. It wouldn't be much good if we were turfed out after 10 years for a different team, left with no 'area' to build a supporter base. If we want to build support in Casey, we need to be there for the long haul.

No, it's not. Criticisng what happens next year is fine - but deciding now that x factor is definitely the cause if we fail in 2009 is bizarre. No disagreement here. So now 'game plan' is a handy phrase for you to use which can cover any and all on-field factors? If that's your definition, then it probably will be 'game plan' which decides how well we do, since you're using it to cover so many factors! No, I'm meaning sub-standard - falling short of a standard or norm. I think it describes where our list is at the moment perfectly. However, I do think many players have the potential to improve. Over the last two years we've lost guys like Bizz, Ward, Brown, Pickett, Godfrey, Ferguson, Johnstone, Holland, White, Yze, and Neitz. While they may not have been world-beaters (particularly at the end of their career), they were normally somewhat competitive. As we saw in 2008, this was - understandably - more than could be said for some of our young guys on occassion. I'm certainly not unhappy that we're 'playing the kids', but many of them will still be pretty green next year. In the perfect world we'd have more experienced guys in our 22, let alone as depth. Given that, I think it's a fair call to state that our list is a long way behind that of many other Clubs. Okay, but what do you take from the other 20-odd? On balance, we were terrible and deserved to finish down the bottom of the ladder. I think we'll be more competitive (reflected in a much better %), but don't expect us to win many more games. I also won't make an assertion today that if we struggle next year, it must be due to x factor.

I don't really rate our list as it is right now (in terms of expected performance), but I think it has plenty of potential and am hopeful we'll have success in a few years. However, I don't expect to see success soon because we're going to be relying on pretty inexperienced players in key roles, and we have a lack of depth.

Yeah, that was great :D

Even without the benefit of hindsight, those pundits made a terrible prediction. We were only ever going to go in one direction after '06, and it wasn't up.

That's a pretty broad statement... I fall into the category of 'folk who pay their money', and I'm not prepared to now put the blame on 'game plan' if we win few games next year. I felt we'd be in for a tough year in 2008 and I was right, but that was a prediction based on our list, not projections about the likely success of the 'game plan'. Btw, your 'game plan' comment has suddenly become 'game plan and execution' - a fair difference IMO. Surely inability to 'execute' can be due to a sub-standard list? Why? We just finished last, and Club figures like Stynes and Connolly admit finals are likely a 3-5 year proposition. We'll continue to play - and rely on - inexperienced kids in important positions and they'll be inconsistent. As in 2008, our lack of depth will mean that any injuries hit very hard. Take our ruck division - it's sub-standard atm, and we have a distinct lack of depth (our third ruck couldn't crack a regular Sandy 1sts game). Given that, I think it's a fair call to state that our list is a long way behind that of many other Clubs. PS. Who's Farmer?

By who? If we only win four, it's not necessarily the game plan. Our list is a long way behind many of the other teams. I expect us to be much more competitive (%) than this year, but I'm not sure that'll be reflected in the wins/losses. PS. When it comes to the draft, I don't think comparisons from 15 years are are very relevant, considering the advancements in talent scouting/recruiting.

Absolutely. Ah well, that's cricket.

I imagine many who are going to the grand prix will think that's enough excitement for them in one day <_<

I agree entirely.

Absolutely. I thought his line re: recruiting - pick players who can play in a flag for you - were fair enough. Btw, is all criticism 'undermining'?

You've got to be kidding me. Edit: Not that I go to the grand prix, but a clash against a 'major' event is never good.

Four wins will be far better than 5-6.

Huge mistake, isn't it? India would have been 5/236 with 20 overs left in the day.

We already have a fair few assistants/development coaches IIRC. In case you hadn't noticed, we're not exactly flush with money :D

Clubroom access is currently a perk of premium membership access.

That's certainly not consistent with your characterisation of the AFL in your previous post I'd also suggest that above a certain level, pouring money into drug testing has significantly diminished 'returns' when it comes to the 'return' in positive public perception. Despite controversies that the AFL's experienced lately, I don't think that there's a common view amongst Average Joe supporter that the sport is rife with 'drug cheats'. If that was the prevailing view it would be very damaging to the sport - think cycling. However, IMHO if there's a view within the public about the prevalence of drugs in AFL, it's more likely to be about 'social' drugs rather than 'performance enhancing' drugs. Btw, I'm still keen to know about how lax the AFL's drug testing regime is in comparison to other codes - I'm not sure your assertion is correct.

He is - old news! I hope your feeling isn't based on that article. It certainly brings nothing new to the table when it comes to the 2009 captaincy debate.

I think that's the most damning praise you can heap on a player.

Ferguson. I have a feeling that with a big pre-season in the gym, he'll be a player.

How many codes test for drugs that aren't classified as 'performance enhancing'? It's easier to justify expenditure if there's a likelihood of return. I'm not a West Sydney fan and am pretty skeptical of the case for a team out there, but you can argue a case for investing in the project. Drug tests are simply a cost.