Rogue

Summary of Stynes press conference: The new Board has a focus on getting the finances right at the Club. As such, the job description has changed somewhat, and PM's strengths are not strengths the new Board is looking for in their CEO. The decision was discussed last night at the Board meeting, PM was spoken to. Was not announced last night to give PM some time to speak to his family etc, and Stynes then spoke to him again this morning. Stynes didn't want to go into detail on the reasons why PM was deemed unsuitable as candidate for the next 3-5 years. Admitted that lack of footy experience was a challenge for PM, but there was no major factor - it was a mix of things. Stynes said PM was a good guy, a genuine bloke doing his best after taking a big risk in taking on the job, and hope feels PM finds a new job that suits his strength. Stynes emphasised that PG and the previous board made the appointment, and Stynes said that he wasn't really part of the process, which disappointed him. Reported that the extent of his involvement was shortlisting candidates and having an informal interview with three applicants (incl. PM and Fox). PG then took over the process, and Stynes was unhappy that he wasn't involved with the latter stages. As such, Stynes said he couldn't comment on which of the candidates was the best choice. Normal talk about on-field - great group of young guys, very good optimism despite many injuries this year, and on DB "I believe we have a great coach".

I understand where you're coming from - you took the same tack when Stynes came to power - but I'd like to know how you'd like things to have been handled. I posted this in the previous thread on McNamee's potential departure, and would be keen to hear from you: He might have plans to replace the CEO or bring Schwab in as a consultant, as suggested. He might not. How would you like the Club to go about decision-making of this nature? Maybe I'm alone, but I don't want a running commentary of discussion on the tenure of staff played out in members emails or constant press releases. Let me get this straight - are you seriously suggesting that there may be plans to weaken the state of the Club's finances by firing staff and paying out their contract with the purpose not of improving our HR, but to increase debt?

Many times I've watched Morton receive the ball in a situation where it's inevitable that he'll get tackled, but the difference between him and some other players is that he generally makes an attempt to free his arms from the incoming tackle, so that he has a better chance of disposing of the ball. Based on some fans reaction, I think this might be seen by some as him trying to take the tackler on and failing, when he's making a decent effort at being able to dispose of the ball effectively (as opposed to a 'hot potato' handball to no effect).

Nice post - I agree with it all. bb should review #1

Jim Stynes announcement:

Of the eight listed, 6-7 of them would be in our best 22. On Grimes: Means he'd only have around three rounds at Sandy 1s level before the end of our AFL season, but if he's in form then I think he's an outside chance of getting a gig in the seniors.

If these are true, it's disappointing. I had no problem with him playing at Wimbledon, but an extra week while uncontactable is a little off. The failure to provide a business plan is more important, ofc. Very concerning. We need to get the best candidate possible. Hopefully people will be interested - I'd be concerned. If the SEN rumour - mentioned earlier in the thread - is correct, McNamee wasn't the #1 choice after this search, but PG took him on board.

He might have plans to replace the CEO or bring Schwab in as a consultant, as suggested. He might not. How would you like the Club to go about decision-making of this nature? Maybe I'm alone, but I don't want a running commentary of discussion on the tenure of staff played out in members emails or constant press releases. ...or perhaps his motive to write a story on the most newsworthy topic he could, since that's his job Let me get this straight - are you seriously suggesting that there may be plans to weaken the state of the Club's finances by firing staff and paying out their contract with the purpose not of improving our HR, but to increase debt?

Assuming the Club is considering replacing McNamee, or bringing in Schwab in some capacity, it's understandable that this isn't conducted via Members emails. I fail to see why you're blaming the Club for conjecture in the media. It's unsurprising that we're not privy to the meetings of Stynes and co., for instance. IIRC you took the same sort of tack when Stynes was looking to become President - these aren't things often played out in public.

Interesting. Deals with the financial issues surrounding hiring a consultant, and paying our McNamee.

That's what I'd like to see, if that lessens the clash. As I've said before, we'd have had less clash with St. Kilda at TD if we'd worn our normal strip + home shorts, than we did with the 'clash' strip.

I find the somewhat contrived nature of the conflict between the members of the show quite boring, and have barely watched it. I don't think Archer's a right fit for that type of show, though. Not sure whether he's really suited to any type of footy show, actually.

If the majority of councillors weren't in favour, there'd be nothing to scuttle - that's moot. The fact that it's a local council issue doesn't mean the State Gov won't get involved - there is a Minister for Local Government for a reason. Any more substantive reason you doubt the State Gov will scuttle the plan?

That's a little different to a replacement.

We may not strike fear into them, but iirc our inside 50 'efficiency' has been very good. Easier to cobble together a working forward line than it is a midfield, as you've said.

Us? IMHO he was so far beyond what Sylvia's shown so far it's not funny, and I imagine the majority would agree.

It means Casey councillor Kevin Bradford wants the State Government to scuttle the plan, based on a review Bradford hopes the Auditor-General will conduct after he gives them a report on the plans.

Correct. I imagine that's exactly why some people would entertain a trade.

I was surprised when I saw 'The Age' rate Davey as 'untouchable'. For those who didn't see the article, there was a discussion re: trading and what teams looked for in those they wanted to pick up, as well as how you choose to trade particular players. Each team was profiled, and a few players were mentioned under three categories - untouchables, trade bait (or something similar), and those who had no value. From memory - Untouchables McDonald - spirit of Club Davey - young, exciting, and marketable face in a Club that needs marketable players Trade potential Miller - his height may attract interest Sylvia - social issues No value White Bruce Yze Robertson

Why would Geelong do that?

I haven't seen them play, but I'd also lean toward Watts. However, what makes you think that Freo are going to finish below us?

White and Yze both not named in the 'best', despite a big win, doesn't bode well. Good to see Holland back and firing. Carroll's in decent form too, it seems.

Not that it means much, but commentators on SEN (?) post-match also suggested that 'the word' was that WCE wanted Rich.

Absolutely!

Correct. It's why I think we're clearly a less than 50% chance of making finals next season. It was disappointing to watch - particularly as I missed the first quarter - but not entirely unexpected.