bing181

With Ryder gone ...

Wonder if there could be anything in this for us by way of a 3-way trade. Clark to Collingwood, Beams to Qld, Qld club player (or a pick) to Mel.

Yes, was going to add something along those lines! Which would tend to support the "trade your picks" argument, given that the chances of actually ending up with a top 10 player are so low. Bird in the hand and all that.

And because we want as much in return as we can get, and driving down his value isn't going to help that.

I believe the discussion was about plea-bargaining, not about responding to the SC notices: "I can understand the players' reticence at "plea bargaining" with ASADA ... Why would anyone plead guilty when they possibly are not?" You replied that "it is not a matter of pleading guilty". But in this case, if the players accept bans, they accept the charges that those bans are based on. i.e., that they doped.

Yes, but say that list goes back over 10 years or so. So, out of the 100 top 10 picks from the last 10 years, 7 of them are now top 10 players in the comp. 7 out of 100. IOW, yes, the top players are often top 10 picks - but it doesn't go the other way. Top 10 picks have a less than 10% chance of becoming top 10 players. Or, from the top 10 picks each year, around one of them will go on to become a top 10 player. (willing to have my maths dissected!)

You only have to go back to the Dank/Doctor Bates/AOD cream saga to verify that it probably was. It's also why he missed the (famous) Darwin training camp. One way or another, it's been an ongoing issue, certainly since the end of the 2012 season.

It is actually. If you accept the bans, even reduced ones, you accept the charges. This re the Cronulla players: "Cronulla captain Paul Gallen and 11 of his current and former Sharks team-mates on Friday accepted the bans backdated to November 21, 2013. They reluctantly agreed to admit doping rather than face the prospect of an even lengthier suspension over the club’s 2011 supplements programme."

Because if they wait another year, he can leave under FA and they risk receiving less (or no) compensation. His "go home" factor seems fairly strong. Also, they've taken a hammering with the loss of draft picks for 2012 and 2013, so there's a bit of a "lost generation" there, which they could help fill with another high pick, plus perhaps someone decent from the years they missed out (e.g. Toumpas). As an aside, I'd be disappointed to see Jimmy T leave - still early days for him, and he didn't go pick 4 for nothing. But ...

Examples?

I don't see it's that different to any normal court proceedings. First you get charged, then there's discovery where you see the evidence, then there's the actual court case when you get to challenge the evidence.

Not all - I have a couple of bombers acquaintances who are seething at the club's actions in response to what happened. On the other hand, much of what you see posted around the net leaves me gobsmacked. e.g. there are plenty still pedalling the "no positive test results, therefore they must be innocent" line.

... especially when he's been telling us all along that they didn't take anything they shouldn't have.

A few leaks in the dam wall perhaps: New push to dump James Hird from Essendon could see him sacked before Christmas As a view into how far off in Alice-in-Wonderland the Essendon Board and admin are, I particularly liked: "One of the 34 players issued a show cause notice told the Sunday Herald Sun that he was led to believe that the club would be certain to win its Federal Court case against ASADA and the notices would be set aside permanently."

But it's fairly true to form for Collingwood: Jolly, Q Lynch, Ben Hudson ... they like picking up mature-age talls. Also, both Saints and Dogs have a lot of younger players, and possibly don't want Mitch around.

That's just ridiculous. What, prey tell, could Mahoney have put into the separation agreement that would have avoided the current situation? At the end of the day, you can't make players stay, contract or not - look at Paddy Ryder. Not forgetting either, Mitch is contracted with us till the end of this year. If he feels up to playing, and isn't turning up at AAMI Park each day to get started on his preparation, that says a lot about Mitch, but not much about Mahoney or the club. But further to all that ... you're presuming that this is playing out in a way that is against the club's wishes and thus out of their control (or as you put it, down to their incompetence). I for one would suggest that that isn't the case, and that at end of the day, we don't want someone like Mitch Clark around the club. After all, here's a guy that's only in his mid-20's, and has already burnt 3 clubs (that includes Freemantle ... Lyon's comments say a lot as to what happened there). Collingwood think they can handle him. Arrogance or ignorance, but they can have him.

Perhaps, but even with a broken leg you can go to three doctors and get three opinions. IOW, Mitch can get (good) advice to support whatever cause of action he wants to follow. Stand by the a) there's more going on here than we know about and b) Mitch and his manager want more money than what we were prepared to offer.

Then they need to make their voices heard - there's still plenty of "we'll fight them in the trenches" talk around.

How anyone who hasn't been coached by Goodwin (or knows his coaching capabilities) can comment one way or another is beyond me. Process has been conducted with appropriate thoroughness by smart and experience people, including Roos - who, let's remember, put a premiership coach in place at the Swans. If it's good enough for Roos/Viney/Jackson/Bartlett, good enough for me.

Good to hear, because you even have your own site: http://www.notracistbut.com/tagged/wtf

And lost his right-hand-man and experienced second-in-command in Dean Bailey, first through suspension, then through cancer.

With Sanderson gone, presumably Dangerfield stays - surely that was the point of the exercise from the Crows' POV?

I don't know ... would the Crows go down the 'inexperienced' coach route just after sacking the last one? I get it that Goodwin is a favourite son, but especially if there are issues with senior players, surely they need a "senior" coach? Let's remember that Goodwin was still going to have 2 years under Roos before taking over at Melbourne. Too soon?

You would think so, even a few Adelaide supporters suggesting the same. But who else? Tudor? Was seriously in the running last time round if the rumours are true. Watch this space, especially if McKenna joins him.

Didn't see that coming, but why would I. So, re my post above, out of 4 coaches hired in 2011, only survivor is McCartney. As an assistant would make you think twice about going for the top job.