bing181

Less than what it would cost if we did nothing and let the AFL impose whatever fine they wanted?

Clubs get seven days to respond to charges. No charges yet against Melb, and won't be any before next commission meeting at the earliest. As that's next Monday, no time for us to have our 7 days before the draft. As above, think this will play out more around Xmas time. Come on down, Ollie Wines.

Not to mention, after the debacle that was their end-of-season, Port (new coach, new fitness guru, new players etc. etc.) will be keen. Let's not forget that they were more than respectable for the first half of this year. Hopefully a win for the Dees, though I think it's going to depend on the stars aligning over the off-season, especially in regards to injuries. If Clark isn't back, and we lose the likes of Sylvia and/or Frawley, could be a bit of an ask.

When was the last time he did a full pre-season, and was ready round 1? Been a while ... if ever. Even now he's training away from the main group. Perhaps (probably) no fault of his own, but can't help him get to where he needs to be.

Let's just hope that he makes a recovery from the injury.

And, from the inside, a players p.o.v.: "Rodan said he was impressed with Melbourne as soon as he met coach Mark Neeld"

I would hate it if we took Player X at #4 and then in a few years Player Y turns into an absolute A grade gun (Which i think he will) while Player X becomes a just another B grade hard working mid. Decisions are made on the basis of available information.

I don't know that Neeld is focusing on his contract per se, what he's doing just seems to reflect common sense in addressing shortcomings at the club. I don't really buy the idea that the mature recruits we've grabbed are there for short-term gain. Perhaps that'll be a side benefit, but for me, they're mainly there to provide role models and leadership, something we've sorely lacked for the last ... what ... 5 years? I still see our trading as being primarily about development, and the Rodan interview seems to confirm that.

To help develop the younger players.

The Richmond game was horrid? We've had whole seasons worth of horrid games for quite a while now.

And IF that's not how it went down, your post is irrelevant.

I'm not even sure what role the assistant coaches could have had in this. Bailey was head coach, and ultimately called the shots. If he's steadfast that he never gave instructions to lose, by whatever means, hard to see how much further down the line it could go. Presumably tanking would come about primarily through match day coaching, which was all Bailey's call. The outcome of the enquiry seems to hinge on whether or not CC deliberately (and not as a joke) instructed the FD to lose matches.

As if it would have made a difference against the future grand finalist - they only won by 8-odd goals.

I agree, but I also feel that the "can he coach" question often obscures and simplifies what being a coach at an AFL club - or any kind of CEO/leader/director - entails. A successful coach could be a strong leader, motivator, team player, tactician, or a fitness and physical science expert, developer of players, a good organiser and maximiser of abilities. For me, the concrete and visible steps Neeld has taken in revamping the FD (with others of course), of identifying and addressing shortcomings in the playing list and mapping out a path forward with a clear model (creating an elite, hard-nosed culture) already marks him out as a someone who "can coach". Unfortunately, the BS we've had to put up with this year somewhat obscures the positive and concrete steps that are being taken, albeit mainly behind closed doors.

Not to side-track the thread, but .... technically perhaps not, but in reality they were exempt from penalty. Their bans were delayed to allow them to complete the last season, and only really cover the off-season. They'll be back next year as if nothing happened. The only one who has been sanctioned by his team (sacked) is Leipheimer, the others still actively involved can continue as normal. Not supporting Armstrong or anyone involved, but the whole case was the opposite of McClardy's "natural justice".

Agree with most of your post (as always ....). For the last part, at least you included "apparent". As with everything that's going on now, it's just a cesspool of rumour, innuendo and speculation, all fueled by a generous helping of fabrication. When asked about this earlier in the year, Neil Craig made the point of saying that there was no interference in the FD from Schwab or the Admin.

Unbelievable. And people think the Labour Party and their back room factions are bad ... "But of course, it's all "for the good of the club"." Poison.

That depends how much weight you want others to give your opinions.

I knew (re) opening this thread would be a mistake. My god, so much tripe.

It's worthy of a merge?

Don't bother then. I'm a proud Dees supporter, proud of what we've achieved, and prouder still of what we've managed to do in the last 12 months. Harden up.

Come on, every club, administrator, athlete in every sport pushes the boundaries to try and get a leg up on the competition. The club was only doing what other clubs were (in various guises) in trying to get the best out of a set of rules that were wide open for manipulation. Look at what GWS have done with the draft and U17 picks - the way they've used them is NOT in keeping with what they were designed to achieve (i.e., on-trade to bring in experienced players and "stars"). Look at what's happened with Adelaide and Tippett. Look at the criticism of MFC for taking Byrnes under FA - now that everyone suddenly realises that you're better off NOT getting players in under FA, rather waiting for them to be delisted - which goes completely against what FA was designed to achieve. Look at even what happened with Viney, where there has obviously been a 3 way deal so that GWS get 1, 2, 3, and the Suns were effectively offered a "sweetener" by GWS to not take Jack. Not to mention in regard to Viney, the number of posters who came on here and proposed (seriously) any number of dodgy and even blatantly illegal schemes to make sure we got him in the second round. Human nature. Like most of us here, I'd be disappointed if the Dees weren't looking to get the most benefit for the club out of every scenario, whatever it is.

But why? Schwabb (and presumably Connolly) must have realized that the direction the FD was headed was taking us nowhere. Everything that's emerged since ... that the players were effectively coaching themselves, that the levels of fitness were way under what was required, etc. etc. OK, not the job of the Admin to interfere in FD matters. But if they were in fact working to make changes and even get rid of Bailey, surely they were doing the right thing in putting the club first, as opposed to sitting on their hands and doing nothing?

If they don't post, how do you know what they like?You speak only for yourself.

a) no they haven't, they've done what many (most?) here have been asking for for a while B) question away, but then don't complain when you don't like the answers Gysberts and Martin - not a problem. A cheap way of delisting contracted players who didn't have a future under Neeld.