P-man

It's hard to imagine him having a more impressive start to his role. Super slick. jumbo - you on the PJ train yet?

One pick? ONE pick is going to do that? It will remove the last skerrick of dignity this club has. We'll be hated alright, but there'll be absolutely no respect attached to it. Whatever floats your boat.

Agreed. A change is what was needed, clearly, but some of the comments are well out of line.

I know I shouldn't be, but I'm still chuckling at the sheer insanity of talking about winning over the "Motor Enthusiast" and "Sports Party". Parliament is a circus anyhow, but this is just crazy for these Mickey Mouse acts with their platforms of "mateship" and "taking pride in our vehicles" to become MPs. Glen Lazarus is now a Senator ffs. Are they even going to show up? Palmer has his fingers in a million pies, figuratively and literally. If this isn't a trigger for reform then I don't know what is.

Howey's mark against West Coast where he was running back with the flight should've at least made the final cut ahead of Elliott's. Of those three, definitely Schultz's against us. He got up very, very high.

Your take on what i say is truly bizarre. Stop putting words in my mouth to suit what you're saying. It is a point of reference because Roos is pretty much AFL funded and appointed, on a record salary. He is part of the assistance this club is receiving. Draft assistance would be in addition to that. It is also a point of reference because we are talking about how well placed this club is in becoming a competitive team.

Huh? Where did I say that? Nothing to do with semantics. Your line of argument the entire time has pretty much been that the club needs, deserves and should get draft assistance, and basically anyone who isn't in total agreement is an idiot. I have merely been more open minded in looking at the other sides of the argument. Certainly, I don't place as much importance on the acquiring of a priority pick as you do, especially in light of a Roos appointment with no doubt quality assistants to come, coupled with the club's history in treating high draft picks as the answer to its woes, but I'm also not criticising anyone for thinking there is a case for it, or it should be asked for. This is what PJ said: "The issue for us, to expose the elephant in the room, is what happened earlier this year with the tanking investigation. It's the sensitivity of it. We understand that. We get it. Unfortunately that may cloud the issue, but the reality of it, you do the investigation of this club's performance over the past 4 to 7 years, you'll agree I think there's a pretty powerful argument." "We understand that. We get it." Not exactly the total dismissal you claim.

Next.

Yeah, but they weren't stupid enough to offer him a 3 year deal.

Because a coach of his standing and reputation for bringing the best out of players surely affects the equation in terms of the degree of need. As far as good starts go, he's as good as it gets. I'm not saying it cancels out the need altogether, I just wondered if you gave it any thought. Apparently not. You keep citing PJ's request, as a newly introduced CEO, as some kind of a lay down misere for the club deserving a PP. PJ's job is to make this club better. With the case for a PP based on performance, he would be almost remiss in his duties to not at least put forward the request. That does not automatically mean that the arguments against have no merit, or supporters who have reservations about it are "foolhardy". If you put so much emphasis on what PJ has stated, then he himself acknowledges publicly that the elephant in the room clouds the issue. I'm not sure how you two are "peas in a pod" either, btw.

So, you think that being successful in a plea for further assistance will be a show of strength... Okay, let me ask you this: has the appointment of Paul Roos influenced your thinking on this at all?

Couldn't agree more. I'm glad to see this sort of view being expressed in a bit more numbers on here.

Of course it's relevant. We're talking about effectively fraudulently acquiring a PP that year, and the debate is about the merits of awarding another one. Anyone who isn't completely blinkered on this issue would acknowledge its relevance. Again, it's a matter of how much weight is given to it, not whether it is relevant or not.

And this is what it boils down to. It's well overdue for this club to make its first, second and third priority, that which happens ON the field, and the selection of captain needs to reflect that. I actually think Jones has improved quite a bit in the other components. He may not be as eloquent as Dawes, or Grimes, but he speaks with passion without speaking out of turn, and he clearly loves this club. I think he'd be a fine captain. One to be proud of as a supporter.

It partly depends on how much weight they give to the "elephant in the room". There's no denying we've set the bar for being shithouse, but there could hypothetically be a team that endures a sustained period of failure that doesn't engage in "conduct unbecoming". The worst punishment the club received was the investigation itself, which no doubt took its toll, but the fine is a bit of a joke when effectively the AFL is paying it off with the league's best available coach thrown in as steak knives. The case for a PP is strong, but clouded. I no longer care if we get it or not, I'm just sick of it. The club's reputation and standing in the game is utter dirt, and this isn't helping. Would be quite happy for PPs to be ditched and never spoken of again.

I can see the logic to this argument. I'd be happy with this, but I think there's very little doubting who this club's prominent, and sometimes sole on-field leader is. Nathan Jones is the MFC to me.

Jones. Grimes as Vice.

Let's hope they don't blow it.

This one remains my favourite.

He's still switching between "we" and "they". Stick with "we" Roosy. You're a Demon now son.

I listened to his B&F speech for any hints of where his head was at. He joked about it being his third 5th placing, but followed that up with a comment about it being time he improved on that. A logical conclusion to draw from that is that he intends to stay, and to better his performance. On the flipside, he went on to reflect on his 10 years at the club, whilst making mention of the youth coming through, and the fact the club was in good hands for the future. There was no affirmation of wanting to stick with the club and help drive it towards success, like with Jones and Garland. The manner in which he spoke had a hint of a farewell speech about it. All in all, still anyone's guess. I won't be shocked either way at this point. Personally I hope he stays, and if I had to provide a tip, I think he will.

Signed and sealed. I agree that, exciting as he is, the club needs to be wary in using a kid yet to play a single AFL game as a promotional tool. Trengove also isn't going to inspire many to sign up, captain or not. Hurts to say, but his next season would want to be a hell of alot better than the last two, otherwise questions need to be asked about the value of keeping him. A "bona fide AFL midfield" as Roos calls it can't carry Trengove in his current state.

No doubt.

Surely there's no doubt over whether he's ahead of Tapscott. Clearly right now, he is. Hopefully he develops into that bullocking midfield-forward of the Chapman mould. Pretty much what we hoped Tapscott would become. All that said, all bets are off under Roos and an elite (forgive me for using that word) coaching group. Several players could emerge in 2014 - Blease, Strauss, Tapscott et al.

Hahaha.. "Welcome back Brock. Loved your work on On the Couch."