Slartibartfast

Barassi didn't come to us under the father son system.

I'm of the view that it would be hypocritical of the AFL to sanction us for bringing the game into disrepute in the way we did and then give us draft picks. For that reason I find it hard to see us getting them. If you're not of that view it's much easier to see us getting them. Justice must seen to be done, therefore I doubt we'll get one. But it's just a stab in the dark really.

I have no idea if we will get a pick or not but I favour the Essendon/Adelaide option and not pick 1. Pick 1 is emotive whereas if we got pick 8 or 10 and one in the twenties it's not so "in your face" to the opposition, leaves them in the same position as if Adelaide or Essendon still had their picks and IMO is better for us because it's much easier to trade those picks than pick 1. I mean, if we got pick 1 it would be very very hard to pass on Boyd. Trading pick 8/10 and one later is much easier to achieve. It's a really interesting issue from an AFL POV. Having Roos also gives the AFL some confidence that those picks will be traded for established players and that will hasten our improvement. Some would say that the AFL giving us a PP is irony and other hypocrisy. Demonlanders would just say it's proper!

I have to think you're tongue in cheek here Redleg! Anyway I'm surprised that the clubs are trying to stop us getting pick 1. If pick 1 is Boyd and he is as good as everyone says why would the other clubs want that pick to go to GWS? They have a list of future stars whereas we have a list of below average AFL players. In the event we keep Boyd then we will be less threat to them than if GWS get him. But even more compelling is that Roos has a history of trading pick, unlike GWS. And we have very specific needs, unlike GWS. So if we were to get Boyd then other clubs rich in players like Sydney, Hawthorn, Geelong and Freo have a great opportunity to package something and get Boyd. I'm surprised the top clubs care. When you get to pick 14 or so you usually get your man and one pick isn't going to change that much. My feel is that a lot of this is pandering to their supporter bases. I mean if I was a Geelong supporter I wouldn't give a stuff that Melbourne got something - we're no threat and they know that the sooner we get better the better off the whole competition will be.

Jack Watts to play so well Ben Hur has to cut and paste his "I was wrong - again" post.

Not everyone DD. But I'm on board with Roos, Jackson and hopefully Bartlett although I know little if anything meaningful about him. I was always concerned with Neeld and his approach, too much stick and no carrot - or put another way, the emotional intelligence of a gnat. Sucked most in I agree.

At least there are a few above who recognize the issue. If it was Carlton getting assistance in this manner there would be outrage here. But the facts are clear. The AFL's job is to maximise the competition and while we are performing the way we are we are hurting it. And our incompetence in selecting players in the past has provided other clubs with much better picks, a fact they ignore. Our performance warrants assistance on that there can be no argument, but I can see "the elephant in the room". It's a real issue. Those that can't are just blind.

How many times have you said that in the last 38 years?! Welcome Paul. Good luck.

Clark and Dawes are injury prone and on inflated salaries. Not worth much. On your theory you wouldn't trade Hogan. We don't have another power forward. No team gives away established A grade mids and a player must agree to a trade. A graders are usually very well treated, have a loyalty to their club and don't want to move. We might get a good young mid wanting to return home but there will be competition and we will have to pay a high price. I think it's a doubtful proposition that we will get what you want and my proposition is more achievable. I also think that fair to good quantity is perhaps better than one quality mid.

I don't think clubs will give up stars for pick 1. If you believe GWS nobody would trade good players to them in the mini-draft. Much more likely would be pick 1 for a mid range mid (say Reddan) and a first or second rounder. I think that's a much more likely scenario.

I doubt I'll be any the wiser. The bloke is a stickler for confidentiality.

A sauce told me that some in the AFL would complain publicly about our compensation but internally wouldn't give a tinkers cuss. Anyway I'm having dinner with Paul Roos' accountant tonight but out of respect to people who are sick of "sauces" I'll be as quiet as a mouse! (I'm serious)

Dope.

I've seen Messiah's come to this club before. The best part for me is it confirms the AFL's determination to fix us.

Well done KC

I don't think that Brock's comments on their own would have been enough to justify the inquiry. I believe that his comments, when coupled with Bailey's, caused the investigation. Just a view.

I never took the time to notice. Nah, you got me. Apologies to Cam.

I don't agree that Schwab did many good things and when you had an opportunity to debate the issue your only offering was the repayment of debt and then closed the thread. I "glossed over" Gardner's $5m debt by stating "Gardner's Board inherited a $5 million debt, repaid much of it without relying on members only to see it re-establish itself in his last year." What did you want me to say? And how do you know what debt existed when McLardy/Schwab left, the results aren't in yet. Also Gardner didn't create the debt he just didn't eradicate it, something you've not recognized that I've seen. The $5m debt that existed at the end of the financial year in which Gardner left included such things as the payment to Paul McNamee which had nothing to do with Gardner. Given that Schwab in effect replaced McNamee you can hardly argue it was a good move. Anyway I'm glad you've moved on from the silly "faceless men" accusation and recognize the core failures of blokes you backed. As for the "poorly run football department" I'd kill for one so badly run that it reached three finals series. Gardner oversaw more final series than we've won games this year! Not only that he did it on a shoestring compared with Schwab and McLardy.

You really do overestimate her impact. She didn't get anyone fired. To think othewise is silly.

Should we wax lyrical over Cam Petersen instead? What about Jack Watts, you've posted on him a few times and you think he's very ordinary. Whatever floats your boat I suppose.

It's because you are now looking at what she's saying rather than seeing her attacking your club. She was right about the tanking saga and she's right here. WJ continues to excuse our club for its questionable actions and extends that generosity to Schwab, McLardy and Connolly. No wonder we had such terrible management and performance. If we'd demanded higher standards right from the beginning we'd be much better off now. It's a lesson we should accept and not one we should continue to deny.

You're kidding right? Hird was primarily responsible for the implementation of a supplements program that at best he failed to supervise and manage appropriately and at worst was an illegal drug program. Either way he's put the careers and health of his players at risk. The program was so poorly managed that the Club and club doctor can't even tell you which players took what supplements. Hird is being portrayed as a hero by Burnside because he accepted a 12 months suspension and EFC have been stupid enough to extend his coaching tenure by 2 years the day he was found guilty. Wilson calls him out on it and highlights the stupidity of the situation. She's not being some sort of moral arbiter, she's expressing the concerns of the majority of clear thinking people. Think about it. You've an employee who has disgraced your club and threatened the health of your players, cost you $2 million and draft picks and admits his involvement in it and you extend his contract the day he's found guilty. Far from being a moral arbiter Wilson has been mild in her critique. If it was anyone but Hird you'd never see them in football again.

All good Redleg, sick of the footy but we all are. I'm also sick of the Essendon situation and the election campaign. Let's hope all are sorted in a week or so. By the way, your response didn't surprise me!

Thanks for the clarification. So in reality the penalties now dealing with failures of Governance are additional to anything coming from WADA/ASADA.

Thanks. So in summary is it right to say: Any negotiated settlement between the AFL and Essendon can be overruled by WADA who can impose their own penalties including penalties on the Club and its non playing employees (which is what I read the post I initially responded to to say) The ACC have powers to prosecute Essendon and its employees (and obviously Danks et al). ASADA can ban the players and has little if any choice but to impose bans if they are found to have taken banned drugs. If point three is correct, what will they do in the situation where the drugs given to players was not uniform and there are no records of which drugs were given to which people. It would be evil if Trenners got rubbed out because he was the only person to identifiably taken a banned drug and the Bomber players can't.