Slartibartfast

Mine is. I'll be there on Sunday and for every match this season. This inept Board and coach are not our club and are merely passing players who will soon be gone. One day we might learn, but if we don't so what, I'll still support.

Some recognized this sooner than others but were dismissed as vendetta driven. I feel for the supporters, not because of not being told the truth on Dank, but for being fed so much hope and swindled. But the easiest thing to sell is hope to a fractured club. I strongly suspected it was all rot, but of course that was not the message people wanted. To Jack's comments. I couldn't give a rats clacker that members were lied to, it may have been done for the right reasons. But to lie to the AFL is inexcusable.

I want it put on record that I think the club is responding well to the situation at the moment. That game is Neeld's 186 and at least McLardy and Schwab have learned that the process they went through with Bailey was horribly flawed. Neeld has the first half of this season to save his job and he should be told that now. He carries Schwab's job in his back pocket. McLardy should arrange a succession plan with another member of the Board but he should stay. He's a good person and a tireless worker but he doesn't have the gravitas we need our Chairman to have. The MFC should look for some experienced football people for the Board, preferably from another club who has had success. We should be talking with the AFL about a possible replacement for Schwab. All is not lost but the hole that has been dug is bigger than I expected. IMO the only hope Neeld has of saving the situation is to somehow instil some confidence in the players who are without confidence, flair or hope at the moment after 18 months under him. It's sad to see the careers of so many good players being threatened by what's happening. Neeld has done many good things in his time so far but unfortunately to date coaching isn't one of them. I hope he can turn it around.

I do.

I've just listened to Caro and Waitley and it's quite different to the views I've read on here. Everybody here is worried about the garnish but the real crux of the matter is not that we tanked which is widely accepted but firstly that the club allowed it to be openly discussed at the time meaning that many many people knew it was a club policy clearly articulated (generally accepted here) but coupled with this allowed the FD and administration to become so divided that the disaffected people who felt so mistreated by the divisions and power plays were prepared to talk extensively and were motivated by revenge against those still at the club. It was a failure of management. If we'd managed the process OR managed the people we'd be home free. But we didn't do either. That's the crux of it. I think the discussion on Offsiders was right on the money.

I don't know the answer but it would have been hard to have less resources. He was a paradox in a way. He was very ordinary with early picks but got a lot of good ones late. In the first RD he recruited Robbo, Junior, Nathan Bassett, Ward and Bishop. He picked up Woey, Rigoni,;Nathan Brown, Whelan, Bruce, Jolly and Jamar with late picks. But he failed terribly with his early picks and that killed us. It's ironic that close to his best, Scotty Thompson, didn't get on with the coach and is/was exactly what we need.

I note this from our website about our footy recruiting department Craig Cameron did all their jobs when he was at Melbourne. There was no list management committee.

It's a depressing team. That midfield would struggle to be top quartile in todays competition. To think that in 25 years we can't cobble together a better midfield than that tell us why we haven't been able to win a flag.

Perhaps to a degree yes, but shyte happens.

I understand that but the general footy public don't see it in those terms and I doubt the AFL did. They may now having had significant discussions with us. This is a branding exercise to the AFL, they don't give a rats toss that we got an extra draft pick. And the man in the street thinks we cheated. That's the issue and that's what Caro's on about.

I spoke to a long time MFC supporter yesterday and he said "we tanked". I said "it depends on the definition". He said "we didn't try and win". That's what Caro is editorializing. What WJ and Redleg are doing is acting in accordance with their training and profession. They are mounting legal arguments to get us off. It's probably one time I hope the law is an ass in our favour.

The nice thing is that when you stop beating your head against a brick wall it stops hurting after a while. You may wish to consider it. Sorry Redleg, I hadn't seen your earlier post.

AFL give us terrible draws, remove our funding, don't guarantee our loans and at the end of the TV rights period we are the Tassie Demons. We've got the lowest number of supporters in the AFL, we are expendable. You really don't get it.

Or sometimes you have to live to fight another day.

Firstly we may lose the club. You really don't get the relationship we have with the AFL do you. Secondly we may lose the court case.

What if CS and CC instructed Bailey to tank but he didn't do it?

It's not an easy situation and you only have to look at Matt Rendell to see why. If Bailey refuses to cooperate the AFL go to Adelaide FC and just point out that his decision is putting stress on the AFL/AFC relationship and given past recent events that is not desirable. It would be in their best interest to part company with Dean. I have sympathy for DB's situation re "following orders" but he was senior enough to carry a portion of the responsibility of those orders or simply not to follow them.

I actually think they can do it better than most. I'm surprised you can't see that what is at stake here, as well as the merits of each individual issue, is the overall image or "brand" of the AFL. Most would recognize, you may not, that the drug issue at present represents a significant threat to the brand of the AFL. This plays into our hands as the AFL would be loath to be fighting "brand" issues on the drug issue and have the tanking issue going to court as well which circumstances of tanking being linked to more than one club. Sometimes things are more complex than they seem Robbie.

I would have thought most would realize that these negotiations would be fluid and that the situation and outcomes will change all the time. In your post you've recognized that he has changed his position in the last few weeks, What is surprising about that? The events of the last week would almost certainly have impacted on the possible outcomes we will face as will each individuals response to any deal offered.

I don't know what he didn't like about Dal Santo. I shouldn't have said anything. My bad but we wouldn't have had Dal Santo and that was the point I wanted to make. Both Neale and Craig were/are very strong charactersl but Craig recognized that Neale was the boss and did what he was asked.

You'll have your moment in the sun if you're correct. Just save it. It sounds quite possible to me.

No, I was told in confidence but he didn't particularly fancy Dal Santo.

That's not correct.

List management to gain draft picks is "wrong" in the generally accepted sense IMO. List management to freshen players up for finals, resting players during the year as Geelong has regularly done is fine if it is to maximize the chances of success in that year. List management to lose a game to have you better placed for finals (ie "selecting opponents") is really tricky but in essence I think is ok but TBH I'm not sure. Players doing anything but their best (in contrast to list management) is unacceptable in any circumstances.

It's a non issue. People can make up there own mind. Most have and I don't care.