Slartibartfast

Thanks.

Thanks Ivor, I wasn't criticising, I was just interested. It would be interesting to know who Chris thinks is trying to pot him. I could understand it being some who left but the article specifically said "within the MFC". Very interesting and not good news I'd have thought.

His description maybe of little substance but he is doing a mountain of work behind the scenes which may benefit the club significantly in future years. Your initial comment was that if the conspiracy was from within the MFC his position was untenable. Your answer to me discussed the AFL. If people within the MFC are conspiring against him what would you do?

Ben what have you thought of Taggert this PS. I like him but it's pretty much based on his game against BH (Box Hill) last year.

One of the things that strikes me this year is there are so few "certainties" compared to previous years - at least for me anyway. I'm conservative in my evaluation of young players so Viney and Toumpas don't fit the "certainty" category but it appears to me that we may only have 12 certainties at this stage.- Frawley, Garland, McDonald, Watts, Trengove, Howe, Clark, Sylvia, Dawes, Jamar, Jones and Grimes. There are clearly others who are very likely but even guys like Blease and McKenzie could be displaced by others unless they play close to their best. Even the Russian is under pressure from Spencer I reckon. Our improvement this year will come, hopefully, from the fact that Grimes, Watts, Blease, Strauss, Jetta, Bail, McKenzie, Trengove and Tapscott are reaching an age where they can become fair dinkum AFL footballers who consistently impact matches. I don't see that yet for our first and second year recruits. In addition of course we have picked up some mature age recruits and FA who will add depth. It's one of the more interesting PS we've had.

I tend to agree but what about those trying to get rid of him? Do you support the assassin or the assassinated?

Hey Daisy, I'm not saying there were 60 statements I'm pointing out that witnesses can make more than one statement. I'm not struggling at all because I'm not trying to prove anything, just adding clarity to the situation. FWIW I agree 60 statements seems a lot but we know the main players have been interviewed many times each.

Was it? Your answer seems to indicate it was. Robbie have the balls to back up your statements and if not stop making accusations you can't back up. They are very offensive.

It just might be possible that he said the same thing in multiple statement. That's just a guess but I'll go with it for now.

Lefty if it is indeed the previous Board who are leaking to the press can you tell me how they would be in receipt of the information? The AFL brief, as far as we know, was given to those with cases to answer who now appear to be the current Board as well as CC, CS and DB. Which one of them leaked the info to the previous Board, or was it the AFL. But if the AFL wanted the info leaked why wouldn't they just do it themselves.No, IMO it's nothing to do with the previous Board which will disappoint Robbie and his band. But what would seem to be true is the terrible divisions that split the club in 2011 have not been resolved. That the Board and CS should have allowed this to fester for so long is not encouraging.

This is rather ironic really. Sue suggesting the article be read carefully and then talking about 60 witnesses at a meeting attended by 12. If you read it carefully it says "60 witness statements". A witness can of course make more than one statement.

Robbie settle down. I purposely didn't respond to your question because in the first instance it was off topic but secondly it would only have led to some discussion of people at the club and their competence. Of course that is where you wanted me to go so you could accuse me of continuing my agenda so I ignored it. On another matter are you talking about me wanting the club to fail so that Neeld fails? Can you show me where I said this? Can you show me where I insinuated this? Are you able to back that up with evidence or is it just another hollow accusation?

I'll give credit to whoever got Craig and Misson. They were excellent gets and I suspect Neeld was pretty central to their decisions as they would have had to buy into his philosophy. I do think we stumbled. Had Ian Flack been at the club I doubt Liam would have gone to Alice by himself if at all. Other things were handled poorly not least the Misfud accusations. I don't want to go into more as it will seem like I'm pushing an agenda but I do think we are much better now than we were. If MN can coach then we've got an excellent result because he's learning quickly. Having said that I'm interested that descriptions of training don't seem to indicate we are using the whole field and I don't think we can compete until we do. Couldn't agree more. I think that one of the main areas of improvement will be the improvement in the coaching group. I'm a great believer that coaches take time to learn their trade and improve significantly in their first few years. It's why I wanted an experienced coach when we appointed Neeld because with such a young group I didn't want an inexperienced coach.

Is it the Board who has gone about the process of building support around him? Regardless of who it is I think the addition of Misson is excellent, he has a proven track record and we can be confident that what he does is AFL standard and probably at an elite level. His success at Sydney and Saints places him in the top group in a very important role. I've always liked Neil Craig and the way he handled the presser last week just reinforced my view. But nobody has really been able to tell me what he does and it's impossible to judge whether the high salary we are paying him is value for money. Despite him being there we stumbled from one footy disaster to another last year. I couldn't comment on Leigh Brown or the other assistant coaches because from a supporters view I don't think we can tell whether they are doing a good job. I was of the view last year and continue to hold the view that the coaching panel was very inexperienced which didn't complement a first year coach. BTW, Neeld may turn out to be good but there is a saying along the lines that their is nothing more dangerous than getting the right answer for the wrong reasons.

No it wouldn't because under a though methodology he would have been interviewed along with others. If he chose not to be part of that process then I'd not have blamed the club, but we should have asked him (and others). It was lazy and poor management that we didn't.

My comment to you weeks ago was that I thought you were a good supporter because of your passion and generosity. That I disagree with your views is of no concern. It's a shame you can't do the same because when you disagreed with mine you suggest the club would be better off without me. That is actually not supporting the club but you don't get that. I'm glad you agree that Stynes reappointed Bailey therefore endorsing Gardner's decision. As it turns out it was another of their poor decisions but I'll not blame them for it as I agreed at the time as well.

You're a worry Robbie, I genuinely think you've got a problem with diversity of view and are so racked with prejudice you can't see the argument for the person. Yes, Bailey was appointed by the Gardner Board in 2008 after a though interview process involving people from outside the club and from within it. Bailey then was reappointed in 2010 by the Stynes Board after two years "form". Unlike the Gardner Board who were appointing a person with no experience as senior coach the Stynes Board appointed someone with two years experience and who they had had the benefit of working with for two years. They had much more information to work with than Gardner. If you argue that Bailey was a poor coach then how much worse was the Stynes Board's decision to extend his contract? On your grounds the decision was terrible and yet you want to sheet the blame to Gardner. Bailey clearly made mistakes and Junior's dismissal was one of them. I've no problem recognizing his weaknesses and faults and I've said on many occasions I agree that he should have been replaced at the end of 2012. When replacing him I think the Board should have interviewed people like Sanderson, they should have asked Lyon if he was interested in the job, I'd have expected them to do a though job looking at all possible candidates. But they didn't and when appointing Neeld there wasn't one person on the selection panel who had coached a game of AFL footy. You might be happy with that but I'm not because it's shoddy and so far below best practice it's frightening. I've not included Neeld in the same group as Junior, Bailey's dismissal etc because I haven't formed a view on his ability as an AFL coach. There is much to like and much to question and I'll wait and see whether that turns out to be a good decision. But regardless we should have at least picked up the phone and spoken to other coaching candidates because while Neeld may prove to be good we'll never know if we could have got better. I can't be bothered answering for the hundredth time you're questions on Caro because you have you're view and I have mine and you don't listen. What I find quite amusing is your divisiveness on this forum when you seek to belittle others with a different view and criticise them for their agenda's and accuse them of hurting the club. You're in the same boat Robbie because it should be clear to you that all who post here have nothing but the best interest of the club at heart. Sadly you're guilty of exactly what you accuse others of doing.

Be careful what you say about Caro, you'll get hate PM's and if people know where you live.......... I think that either there is a smoking gun that the AFL/MFC have negotiated out of the equation or their isn't one. I can't imagine the MFC leaking all this stupid stuff only to be hit between the eye's with the gun when the AFL pull the trigger. FWIW I do believe there is a smoking gun (and please everyone, don't aske me to prove it) If there is a no case to answer all involved would be cleared by definition but it will be interesting to see who has a job in 12 months time. I think Bailey is safe because he will plead the Nuremberg defence. If Vlad and Gill find there is "no case to answer" does the matter get referred to the Commission? Or is it the Commission who find "no case to answer". If it's Andy who decides the announcement will be made late Friday before the Tennis finals.

What don't you like about McKenzie? I know you know he will be selected but why wouldn't you select him? If we were playing a final would you really select Barry ahead of him today? To not even have him as an emergency seems tough.

It's why I can't wait for Caro to get back because she will at least give us some insight into what the AFL is thinking on this issue. The factual accounts in the press tell us what's in the report but little else.Frankie I think there is a second boot but I'm not sure it will fall. A very good view was put to me by another poster. He said that if the leaks are by MFC alone then it's unlikely there is a "smoking gun" and if the leaks are agreed between the AFL and MFC then it's a carefully orchestrated process to lead to a "no case to answer" scenario. This makes sense to me, particularly the second part as I doubt MFC would leak info whilst we are in negotiations with the AFL. dee-tox very good and thoughtful posting treated the way most scared little bunnies react when they see something threatening - you just get attacked by the mob. I liked your comments on us not wanting to do things the hard way. It hit a cord with me but in fairness to those that instituted our tanking it was just following AFL approved best practice. That we were inept in the way we did it is another question but the reality is we've been inept in the way we've managed so much under this administration including tanking, dismissing Junior, selecting the coach and dismissing Bailey. All of these poorly managed administrative manners have hurt us apart from the appointment of Neeld IMO but the process of his appointment was shoddy.

A question to BH and others who have seen a bit of training over the years. I watched training regularly from about 2008 on and one player who was just fantastic to watch was Jamie Bennell and he was regularly picked as the player to surprise. Fast, skillful, found the ball, made good decisions and looked like he'd be the next Chris Johnson/Graeme Johncock to me. I haven't seen Dom Barry train this year but the reports are very positive. Can you see something in Barry that differentiates him from Bennell? FWIW I think Bennell's career is far from over and surrounded by bigger bodies and a more confident team at WCE he could surprise once he overcomes his knee problems. Unfortunately for us he just didn't find the ball.

Like you I've no interest in trawling through the AFL rules and don't think it's necessary as this case won't go to court. Our solicitors will have done that to show the AFL court is a poor option. So then it moves to a negotiated settlement when the sort of discussion we are having here is more relevant. Old that's very funny. Unlike Robbie I do think you could make a living cracking jokes!

That's a very good explanation and I take your point re "any reason what so ever". Is this the only regulation or are there others about draft tampering? And on a separate point, if tapes of the coaches box were the sole property of the MFC (and not media), why the hell weren't they lost.

Which is exactly why it goes to motive.

One of the better views I've heard is that "tanking" can only occur on the field. When GWS made 8 changes against GCS in the Whitfield Cup and Hawthorn left 10 or so players out of their team punters knew what was happening and could adjust their betting accordingly. Personally, if you believed we tanked which I do, it wasn't hard to judge MFC's from going into games in the last half of 2009 so I reckon the punter was in a much better position than usual in our games. IMO tanking initially related to players not trying to win but the confusion now lies over its possible extension to list management and selection decisions. And what of training? [censored] the players on the track during the week so they can hardly run on the weekend? I wonder if that got examined. What people are concerned about is the motive. If the motive was to list manage and lose in order to gain PP then it's draft tampering. To me that is the issue. I can't imagine any sensible person thinks the players didn't try.