Slartibartfast

Yes Redleg, it would have been cringe worthy wouldn't it. But is it better to deny the members the information necessary to make decisions? The question I raised above is central. I'm not asking "why did you ring Bailey rather than go and see him". That is process, or lack of it. Schwabs situation is central. We often talk of demanding the best of our players and FD. Surely we have the right to demand the best of the people we elect to represent us. Perhaps Don could just have said "we made some bad errors last year and that was one of them, but we've got it right now, learned from the mistake and we are now in a very good place thanks to Cameron's input for which we are grateful". Now that's a win win and not hard to come up with. It was beyond Don.

At the time of standing we thought Jimmy was Chairman. Look, I don't think there is any desire for change because Jimmy's greatest achievement is to have brought a unity to the club that has been lacking in the past. I don't want that changed, it's a wonderful thing. But it was wrong not to give the members the opportunity to have some input when Jimmy left. That, and the failure to address the failings of the past 12 months, are worrying.

What about a question like "is it true that Cameron Schwab was told prior to the Geelong game his contract wouldn't be extended and if so what happened to change that decision". The answer goes to the ability of the Board to manage the club and is the basis on which we elect them. If a Board refuses to answer and be accountable for events we as members are denied the information necessary to form an opinion on their ability. It is a mechanism to hide fault and is an abuse of power. To many this refusal to discuss core issues will undermine their confidence in the Boards ability to do its job.

When Board members decide to interview players and ask them about the management of the club they derail a players normal preparation for a game. This is a game of small percentages Billy, not some idealistic structure devoid of human emotion, confidence and focus. When Board members involve players in the political infighting of the club they act inappropriately and sabotage the efforts of the players and FD in achieving outcomes. McLardy doesn't understand this. He didn't want to be questioned on it. He failed terribly and won't be accountable to members about it. Don't just blame the players mate.

Well you can't blame Rhino, I mean the Club Chairman has said that we're not allowed to ask any of those questions. I reckon that tell you where the blame lies and it's only partially with the players and FD. That will be a bit hard for some.

I thought earlier in the thread WJ said it was a "go". Thanks for volunteering to be a mod, we need all the help we can get. But you're a mod, not a mod for one board. Welcome aboard!!

Rhino you're quite right that the Board is not responsible for the last 47 years but they are responsible for the last 4 and we, as members, surely have the right to question them about the events of that period. If I'm reading the reports correctly attendees were asked not to ask questions about last year. Surely I've misread that. Is the Board really saying "I won't answer questions about the last 12 months"? If that's the case it a gross omission of accountability and responsibility. Can you imagine the CEO of BHP asking shareholders not to ask questions about the last 12 months, especially if things happened that were very poorly handled? I'm bemused at this forums confidence in McLardy. McLardy was the one who, as a Board member, decided to interview the leadership group about the management of the club without reference to the rest of the Board in the week prior to W186. That was a gross misjudgement on so many levels and showed me that his understanding of a Boards role is poor and he was not suited to the role. That he is Stynes best mate and Jimmy wanted him President has allowed him the position out of respect for Jim. For him as President to refuse to discuss the last 12 months shows his judgement is not improving. Jimmy has been a wonderful figurehead for our club but as a member I feel a bit disenfranchised that Jimmy's retirement was announced on the day of the AGM, McLardy appointed Chairman and we as members were given no time to approved or otherwise this move. As for Neeld, I've said for a while that he is a poor public performer and that seems to be shown again last night. But so what, I'm much more interested to see if he can coach. None of us know that at present.

The "Jack Viney" thread is a good example of how it might work. Old seeing you're going to be single handedly responsible for doubling the work load of the mods I think you should become one!

I think I suggested this when the forum first started but it either didn't happen or it didn't work. The lines become blurred when discussing a game and the players performance in that game. If it develops like the Morton bashing has it can derail the thread but if it's part of the general comment on the game it's appropriate. Have you got any ideas on how this "locker room" works on other forums Old or how we deal with these sort of issues. I must say that as a Mod I can see a lot of work being generated with this idea. Having said all that I'm for the idea and having read the forums in the last few days I'm attracted to the idea of limiting peoples input. Some just post the same thing far too much thinking that if they keep saying it they are either right or win the debate. Usually nothing is further from the truth.

Who has ever suggested we don't "play with the big boys". Stick to the "Name a Game" thread, more your style.

You're very welcome to have your own expectations and I'll look for your hissy fit when we don't win a flag this year. I expect an incremental increase in our performance over time and hope to win a flag(s) in this cycle. We might be like Hawthorn and win one early or we might be like the Saints and miss our chance. My expectations have absolutely nothing to do with an expectation that the club will perform to it's maximum potential, i just differ to you as to when that maximum might be better than 17 other clubs.

Yes, I agree, Brown and Vardy certainly come into the picture. Geelong know their list much better than us although sometimes you can get too close to it as Daniher did in 2007 and Richmond in 2001.

Mitch Brown has so many injuries he's probably in the "Cook" catagory - unknown. Vardy showed a lot of promise I agree. Still Mooney is gone, Pod is old and Hawkins still unproven after a number of years despite a good finals series. Hawkins is a good example of a tall who other than FS would have been taken top 10 who has taken ages to progress. The discussion here seems to be "take Darling as he's good and he's "now". I believe Cook was probably taken for the type of footballer he will be (most likely different to Darling) and the fact BP believed he would be better than Darling in the longer run. If this is in fact right I support it. Our premiership window will be from 2015 onward and we need to be as good as we can be then. If we suffer a bit now then that's ok by me as long as we are maximizing our chances to win a flag with this list.

I'd have Redden ahead of both.

It's a good point but there is a key difference in that we have a much younger group who have not been drilled with the same game plan for years (like Saints). It's often more difficult for the older players to change the habits/training of years than it is for a young player to lean new processes. Green's first instinct when we lose control of the ball is always to "man up" where Bailey's GP was to "protect space". Green wasn't being disobedient but merely acting instinctively. It will be interesting to see.

Tappy hasn't trained with anyone yet and Nicho with the mids. I think Nicho could be a tagger as he has all the attributes for that role and it would marginalize his kicking issues. Garland could play wing if he can be freed from the backline. I think Bennell will play small back.

Thanks DD. Strauss, Davey and Grimes did the full session on Monday so I'd imagine it was load management. Was McKenzie in the main group?

It's not as easy as everyone seems to think. Clubs grapple with free agency

Can't agree. Winning a flag is the most important thing. If waiting a couple more years improves our chances I'll wait.

Spirit I think it was Jetta and not Lawrence in rehab as I saw Lawrence in the drills a fair bit. (null)

Sometimes you get the right answer for the wrong reasons.

Do you have concerns over the captaincy hindering their playing development. I do and that's my worry.

Yep, thanks.

Who knows BR, but in the Age article I note with interest Selwood saying the role of captain for him was daunting. He's won 3 flags and has a huge amount of support around him. It made me think just how hard it would be for Grimes or Trengove without that culture or mature support because the reality is neither IMO are the precocious talents of Voss or Carey and neither has really established themselves as AFL players. Trengove is going into his 3rd season and Grimes his 5th but only a handful of games. Very hard, and I think unrealistic, ask of those boys. Edit: Teribal spelleing eror.

I don't think any of us know when he suffered brain damage. He suffered serious concussion a number of times before he joined MFC.