Slartibartfast

Well fancy that. Should we revisit the early parts of this thread? Perhaps not.

I think it would be a serious mistake to put Trenners on an extended contract (subject to advice from his surgeon). It just limits your options come 2016. Honour the contract, look to the rookie list if you need to and then go forward.

If I was McKenzie I'd want to be delisted with a promise of a rookie list spot, subject of course to what has been said during trade week. He's got a problematic future at MFC which is compromised further if Newton is picked up and only one year on his contract. His manager could actively shop him around to see if there was any interest and if there was he may well land a better than one year deal. If he goes through to the rookie list with us he's got one year at the same pay and a spot in the seniors with Trengove's injury. It's hard to see a downside for Jordie. Personally I'd pay Evans out and I wouldn't rule out Trengove to the rookie list but if McKenzie and Evans were sorted Trenners could just sit on the PL. Before putting Trenners on the rookie list I'd want to be sure Adelaide and PA didn't have a pick between 53 and R2. There is a possibility they'd take him. Edit: Jabba please don't respond. I want a nice weekend without being stalked.

Thank you. But do you care what Jabba thinks of me? I don't.

I was responding to : So whilst the original topic was Neeld's appointment to Essendon it, like many topics on DL, had branched out to comparing Neeld and Bailey. Hope that helps you understand how the conversation developed. If you are interested in my views on Neeld joining Essendon they are expressed earlier in the thread. Somehow I doubt you will be. I'm still wondering why you don't put me on ignore, it would suit us both.

You're struggling to come to grips with the topic. I have no interest in what you think of me. I doubt others do either.

We are comparing Neeld v Bailey. Concentrate on the topic of you want to get involved.

I think your memory is playing tricks. Bailey took over a team that had won five games in 2007 and at the end of that year lost players like Bizzell, Nathan Brown, Ferguson, Godfrey, Johnstone, Pickett and Ward. I can't be bothered adding up how many games of experience that is but it's a lot. Oh, and the 5 games included the Carlton game where they let us win. In the next few years we lost Yze, White, Robbo and Neitz who were all well past their prime when Dean arrived. He concentrated on list development at the expense of winning games but still managed to win about 40% of games played in his last two seasons. Mark Neeld's record doesn't stand well against Bailey's. Nor does Roos' at Melbourne at this time.

I hope you're all right.

Disappointingly personal.

Yes, perhaps. In both seasons the game was played in our defense. In one season it just went back to the centre more. I just still find it hard to believe that with all the hype of Roos et al we scored less and with a much better list. In both seasons I lost enthusiasm and wanted it to end. Let's face it, in both seasons we were uncompetitive and played awful footy. I reckon any improvement was at the margins.

No, just a believer in logic.

Do you think we did? 6 games under 40 points, never kicked 100. Not all that impressive. I saw improvement but it was at the margins and not a quantum leap many, including me, hoped for.

What many here fail to realize is that it was the MFC's failure when Neeld was appointed, not Mark's. Neeld had applied and failed to get many senior coaching positions (Richmond, PA, Adelaide) but got ours because we failed to conduct a proper interview process which would have exposed his weaknesses. But we wanted to avoid "death by powerpoint". Mark did nothing wrong and merely wanted to test himself at the highest level. And he didn't have the greatest administration backing him up and was surrounded by newbie assistant coaches in the main. I didn't like Neeld from the beginning, never struck me as a leader of men, but I wish him all the best at Essendon and beyond.

Looks like you've got a line to one of our senior footy people now Kurt!! We expect big things!

Making GNF look like a rank amateur. Well done Kurt, but if you do get some inside info in future just make sure releasing the info doesn't hurt the club. Very good appointment. As Colin said, we've got experience and proven people now coaching our team, a far cry from the Mark Neeld days. Good luck Brendan and I'll now go away and try and learn to spell your name correctly..............

Same rules for Grand New Flag?

Adam Fisher and Shane Valenti say hi.

I've seen some silly statements on DL in the past but this one takes the cake. Unless of course it was a poor red!

As a Board they failed but everyone of them to a man, as with the Gardner Board, did their best. Sadly most didn't understand footy and to quote a famous line, they didn't know what they didn't know. Most were very successful in their own right and intelligent smart men and because of it thought they could translate that success to footy. They couldn't and they interfered too much. It just shows how important a good CEO is as he keeps the Board at arms length. Our tennis playing CEO was awful. Worked with him for a few weeks, well, his entire tenure and IMO he was a very poor appointment.

I reckon it's for us or nobody. He won't play 2015 (if at all again). His value will be little. If he plays I can't see it being for anyone else. I hope we find out who's right.

OK, I'll try one more time to clarify for you. I said at the time of the mooted trade it may be in Trengove's best interest to move on as everyone was assuming he was being pushed out the door. If his foot flared up two weeks later I would have been right on the money. The "rot" comment relates to the fact he's finished at the Demons. He's not. Unlike you I don't think his decision will be impacted in any way because of the fact he was up for trade this year. Of course we might be finished with each other next October, Have you only just realized that?

Couldn't agree more. Like the Gardner Board who all moved on so should the Stynes/McLardy Board. Thurin and Howcroft remain. IMO the greatest failing of the club over many many years was the consecutative appointments of terrible CEO's by successive Boards. Jackson, effectively appointed by the AFL, has shown just how important that role is. Who was the last good one before that? Certainly not Schwab, Harris and Ellis (I'm not including Phillips and Spargo who stood in when we were looking for a permanent person). That's at least a decades worth. Thank heavens Neale Daniher held the ship together over much of that period.

Well then Destroy, who I quoted, must have misrepresented you as Destroy's comment was he was "finished" with us. I disagree with the proposition of yours I've quoted. In fact if we support him through his rehabilitation I'd suggest, being the type of bloke Jack is, he'd want to repay our support. We differ. Probably moot anyway as I doubt he'll play again.

Then he wouldn't have had potential. You're very confusing at times!