Slartibartfast

That's a worrying analogy to the Titanic and that coupled with your description of the club being a "train wreck" in an earlier post doesn't fill me with confidence! You seem confident of your position regarding the remaining directors and so I assume you've got some basis for knowing they were in fact the "black hats" around the Board table but just outvoted on the important issues. I certainly don't have that knowledge and hence my position. Your point re the independence from the AFL is an interesting one. I think that independence will come once they are confident we can manage ourselves - something we've failed to do for a long time. I can't see the AFL really have an interest in managing us or bailing us out but they had little choice last year but to step in. As you say - "titanic" and "train wreck". Having said that I believe it is imperative we maintain very good relations with them. Weaker clubs can't take on City Hall and we shouldn't think we can take on the AFL.

Thanks. The couple of times I've been to training he's been standing on the sidelines smiling.

Does anyone know what was wrong with Jamar? Didn't seem to be in the rehab group and then straight into the main group?! Can anyone clarify?

Jack I know you are tongue in cheek but some may be confused. The Boards responsibility is to govern the running of the Club and they are ultimately responsible for its financial and on field performance. Amongst other things they approve and oversee key appointments with perhaps the most important being the CEO and coach. Without going over old issue I think most would agree that the appointment and then reappointment of Schwab and then the appointment of Neeld were errors. Those two appointments held the key responsibilities of financial and on field performance. In contrast the players (Grimes, Jones, Frawley, Garland) were the people impacted most by the decisions of the Board and their key appointments - they were clearly not responsible for them and should not be held accountable. It is the FD that make decisions on their future and Roos and Mahoney have decided to keep them. So clearly it would be nonsense to couple the players with the responsibly of the "train wreck" you refer to. And for those arguing for the retention of the three directors (and I only included three as they were there for the duration of the Stynes/McLardy Board, Trotter was appointed later and if my memory serves me correctly he was appointed after 186) I could agree but for two things. Firstly the Board oversaw a train wreck, not a drop in performance. Their performance was so bad as to require an AFL bailout. That in itself is probably enough to suggest all should go. But even if they did oppose all the poor decisions and even if they had the wisdom of Solomon then sadly they were ineffectual in influencing others and as such have failed in their responsibility to the members who they represent. Ineffectual directors unable to influence others away from very poor decisions and towards good ones are of no benefit to us. Anyway they are there. I don't think they should be but with Jackson as CEO hopefully they won't be called on to make or influence major decisions. They've clearly failed in the past.

Have you thought that maybe the reason they tell players not to visit the site is because they read what's on here? Of course the Club keeps a close eye on here. They would be negligent not to as it's the best way for them to know what people are thinking. We've had Craig Cameron and Cameron Schwab posting on here and we've had directors and candidates for the Board post on here. I'd be stunned if we haven't had employees post on here. Discussing the content of Demonland with staff is pretty harmless and benign. I don't agree with Satty on everything but he's got you here game set and match.

I'm not a Foundation Member but a mate of mine is and I recall that at one of the dinners he said they had a presentation from Todd Viney in which Todd showed them how the FD were benchmarking each of our players against the best in the AFL in their various positions. It looked at various player attributes - marking, kicking etc etc and scored each attribute. This then indicated what areas each player needed to concentrate on to improve. It was the sort of stuff I would have found very interesting because it provided information on so many levels. My mate is a footy fanatic and a knowledgeable one who has been involved in footy clubs for a long time. He knows his shyte. His comment? Boring - lost the audience - too much detail. My point is that one size doesn't fit all. I complained about the Commencement Dinner in 2012 that there was no footy content and it was mainly a historical look at our past. There was no indication from the FD speakers about what we should expect. Naturally I was shouted down on this site but I do agree with Scoop that it would be nice for some presentation from the FD at some stage for members who have an interest beyond "and here is Christian Salem. What school did you go to Christian?" People criticize Neale Daniher for his "clock" but few said his presentations weren't interesting.

It's no biggie for me. I reckon if you've got a good CEO then the Board are a lot less important. But we called coaches, CEO's, players and others to account when they don't do a good job. Why should those three be any different? And the job they did was less than ordinary.

Attaching football content to the AGM was a great way of getting people to attend. Taking the footy content from the AGM is a great way of getting people to stay away. The AGM covers a pretty awful period of our history. Tanking penalties, AFL bailouts, CEO/coach/President changes, massive financial losses and dreadful on field performances. Some nasty questions could be asked. I wonder why they want it kept low key............ I'm fully behind the changes that have occurred but I must say it still pizzes me off that three directors who presided over a shocking period of our history where the Board were front and centre in its cause are still there. I'd like to see them do the proper thing and resign. How they can look the membership in the eye is beyond me.

Just as a comparison who do you think has had a better career to date. Number one pick Jack Watts or number two pick Jack Trengove? Ben if Watts is worth pick 20 what is Trengove worth? I wonder why it is that Watts has been belted from pillar to post and Trengove is liked and respected. I think it mainly comes down to the expectations that the club set when each arrived. Scully took all the focus when Trenners arrived. Compare the expectations of Watts and Scully with Christan Salem who nobody will be disappointed about if he doesn't play much this year purely on the expectations Roos has already established.

Grimes trained the whole session and trained well. Sure with the ball, read the play well as a back and kicked well. On Trengove. He's been played out of position for the last two years as a high half forward. In this position he gets caught out with his lack of pace running up the ground to defend and doesn't have the pace when the ball comes over the back. His true position is as an inside mid and most of the comparisions like Hayes, Sewell, Selwood, Cross, Boyd and Black are to inside mids. He has the characteristics to play this position - courage, good hands, poise, stamina and an ability to find the ball. Whilst Demonlanders will hate this I think the best comparison is with Brock McLean who coincidently out sprinted Trenners to a ball last year. Trengove is better in the air and can possibly play more positions when resting, but his problem is his lack of speed and lateral movement. And I agree with others that this isn't bagging Trenners who is a ripping bloke and has been wonderfully loyal to MFC, it just recognizes his characteristics.

Toump did the full session. HIs kicking is great. Hogan is in rehab but was running without difficulty and there was no bandage on his knee.

Agree with WW, he trained well as he always does. Main group, full session including the sprints at the end. Regularly won contested possession at the stoppage practices.

I left training at about 12 when the main group had finished. Unsighted today was Matt Jones although he may have joined the rehab group after they left the main oval and did running and other drills on the old training oval. But I didn't see him or Garland. The rest of the rehab group were as WW has said. The balls were out from the beginning and there was a lot of enthusiasm in the group. Players who stood out for me today were Strauss and Blease. I haven't read much about Strauss in the reports to date but he didn't put a foot wrong today. He ran hard, kicked very well and didn't fumble. Blease also trained well. In the first session back after Christmas when he ran 300's he fell off the pace in the second and third repeats. There were no 300's today but when the ball went away after about 2 hours they did some 40 and 80 metre reps and Blease had no trouble keeping up. His kicking during training was very good and he stayed behind after training had finished to do some specific goal kicking. Towards the end of training Clisby left the main group and did multiple laps as did Hogan and Gawn. None of the rehab group looked significantly troubled and Dawes wasn't wearing any bandage on his knee. Barry was training with the midfielders and looks good although it was disappointing to see both he and Kennedy Harris make some silly skill errors when under no pressure. I'd be surprised to see either play much footy early this year. Today was the first time I'd seen Salem train and he was quite impressive with sure hands and beautiful kicking. He, Toumpas, Watts, Strauss and Blease all kicked the ball well today in what was a solid and good training session. And what would a training report be without Watts. Trained with the mids and when they were practising centre square clearances he played as the wingman. He got his fair share of contested ball and as usual made good decisions. But all of this is just "dancing with your sister" and we won't really be able to judge until the first NAB cup match.

We are probably on the same page but if we lose the first 5 and win 12 for the year I'll be happy. But I did say that at the end of 5 games we'd know if our optimism was vindicated.

I don't care about the first 5 games as such although we'll know by the end of them whether the optimism of some is vindicated. I'm one who is genuinely optimistic. Where we finish, or how we go, this year will depend on how bad we really were last year. Two wins and a percentage of 54 is about as bad as it gets but I can't get away from the fact that under Bailey, a totally dysfunctional club and a divided footy department we won 8.5 games in 2011. Out of that 2011 list is Bartram, Bate, Bennell, Cook, Davey, Davis, Green, Gysberts, Jurrah, Macdonald, Maric, Martin, Moloney, Morton, Petterd, Rivers, Scully, Sylvia, Warnock, Jetta and Wonaeamirri. 21 from our primary list. IMO only Rivers, Moloney, Green and Bartram are players who really consistently impacted. On are Hogan, Salem, Toumpas, Viney, Dawes, Byrnes, Clark, Cross, Tyson, Michie, Riley, Vince, Barry, Kennedy Harris, Hughes, Nicholson (RP), Clisby, Terlich, Jones, Kent, Petersen and Evans (RP). You'd have to think that Cross, Vince, Dawes and Clark could have the impact of the 4 major players we lost and the balance of players are better than those lost. (I've ignored the rookie list and think I've missed one or two players!) Interestingly I reckon of the players lost only 3 were genuine mids - Gysberts, Moloney and Scully. You could argue one or two others - Sylvia and Morton. Scully and Gysberts played 25 games between them in 2011 and Moloney 22 for a total of 47 midfield games. There are 9 genuine mid replacements - Salem, Toumpas, Viney, Cross, Tyson, Michie, Vince, Jones and Riley. You could argue a couple of others - Evans and Kent. You'd have to reckon that group would play 100 games between them this year. Now if Roos is a better coach than Bailey and we have a better list with much more depth in our midifield - why is it so hard to believe we can improve very significantly on last year and not surpass what we did in 2011? You'd have to think players like Grimes, Howe, McKenzie, Trengove and Watts, who all played some good footy under Bailey, will be better under Roos with another 2 years under the belt. And it's interesting to think that in 2011 Jurrah and Watts were our key forwards - FMD, how did we score (Jurrah 40, Green 37, Sylvia 25 and Watts 21)? Bailey was a lot better than many gave him credit for. Our best team on the field this year is quite capable of being competitive with most other than the top tier. One of the things I'm most please about this year is the players are now in a good environment where they can express themselves. Tynan and Taggert will be wondering what happened to their careers. January really is the time for optimism isn't it!

Do we really need a "Grgic" award? He was a player who's confidence was significantly effected by the treatment he got from supporters and the whole concept of a "supporter" group voting on a player they don't like seems a complete contradiction in terms. Recently there have been references to the impact that continued criticism would have on Mark Neeld and the fact that he is a "husband and a father". The same respect should be shown to the players who bear the brunt of supporter anger and disappointment and who have no right of reply. Lets dump the "Grgic" award and its tastelessness. I would, of course, be happy to have a "Grgic" award for the worst poster on DL, that could be a lot more fun and at least the person would have the right of reply!

There is no disloyalty until he signs with someone else.

Pin these dates? Thanks.

I'm an unabashed Watts fan. What many are forgetting is that the coaching staff we now have will utilize players strengths That in itself will improve our team greatly and everyone's chance to perform. The other is that the players will have a coaching staff that believe in them and encourage them. Watts in particular will benefit from this belief. Why am I a fan? Because Jack stayed at the MFC when he could so easily have chosen the softer option of going to another club and left behind the mismanagement of his career that started with him being a marketing tool (presentation of jumper, leaking of pick one prior to draft, playing first game against Collingwood and the brazen promotion of that debut etc etc) rather than a footballer. He could have opted for more certain success rather than the 5 years of inept performance that has been our club since he was allocated/selected by it. But he stayed with his mates and he stayed with the club. He showed character. I wish him all the best and I think Roos will find a role that he can play very well. Midfield? We'll see. Good luck Jack, you deserve it.

And Aidan Riley. For the first time in a while we will have competition for midfield spots. Lets hope it's quality competition.

Thanks

I think your assessment is accurate but he's never played midfield and never had Roos/Stone as coach. Let's hope that makes a difference.

Thanks Jack. I'd edit the post from "Jamar" to "a player". Coming from you it's got the same cred but protects your source.Did he mention what was wrong with Fitzy?

Does anyone know what is wrong withs Fitzy and Gawn? IIRC they were both in full training prior to Christmas.

I didn't argue any of those things. I'm arguing: 1. That the limit of 120 rotations a match excluding changes at intervals is very similar to the average of last years rotations so we won't see any noticeable difference. 2. I'm arguing the game would be better served if the rotations were further limited or interchange numbers reduced from 3 + 1 to 2 + 1 (or 2) to open play up so some of the more attractive aspects of football returned. I used Lyon as an example of where the game is now. Note the words "a highly successful coach". He's doing exactly what I expect and getting excellent results. It's not that hard Ben, but not only is your maths ability terrible ("game 4 didn't shed any extra light on anything") but your comprehension is shot. Even your insults are corny. "Fuddy". Wow, amazing.