Slartibartfast

You seem to be very confused about the relationship between the AFL, its Board and the individual clubs.

Anyone having any doubt about Hird only has to see where his interest is. It's him. The only time I've heard him mention the players welfare is when the penalties were handed down but that was clearly a PR strategy. He's worried about himself, not the players and the fact that Essendon is continuing to support him is a slight on the players. It surprises me that they have stuck around. I too hope the players get off. I don't believe that as a group or as individuals they knowingly took banned substances and in fact it seems to me very likely they were told it was all ok. They are professionals relying on professions and were duped. What are they supposed to do, send a sample of each drug away for testing. When I take a prescription medicine I trust my doctor and pharmacist to provide the right thing. The Essendon players deserve the same protection. Those wanting the players punished aren't seeing things clearly IMO. But Hird and the Essendon Board should never see the inside of a football club again.

You'd say the same about Don and Jim would you Freddy?

It wasn't AD who instigated the tanking investigation, in fact he did all he could to squash it to the point of being seen to be incompetent. He didn't want it because of what it would do to the AFL brand and MFC. Adrian Anderson instigated it when AD was overseas and if he'd been given total control of it we'd be in a far worse position than we are now. AD minimised the damage and then instigated a rescue package for us. When you're a CEO of a complex business like the AFL for 10+ years you will muck up at times and AD is not without his mistakes. But when measured against his KPI he's done a fantastic job and done very well by our club given the situations we've presented him with.

What has been glossed over is the appalling arrogance of Essendon in all of this. Hird is banned for a year but on the day of the ban they extend his contract. Now it appears they are paying him. Hird and Essendon deserve each other. Essendon is doing everything it can to hurt the AFL and are hurting its brand. Shocking stuff.

Oh yeh, I'm sure Jimmy has told Tanya the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Those wanting to see AD gone should be careful what they wish for.

I think I'll wait until I see Trengove in some preseason matches before I get overly excited by training reviews.

The expectations around Hogan are similar to those that existed around Watts. That's not for me. My focus is on the trashed talent of the past two years. If that talent flourishes we will be a significantly better team at no cost. Trengove, Watts and Strauss for me.

Then Bailey must have been a genius to get 8.5 wins per season in his last two years out of a less experienced and talented list. I think you're setting your sights a little low.

Like.

Like

So which Essendon players have been found guilty of illegal drug use?That's the problem.

I agree that taking picks from us would not have been in the AFL's or our best interest but I think most independent people would think it would have been the most appropriate penalty. A bit like taking the profits of crime from those that benefit from crimes. Adelaide's crime was in my view much less severe than ours but their penalty much more. Any sanctions have to have some consistency and in these three examples we are the odd man out.

I agree about the welfare of the players. It's just astounding that Essendon can't even tell you what players received what and when. It's why the penalties for the Club and those involved are so inadequate. I still believe the players were the victims. Hence we've just got to wear any result of the program. I don't wonder about Watson's Brownlow, he was a very good player and from 2009 onward had more than 500 disposals a season.bar 2011 where he only played 17 games. These players have had their health put at risk. If they get a benefit from it they probably deserve it, who knows what medical problems they'll face in later life as a result.

Couldn't agree more. It was a negotiated settlement and not one set to reflect the crime. Ours was the same. We tanked (a word I know you dispute), got draft picks as a result and our penalty didn't involve the removal of draft picks. Go figure. The answer is "What is in the best interest of the AFL". That is the outcome the AFL want and frankly so do I. If you want justice don't look to the legal system.

Yep, I agree that is the perception and he was a terrible kick when he came to us. I was very aware of this when he started to play good footy towards the end of last year and was surprised at the effectiveness of his kicking. I don't want him in the back line and he wouldn't be there for his play making ability but the discussion was around who could go there if we were struck by injury. He could do it.

In which case the AFL will be bound by what ASADA and WADA find. The AFL sanctions against Essendon were for breach of AFL rules. The drug situation is yet to be dealt with.

My understanding is that the whole thing was negotiated. Weren't there days of negotiations before the announcement with media outside AFL house waiting for breaking news? I know many here want to see Essendon hung drawn and quartered but I want to see this issue dispensed with and forgotten never to occur again. In the MFC situation the AFL negotiated a settlement over months, got rid of the appropriate people, found a charge that protected the game and moved on. Most recognize the expediency of the outcome and supported it. I can't see why Essendon should expect anything other than the same process. Those wanting "justice" should be careful not to look in the mirror.

Fitzy can probably play a key defensive role if necessary. He's very quick, good endurance and reads the ball well in the air.

Does anyone else have issues of independence with this arrangement? Meditation might be good, I don't know, but if it is should the coaches wife be benefiting from the provision of services or is she doing it for nothing? Is she the best available to provide these services? Who is in charge of her appointment and who hires and fires her. If it's Roos there is a clear issue. Seems strange to me.

Well it's actually 24 games but don't worry about that. In his first year he did his shoulder and didn't play a significant part of the year having had an ankle injury leading into the season. In his second year he was played too early and lost confidence playing most of his time in the VFL. Not unusual for a second year player. In his third year he played regularly in the second half of the season before the horrendous injury to his leg which impacted him through his 4th year. In his 4th and 5th year he was coached by Neeld. I think he's shown a bit. A bit. I think there is a good chance he'll succeed if someone shows some faith in him. He's a kid that needs development and support, he needs the confidence of the FD. For the first time since his leg injury he'll have that. He's got some good attributes. I don't know if he will make it but as I said above, you wouldn't want to judge him on his last 2 years and before that he had a shocking time with injury.

Jury is out will all our players for me. I feel for blokes like Tynan and Taggert who got to play their entire AFL career under Neeld and his FD. How many other players taken in the 2011 ND are not on AFL lists now? I've not been to training this year and am grateful to those that have and have shared their views. From what one can glean the atmosphere and training is quite different. Players with AFL qualities will now have a chance to thrive where they didn't last year. I hope blokes like Terlich, Jones and McKenzie, who IMO has come in for some unwarranted criticism, succeed because in all the gloom of 2012 and 2013 put their best foot forward and gave something to the team where others just didn't. I don't reckon we've got much idea about any on our list who were there for the last two years. What I do believe is that we'll now see what they've got. It's interesting to note the positive comments and performances of Fitzy this preseason. Neeld told him he was not up to AFL footy and just wasting his time. He got through it and played good football once Craig invested a little confidence in him. There will be many who will surprise this year and it will be fun watching who.

His father was a tunnel rat in Vietnam. If you aren't aware of what that means look it up. His father is/was seriously effected by the experience which impacted Nathan's upbringing. Job's in the army can be different. You can work behind the lines and see no action or you can crawl into a tunnel knowing there is a good chance you'll never come out. I'd be slow to judge.

Not "disappointingly" personal. I admire the consistency of your approach. I just can't accept the position you hold that the club wasn't in dire trouble and that a possible outcome could have been relocation or extinction, both the same result for me. I don't know why you're so defensive. I've obviously held the position that Neeld, Schwab and McLardy weren't good enough but I've never been rude about them as people. All were well intentioned but all led us to be non financial and non competitive. Here are some facts Jack. The first is that around the end of 2011 we were coming off two 8.5 win seasons. We were almost or were debt free. From 2007 to 2011 the Stynes/McLardy/Schwab/Bailey team managed that improvement . They also eliminated about $5 million in debt. A mighty effort. At the end of 2013 we were coming off a two win season and recorded a loss of $1.7 million loss and required AFL assistance both financially and administratively. We were embarrassingly uncompetitive on field and in debt off it. The McLardy/Schwab/Neeld team managed that decline. You don't need to "believe" that because it's fact. You can attempt to source the cause back to the Daniher/Gardner days of 2003 to 2007 but you've not presented any facts that supports it and I think many here would find it difficult to link Gardner and Daniher to the decline from 2011 to 2013. My belief is the decline started with the loss at Geelong, the completely botched response to that game, the involvement of Garry Lyon at the approval of McLardy and Schwab and the subsequent appointment of Neeld. That 8 week period set us up for the performance that was to follow and it happened because we failed to follow due diligence and proper process.That belief is open to reasonable debate but the decline from 2011 to 2013 cannot reasonably be laid at the feet of anyone but those in charge during the period. And I don't need to do the "full and proper research" because I was there and observed it first hand.

The fact you'd take this approach is in keeping with your position over the last few years. From memory you didn't advocate change to any of the major pillars of the club (coach, CEO or Chairman) until the very end when we were in a far worse position than if we'd changed earlier. The fact that you'd wait until a few thousand MFC supporters were protesting our demise down at AFL house to see we were close to losing the club is in keeping with your past vision. But of course that would be far too late as indeed it was for the Swans and Lions. I'd contend that it's now not difficult to see what was on the cards and I think there would be many here who would accept things were so much worse than people like you preached. The fact that you are still unable to accept how bad our position was shows that you really haven't got a track record of anticipating outcomes. Thankfully the AFL did and stepped in to save us. It's also not surprising that you find it hard to anticipate what would have happened if Neeld, Schwab and McLardy had stayed and therefore described my possible outcomes above as "quite the hypothetical".