binman

The other point i'd make is it's a disingenuous straw man argument to correlate having a more transparent and open election process that actively encouraged people to put their name forward with that process necessarily throwing up some clueless footy fan nuffie. For one thing that's an implicit insult to the members - 'members are no naive and dull of mind that they will elect some person who has no idea, better leave it to the experts, particularly given our stellar track record of anointing board members with gun skills that have underpinned our success' But more significantly, it's ridiculous to think that outside of the board's tiny pool of candidates that amongst our 60,000 odd members there are not people who are supporters of the club AND have the high-level skills, knowledge, experience and abilities needed to make positive contribution to the club. Further to that point, good governance is having Position Descriptions for board members. Anyone putting their name forward for consideration would have to demonstrate how they meet the PD and related KPIs. Then members can make a decision based on that information.

Huh? It IS an open election is it not - or at least should be? Isn't that the point? That's to say it's supposed to be an open election where members get to elect their board member but in reality, it's anything but. To be clear, of course its common practice for a board to identify both a skill gap and have preferred candidate in mind -it's ever been thus. But I'd make three points. Firstly, that approach to filling board seats is often a factor in in scenario's where boards are performing poorly. Why? Because it makes it difficult to get a diversity of experience and viewpoints, critical to good governance (particularly in organisations supper sensitive to market forces - in our case our need to sell memberships to survive, let alone thrive) and reinforces a job for the boy's culture. Secondly, there are no issues in the Board identifying Dan from Stan as their preferred new board member however i'd argue it's in no appropriate for a future President in announcing his presidency to essentially anoint Dan from Stan in that statement (or any for that matter). Why not simply do something like create a page on their website with info about their preferred candidate, and any other candidates, promote that page and let members review that info. Thirdly, the process is just continuation of the status quo model of filling board seats at the MFC. In all seriousness, how has that model worked out for us since 1964 when the then board sacked a coach who had won the previous years' flag halfway thru a season? For almost all of the intervening period we have been a shambles from a governance perspective. And we have been spectacularly unsuccessful in that period - winning the solitary flag in nearly six decades At the end of the day the buck stops with the board - they own both success and failure. Does anyone seriously think our lack of success is not a function of our poor governance? Hell, the one flag we have won since 1964 coincided with one of the few periods of stability at the board and executive - and even then i'd question that boards' effectiveness given, amongst other things it signed off on Goody's, Claz and tracc's contract extensions (a decision we are now paying for - literally), failed to land a home base, failed to leverage our flag into sustained membership growth and oversaw a culture that seemingly now needs to be reset. What that saying about insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

Nice synergy with Kate Hore hopefully also registering her 100th goal. Can't wait.

I think an issie with Bannon is what is her best role amd position? As a tall forward she doesn't take enough marks. And as quick as she is, somewhat surprisingly given her athletics background, I'm not convinced she's great option for the wing, or even the high half forward role (by that I meanboth roles require elite fitness and running power- does she have those attributes?). If she can really improve her marking I'd like to see her play as a tall forward who gets up the ground in the Jeremy Cameron mould. Loved Gillard's game yesterday and i just love how hanks goes about things. A one touch player that is as natural a footballer as you'll ever see.

True. And the only way to ensure that year on year the club consistently recruits players who can kick straight is good governance.

True. And the only way to ensure long term success and regularly winning finals is good governance.

I don't believe in an interventionist God But I know, darling, that you do But if I did, I would kneel down and ask him Not to intervene when it came to you Will not to touch a hair on your head Leave you as you are If he felt he had to direct you Then direct you into my arms Into my arms, oh, Lord Into my arms, oh, Lord Into my arms, oh, Lord Into my arms

There's an interesting connection between your initial post about Smith promoting his choice for the board vacancy, Jnrs response, my response to him and the post quoted above. I have long worked in the community sector. A role i had for many years included promoting the importance of meaningful consumer participation to organisations and government (in that context the consumers are clients, eg of the service system, particular sectors or individual organisations). That work was underpinned by a framework called the 'ladder of participation' that Gemini defines thusly: 'The "ladder of participation" is a framework, originally from Sherry Arnstein's work on citizen participation, that categorizes different levels of public or consumer involvement in decision-making processes, from non-participatory to highly empowering' The concept posits the lower rungs of the ladder involve non-participation and tokenism - a really common example is asking for feedback (eg via a 'satisfaction' survey) and doing nothing with the results and/or not bothering to tell consumers the outcome of their feedback. At the top of the ladder consumers have real power and control. The ultimate is consumer owned organisations but just below that on the ladder is consumers being on boards and having decision making power. Fans, and in particular paid up members are consumers of AFL football clubs. We should have a level power and control - the very least of which is opportunities to meaningfully participate. A Member Engagement Committee done properly would go a hell of along way to provide such an opportunity - certainly more than the useless member's survey the club churns out in a stupid tick box exercise every year. What would it look like for a Member Engagement Committee (MEC) done properly? Well, for starters the club would be committed to ensuring it was an exercise in tokenism. It would be resourced properly. It would meet regularly. It would ensure it had representation from different segments of the fan base. It would report to the board, perhaps even have a vote on specific issues. When planning anything, like the new home base, feedback would be sought from the MEC at the start of the process not at the end. The MEC would review policies and perhaps be represented in any job interviews. It would represent supporters and report outcomes to supporters. Above all it would be meaningful. To be frank, unless i've missed something, the MEC has not involved any of those things. It is at the very bottom of the ladder of participation and such an insult to consumers - us. And lest anyone think that meaningful consumer participation is just feel good nonsense, Gemini gives a pretty good summary of why it so important: Addresses power imbalances: The ladder helps organizations and consumers understand and address the power dynamics in a process. Promotes trust: Being transparent about the level of participation can build trust by managing expectations and avoiding tokenism. Strives for equity: Higher rungs on the ladder give consumers more power and control, which is a way to address social injustice and inequity. Improves outcomes: Meaningful participation at higher levels can lead to better outcomes because it leverages the experience and knowledge of those who use the services. The last point is the most important - meaningful consumer participation at higher improves outcomes I'm a qualified auditor and i'll bet my bottom dollar that part of the review last year included a review of the club's governance. And i have no doubt that one of the recommendations was creating a Member Engagement Committee. Why? Not because it would give everyone some warm and fuzzies but because if done properly it would help drive membership sales, the lifeblood of every AFL club. As an auditor, the starting point of any audit is governance. And a key part of that is assessing things such as whether the board has the right mix of skills and the right mix of stakeholders in terms of things like gender balance, diversity and representation of key stakeholders. If the club was to truly embrace meaningful consumer participation AND at the same time ensure it had the right mix of board members, far from not considering having a 'rando supporter' on the board it would consider having supporter representation (for example a member of the MEC - a model i have seen work really well). Why? Because it's good business. Conservatively losing 15,000 members has cost us north of three million dollars in revenue. Who buys memberships? Supporters. Call me crazy, but giving supporters some power and control might be a bloody good place to start if the club wants to understand how to increase membership sales.

I don’t understand the connection between this post and AOG's post, which didn't argue we appoint some 'random', it argued, if understood AOG correctly, the president should not be promoting a particular candidate, which in reality means annointing said candidate. Taking a skills based approach to filling a board seat is best governance practice. But when filling a board spot and taking the opportunity to fill an identified skills and experience gap (again best practice) best practice is to simply advertise, and widely promote, the vacancy and make clear what skills and experience any candidate must have to be successful. The reason its best practice is it avoids the common problem of boards identifying who they want to join the board (and potentially retrospectively defining the skill gap), and in doing so massively reducing the pool of potential quality candidates. That's not how you get the best person- robust competition is how you get the best person.

I'm not fan of rule changes as a rule, in large prt because the AFL never seem to consider the unintended consequences (as an example all these changes are an attempt to fix the unintended nehative consequences of previous rule changes) but IMHO all seven are good changes, with the possible exception of the shrug rule. And I think two in particular are excellent, and much needed changes- last disposal and the change to the stand rule.

For much the same reason I call Sparrow Swallow.

I'm sold. But then again i was sold as soon as i heard his nickname. What team doesn't want a player called The Dove.

I know he is now an Australian citizen but i thought before becoming Australian he was an American.

No, you were right - you just got your years wrong. It was an indicator we'd win it in 2026. I've crunched the data and the running fir drinks indicator always has a two season lag.

We'll def be discussing the AFLW. Spoiler alert - George and i have differing views on our method.

On that front, one of the things i love about the AFLW coverage off most, but not all (eg the freo game - ughh) is the commentary. Daniel Hardford is knowledgeable about women's footy and clearly respects it. And co commentators and special comments people are often ex and current female players. In the Swans game Deb Lee was one of the commentators and i thought she was brilliant. Lee's knowledge is first class, and she provides info that really helps understand the game. And she's funny without trying too hard like so many of the bone head ex AFL footballers that dominate the coverage of AFLM. And back to your point about there always being girls who wanted to play footy Lee is an absolute legend of the game full stop and in particular a legend of women's footy. What a contribution she has made to the game.

It was such an enjoyable game to watch, in large part because the skill level was so terrific. Some of our kicking was brilliant, and theirs too actually. But there was also great footy iq on display. We're starting to see the impact of most players evidently having started playing footy from auskick on. Players are looking so much more natural across the board - natural, instinctive, high skill footy players like Hore and Hanks (who has gone up a level this season- I think in large part because she's playing with such confidence) no longer look like outliers. One area where that is super evident is, as I noted a couple of weeks back, the standard of marking. Chalk and cheese to the first few seasons. Players in all teams are reading the flight brilliantly and showing textbook technique- as a result so many mote marks are getting clunked. It really changes the game because intercept marking has become a driver of transition, forwards are taking advantage of good kicks inside 50 and the game is less random because teams are controlling the ball more. But picking up your point about the wind DIO, the AFL just simply have to play all AFL games at grounds that provide AFL level protection from the wind, which in Vic would limit games to Docklands, Okon, Taxpayer Park - and soon Mars stadium in Ballarat (the new stand is almost complete). Wind makes all footy more difficult, but particularly women's footy. I just don't get why the AFL don't ensure, as far as is possible, all AFLW games are played in optimal conditions. Allow the skills of the players to shine, which in turn will result in higher scoring games, less scrappy contests, fewer rolling mauls and more highlights. All of which brings new fans, promotes AFLW and gives fox and seven a better product. I really wonder if the AFL understand what they've got with the AFLW - I don't think it's overstating things to say women's footy, if properly nutured and invested in, will future proof AFL footy. Once Tassie comes in, I worry there simply won't be enough elite footballers who are also elite athletes. The only protection against that is increasing participation. Girls wanting to play footy, and having the opportunity to do so, makes it so much easier for families that also have boys playing footy to make it all work (one reason why both my kids, male and female, both played basketball). Leaving that aspect aside all the young girls wanting to play footy from auskick on creates lifelong footy fans and drives interest in the game. Which translates into more viewers (and bigger rights dollars), bigger crowds and increased membership sales.

All feels like a Ross Lyon vanity play- I want my flag and I want it now!

Excellent comparison. Another that comes to mind is James McDonald - a solid citizen who does the basics consistently well and works super hard. Like Steele, a leader. There's an interesting parallel in the shameful, not to mention plain stupid, way we treated Junior Heart and soul players, leaders that positively contribute to their club's culture, and both captains. We essentially forced Junior to retire and the Saints basically forced Steele to leave. Crazy stuff. King is doing the complete opposite - instead of moving on leaders and culture builders he's getting rid of two senior players who, in recent seasons, have not been great for the culture and bringing in a senior player who will be. Steele is a dual All-Australian and has won two best and fairest awards. He served as St Kilda co-captain in 2021, and as the sole captain from 2022 to 2025. Exactly the sort of player we need as we look to rebuild our culture.

Twenty of which were last year, in a season where the hawks made the prelim. Given he essentially replaces mcvee the comparison between the two makes for interesting reading. Jiath is on the left

He's somewhere between hit and miss and a turnover merchant. My thoughts are we only had to pay pick 42 and a future fourth-round selection for him, peanuts in the scheme of things (which by the by makes the pick 23 we got for mcvee look like a first class deal), and so, well worth the punt. I don't love the fact he's not an elite kick but do love his leg speed and creativity and preparedness to take the game on. On kicking skills, every team has its share of below average kicks, the key is not having too many. We do have too many but funnily enough tracc and claz going helps on that front and hopefully we can turn the tracc picks into a couple of players with elite kicking skills. I think XL is a really important piece of the puzzle - if he has an uninterrupted preseason he'll get a lot more of the ball next season. He is a beautiful kick, weights it well and has great vision. Miochek is an excellent shot for goal and Steele is a decent kick. Sineama looks to be a beautiful kick and i think Adams is likely to be best 22 next season and he's a good kick. So it's not all doom and gloom on the kicking front.

Yep, Langdon has got good wheels. Langford not so much - Bisons are slow off the mark but once they get up to speed can go fast and hard. The other player with decent wheels, one i think we really missed last year (which is strange to say given he's barely played an AFL footy) is AMW. It has become super important in footy to have a lot of players who can sustain high speed running but as importantly have really good acceleration from a standing start. Such speed is important on offence of course, but i think it's even more important on defence (all team defence and the back 7) as with al teams now playing a variation of the aggressive back half transition game getting back quickly in numbers when the ball is turned over has become super critical. Without wanting to disparage Clazz and Tracc, one benefit of both leaving is that is two less players in our best 22 who are slow both from a standing start and at striding pace (though Steele, who i think is terrific addition and will be a lock in our best 22, offsets that a bit as he's not super quick).

Langford?

Top post. Agree on what CJ brings. I'd add that he's pretty quick, and we're a slow team so that's a big plus. The role he is most suited to is the attacking high half back role Windsor was playing for the first half of the season. Windsir was worth a try because he's quick and can run and carry. But he never looked natural down back, runs in straight lines and his kicking is a bit hit and miss (which is disappointing as when drafted I hoped we were getting an elite kick). Jiath's kicking worries me, particularly in that role as turnovers are in bad spots. And being compared to Frost in style is some sort of backhanded compliment But King had said he wants players to play more on instinct and with a bit more freedom As you suggest AoB CJ brings a bit of chaos, and is certainly less straight line and predictable than say Windsor. So in terms of adding a player who can support King to implement his desired method CJ will be a good addition. Over the last few years many posters have been screaming out for less structure and more dare and risk. Looks like that's what we'll get. Hopefully those same posters won't crack it when we see the inevitable spike in turnovers (which was already a massive issue under Goody). That's funny. I texted a mate who is a huge hawks fan and asked him his views on Jiath. Perhaps you work with my mate as this was his reply: different views on cj: 👍young,athletic, fast, outside run. 👎🏼runs in circles, makes poor decisions and can over use it. my view: please take him