Jump to content

Discussion on recent allegations about the use of illicit drugs in football is forbidden


Life Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by binman

  1. I'll go with Nev too. I was very surprised to read that this has been his most complete pre season thus far
  2. Oh please WYL, give me a spell with this other club palaver or indeed the suggestion this is slanderous. The whole footy world knows this is a joke - particularly rubbish about questioning positional moves. For gods sake Dunn is now a defender, Watts is down back full time and our best back played the second half of last season as a forward (helped out at times by Garland). Slanderous smanderous. Other clubs sleep tight? What emotive nonsense. I reckon the sponsors would be rapt - Opel and Webjet have had more air time in the last few months than they had all season. Relax - all will be well.
  3. Sounds great sung to the tune of that Nine Inch Nails song!
  4. Spot on in my book - and said in about 300 less words!
  5. I didn't see the board mentioned in wither the Hun or age article. Did i miss it? As you note they would have plausible deniability, though if we have done nothing wrong there is nothing to deny. None the less as the governing body (and as the group that the CEO reports to) it would be standard practice for them to respond to any accusations related to management practices i would have thought.
  6. I would have thought that the as the governing body it would be right and proper the board be given a please explain. As you have pointed out on numerous occasions the buck stops with them.
  7. Somewhat changes the nature of the statement doesn't it! Have edited now
  8. I partially agree with this. However i don't reckon they will be saying there is insufficient evidence for charges to be laid, more something like: 'we are very concerned by what the evidence suggest and believe it it indicates there were some very concerning practices by the MFC - and in particular by key personnel - in that period. Despite this we will not be sanctioning the MFC or individuals as there are grey areas and some contradictory evidence that make doing so problematical. We will tightening up our rules and drafting new ones to ensure it is crystal clear these sort of actions are not acceptable'. The approach the AFL have taken of giving the club some 800 pages of palaver and 5 weeks to digest and respond fits with the predictions i made last year of how this might proceed. I firmly believe the approach is to embarrass CC, CS and Bailey as a form of punishment and as a warning to others who might contemplate similar actions in the future. They will also being have discussions behind closed door with the dees putting pressure on them to acknowledge some wrong doing (they have plenty of levers - the redistribution fund and the draw being 2 obvious examples). At the least they will work something out that allows them (the AFL) to save some face and get out of it without having their authority challenged. That's because the AFL will, in my view, not allow this to go to court - way too much to lose and there seems to be sufficient procedural issues to make it hard for them to be successful at court. I reckon these procedural issues are behind Angry suddenly and quite abruptly leaving the AFL (and without another gig to go to as noted by Nutbean?). When its all said and done we won't want to go to court either so i reckon they will find a way out where we can also keep our honor intact, not specifically admit to tanking and not be forced to sack CC or CS (or cut Bailey loose - which would be a travesty if we went down that path). Perhaps something like a statement agreeing we pushed the boundaries of list management and will never do so again. A couple of other interesting points . One is that charges of draft tampering have been flagged. Lets hope any deal done to get Viney at pick 27 is all kosher. The other is the charge of bringing the game into disrepute. To me this makes no sense as all the so called suspect discussions we were held behind closed doors and only brought to light by an investigation that appears to leak like a sieve and has been carried out poorly. Perhaps it is about the the games we put on in this period somehow bringing the game into disrepute because of the suspicions that surrounded them? Again funny logic as there are at least two obvious examples where games were widely discussed as being funky. One is the so called Kruezer cup - i mean it was such a joke of a game that it has its own title. The other is the Freo Hawks game in Tassie a few seasons back where Freo rested up to half of their side (and of course were completely non competitive) to give them an advantage in the finals the following week (which they won - at home!). That game was a complete joke also. By compariosn the much discussed Melbourne - Richmond game was a thriller that was decide after the siren. Like so many other aspects of this issues we can point to heaps of other examples of dodgy stuff and contradictions in the AFL's position - and will if it ever goes to court
  9. I agree with this (and for what its worth, personally i couldn't care less that Carlton or others have not been investigated). My view is that the dramas that have so regularly beset the club over the last 30 odd years are in large part due to the political infighting and rubbish at board level (which then flows to the FD and admin). This has left us exposed to being investigated for tanking in this instance. There appears to be a united front at board level at the moment and i for one hope it remains so. It is right and proper to transparently question the governance of an organisation, indeed robust critique is a vital component of good governance. But lets hope, as a club, we have moved past the sort of bickering and sly attempts to destabilize the board and FD personnel that has led to our club being regarded as a joke. And yes winning helps but clubs don't win regularly without quality, solid united governance systems. The board have elected to reappoint CS and good on them for doing so despite the flack that were always going to get from those who dislike CS (to decalre my hand i'm ambivalent about CS but a 3 year deal is a fair vote of confidence by a board who seems to have finally got its act together). The board also moved CC sideways over 12 months ago, a clever and prescient move that suggests they were more across things than some might have given them credit for.
  10. I reckon with our draw we are an outside chance of a top 8 finish if we get on an early season roll and do ok with injuries. Could be worth a sneaky bet at around $10.
  11. Exactly, this is my point also. As i have said previously in this thread if all or most of the players rejected don't make it at other clubs that doesn't make Neeld a genius any more than if a slew of them do super well make him a clutz. What if 3 play reasonable footy but struggle to cement a regular game? Does that make Neeld a partial clutz, or perhaps 48% on the clutzometer. Or if all bar one player disappear without a trace and one becomes a star (and realistically only Gysberts or perhaps at a stretch Martin has the potential for that) does that put him at 83% on the geniusmeter? What we can measure him on is how he develops the list he has now and ultimately how many games we win.
  12. binman

    Lucas Cook

    BP: Lucas? LC: Hello, is it me you're looking for? Cos BP I wonder who you are and I wonder what you do, are you somewhere feeling lonely, will you become a blue? Tell me how to win Bailey's heart,But I worry you don't have a clue, But let me start by saying,I love you (for the chance to play AFL)
  13. binman

    Lucas Cook

    A project player then.
  14. Positive trolling! Joke iv'a. My gut feeling is your source is probably correct. If so i wonder if CW (or perhaps EQ?) will 'break' the story. If we do end up cleared it surely will be huge blot on CW's reputation as a journalist. By going past reporting what her sources have told her into the realm of giving her own views of/opinion of the key people involved and likely outcomes she has a fair bit at stake i would have thought. Sure she can come out swinging and perhaps attack the AFL for not finding something or more likely continue to claim the evidence form our sources suggests we tanked. In fact attack as a form of defense is the most likely approach for her to take (she's not going to admit she got it wrong). What ever approach she takes her reputation as a journo will take a massive hit - at a time when EQ's balanced, insightful reporting of the Crows drama has enhanced her reputation. As i have noted before her gossipy approach to reporting requires good sources. I suspect the quality of her sources is somewhat related to her standing as a journalist and if that takes a hit so will her ability to get inside info.
  15. In a nutshell this is where we differ. I only care how his selections go, not his rejects. If his selections go well then great, if they go poorly then i think it is fair enough to mark him (and the recruiting staff) down on that. I really don't care how the rejects go - well that's not entirely true i hope they go well, particularly Bater who gave his all for the dees. Still, if they go great for my money i still don't see this reflects poorly on Neeld and the recruiting team. You're right that the win loss is not the only indicator (though i assume we can agree the most important one). How he develops the new recruits (partic the rookies and later picks) and players like Blease, Clark, Tynan, Taggert, Watts, Tappy, Nicho, Bail and perhaps most of all Sylvia will also give us an indication of his ability to develop players. Another indicator to evaluate his ability to choose and develop players will be the ones that were borderline to be cut but he elected to keep. In that group i would have Jetta, Davis, Evans, Macdonald, Couch and perhaps even Spencer. All these players were discussed on DL as possible trade bait yet all were kept on, in large part due to their approach to training and general attitude i suspect. Lets see how these boys go - if they earn their spots on the list for the 2014 season then for me that's a big tick for Neeld and the FD.
  16. Ok, fair call. What i was really trying to get at (in an long winded way) was that how players who have been axed performs at other clubs is not a useful or relevant KPI to evaluate Neelds performance on. How Pederrson, Dawes, Rodan and Byrnes perform (and how they contribute to the club culture) will be a much better measure given their respective clubs let them go (though Bynres was a FA). But really the only reliable measure is the win loss ratio. It will go up nest year. If it doesn't, well he will be marked hard.
  17. Fan, sorry but that's bollocks. Gysberts and Bennel playing well in a winning GF team will say absolutely nothing about Neelds decision to axe them this year. Now is the time to judge if we made the right move axing the players we did. If you take DL as a straw poll the only players that consistently people were worried about losing is Rivers and that was his call. As for the rest there has been very few people arguing that we have erred in axing any of them (perhaps a few for Gysberts). The other thing that is relevant is that as can clearly be seen by who we have recruited Neeld is focused on building a physically strong, in and under team of fanatical trainers that suit his game style and philosophy (as articulated in the mantras of being the hardest team to play against and the need for elite preparation). It is no coincidence at all that the players he axed did not fit that template (skinny or poor trainers or questionable courage - in some cases all 3). Perhaps they will suit another clubs template better, and if so good luck to them but that would in no way indicate we erred in letting them go. I'd also add that by concluding that a player who goes onto be a successful player at another club is an indicator of a poor decision by Neeld then logically the opposite must be true. That's to say if none of the players we axed (not the FA's who left) end up being any good at other clubs this indicates Neeld made a sound decision in axing them. This scenario is much more likely that any of them being stars in GF winning side however for mine that is not proof Neeld made the right call. As i have said the only evidence that is worth anything in terms of decisions on players is our win loss ratio. If we finish 4th in three years time the path Neeld has chosen in terms of player choice will have been well and truly vindicated. Fan, to be honest it is hard not to see agendas in the stuff you write, and perhaps this is another example of gentle trolling but your arguments in this case seem quite illogical. You seem to be setting up a criteria for bagging Neeld. Perhaps i'm wrong. However if the players we axe do end up being also ran AFL players (which to be honest i think is highly likely) i can't see you coming on DL and saying that this is proof of Neeld's sound decision making.
  18. Yep we need to see improvement next year and the following to be able to say he has pulled the right rein in terms of player choice etc. I said 5 years because i thought it might get a rise out of you given if Neeld is still around in 5 years it will mean one of the most important decisions of the current board and CEO had been vindicated. I was thinking about player development and really it's not what he will be judged on. WIns and losses is what he will be judged on. Of course player development and good recruiting is crucial but the KPI is number of wins not number of brownlow votes (of players we draft in or those we draft out). If Neeld gets a flag i don't think it would matter one bit if Bennel win a Brownlow, Pettard as Coleman and Morton is AA.
  19. I reckon they would have shipped Moloney in the unlikely event he wanted to stay
  20. You judge him on the list he is building. The players he has cut are all products of another coaches approach. Totally fair though to judge him over the next 5 years in terms of list management and picking players as it is his group and his choices. Clark was a pretty good start i'd have to say. As for other clubs wanting the so not so magnificent seven i would suggest that only Rivers would have been truly sort after, followed a fair way by Moloney. Look at the picks clubs were only prepared to give up for the rest (none in four cases). I would argue also that without the 2 exapansion clubs a few of these players would have not played another game of AFL footy. An interesting article in the Age highlights this: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/new-clubs-stretching-talent-pool-to-the-limit-20121211-2b6yr.html
  21. I love highlights packages - every new recruit looks like an absolute gun. I'd love to see a lowlights package of exiting players to offer their new club (set to beeny hill music)
  22. I reckon the Wharf Hotel suggestion above is a good one if you happen to discuss it any further with the MFC dudes.
  23. Fan, Fan fan always pushing a political agenda! Just joking. Big cull no doubt but i agree it doesn't matter if one or two have good careers elsewhere. There are lots of examples of players who have been traded out and gone on to use the rejection as motivation to prove their previous club wrong. What i don't agree with is that if more than two do well this means we'd have to question Neelds judgement. It doesn't follow that if two or more of those players goes on to be successful at another club they would ipso facto have been successful if they had remained at the dees, or indeed fitted in with our plans.
  • Create New...