binman

Roos talks about his trip to Africa with burgs in the second part of the interview on Deetv. Basically says trip was long planned and club agreed to allow him to go. Was very cool about it all, basically said he trusts the players to come back switched on and there are good coaches on deck.

A decent run with injuries is absolutely crucial (it's part of footy culture to downplay the impact of injuries but in my view it is perhaps the biggest determinant of a sides success). Whatever anyone says about Neeld it has to be said he had terrible luck in terms of players being out. Surely we are due some luck on that front. I hope you're right about Hogan because every side needs a super star and i agree that we haven't had one since Flower (Shwarter was very close before his first knee injury and i have no doubt would have gone to be a super star of the game). Super stars obviously help on field but almost as important is the buzz and excitement they bring as well as the new fans that come on board.

I agree rjay, i can see Howe marking 60 meters out and pumping it in but also floating inside the 50 to take some screamers and a few mis here and there on the ball. Howe is not too bad when the ball hits the ground so he could even be a bit of a crumber'. Its interesting that Howe is so clear on his role so far out (and also that Roos doesn't see him as a mid given he is fit and strong, personally i love the idea of him up forward). Similar to Watts and Grimes. Obviously clarity of role is important to Roos. As for the forward line, even without Howe it is pretty big isn't it (when all players are in there). Its interesting that the Swans are also going big up forward. Two big guys seems to be the orthodoxy. Three might turn it up to 11. Good time for the rule to soften a bit on the use of strength to get position in marking contests, something Cloke has said he is pumped about. I imagine Clark, Fitzy, Hogan and Dawes are also pretty happy.

I'd love to see Clark as a skipper, however with his injuries i can't see it happening. It will be a stressful season for Clark i reckon, with the constant query in his mind if he'll get re injured. The club won't want to take his focus away from just getting back on the park and staying there. My tip? Three captains: Grimes - no way they'll demote him, he would have stood down if it was on the cards Jones - he's our clear on field leader and more and more an off field spokesperson, also has put his hand up - the stuff about him being an introvert is a furphy Garland - loves the club, determined, intelligent and played his best footy last year when it would have been easy to go missing - the mark of a leader

Sorry have i missed something? You trumpeted that the Toump was weak and in your view would be never be better than somewhere between Cale Morton and a B grader. Fine, everyone's entitled to their opinion. However you upped the ante when someone disagreed and you responded by saying you would bet that you are correct. I agreed to take the bet. I put up what are reasonable terms and you baulk. All talk. Nothing is more annoying than someone who talks the big talk and won't back it up. Do you seriously think that one season (his second in the AFL) will satisfactorily answer the question of how good the toump will become? You're either clueless or a troll - i suspect the latter. Anyway more fool me for engaging in this discussion. I will now put you on ignore ( a select group i must say so congrats). By the by i suspect the Toump will have a terrific 2014.

. The latter. Which means I may not have to wait six years to win. He could poll 10 or more in the next two seasons and I'm a winner!

Done. If the toump polls 10 or more brownlow votes in 2 of the next six seasons you stop posting on Demonland. If he doesn't i will stop. Best of luck.

Interesting. Nice move of the goals posts. Your asserted that you were willing to bet that he would never become more than an average player and i said i would take that bet. You might remember i also suggested a metric of 2 years in the next six where he gets more than 10 votes in the brownlow (using the logic that the brownlow is the mid fielders award). Now you are moving it to having an ordinary year? Troll like. I'm happy to take the original bet, with the loser no longer posting on Demonland. So, will you take the bet? Given how confident you seem to be about your assessment of the Toump's potential i would be puzzled if you don't.

Good post. I always liked col as a player but c'mon on his commitment has never been AFL standard. Sure he had lots of injuries and niggles and many interrupted pre seasons but all players do. The really good players show the same commitment to their rehab and to pushing thorough the pain barrier as they do to their game day. I suspect Col has never had that commitment.

All well and good. But as i say in the post from me you quoted i am willing to bet you are wrong. Again i say put your money where your (virtual) mouth is. You are the one who said you are willing to bet that your assessment of the toump is correct. Well i say put up or shut up. Lets not make it a money bet, Something more creative. Perhaps Demonland can come up with a stake. Again put up or shut up.

A truly appalling article. Pathetic really - who the hell is Chip Le Grand anyway? What point is he trying to make? He makes the claim that The ASADA report, which was used by the AFL to inform code of conduct charges against Essendon, senior coach James Hird and other club officials, presents a detailed, circumstantial case that Essendon players were given thymosin beta 4. It does not canvass the possibility that the players were given Thymomodulin. Why would the report canvas this possibility? As he says previously in the article Thymomodulin is safe and not banned. Why would a report about a clubs possible use of banned drugs discuss their use of non banned drugs? Perhaps Chip means that ASADA should have included reference to it in the context of it being confused with thymosin 4 (ie as grounds to throw doubt on the use of thy 4) but if so bloody write that. In any case it appears ASADA are pretty clear there is circumstantial evidence thy 4 was administered.).

You don't even need to read between the lines: "He hasn’t trained too much with us. He’s working through some fitness stuff with the coaches." Say no more

I was just thinking the same thing yesterday. I reckon you spot on with Grimes and Jones but also Garland. I think Garlo is exactly the sot of character Roos loves - thoughtful, showed a real passion and zeal last year in a very difficult year (his best season and it was perhaps the thing i most respected was the worse we played the better he played) and has a sense of and repect for the history. In other words a leader.

I agree with Bob in hindsight it was a poor decision by the club to go with Neeld. I'm not sure what value there is in flogging a dead horse in terms of evaluating his performance given whilst of course there might be some small positives the proof was in the pudding. One thing though that i would throw into the mix in terms of how the clubs sees his tenure is that in the messages from the President and CEO in Heart beat Neeld is not thanked, indeed he is not even mentioned. The closest either come to even acknowledging him is PJ thanking the coaches fro a difficult year. A number of people are specifically thanked, including Craig who both Bartlett and PJ single out for special thanks. Perhaps it not the done thing to acknowledge or thank a staff member who has been sacked, i don't know. Perhaps it doesn't indicate or mean anything but it seemed strange to me that that they didn't thank or at the least acknowledge him, given that whatever you think of his performance he gave it his best shot. It felt a bit like they were airbrushing him out of history which if the case is not cool.

Yes interesting article. One important point though - it's written by Michael Davis not Micheal Warner (his name caught my attention and i thought he must have left News Ltd)

Good post. I agree that often a CEO can very influential, though a board has to accept the decisions it makes regardless. Also as another poster noted (sorry can't recall who) AD sits on the commission in some capacity. I had forgotten that and to be honest i'm not really sure what the parameters of his position is but it certainly blurs governance and management. I also agree that his performance review will not be as favorable as it has been previously and that the commission's faith in Ad will have taken a big hit. I'm not sure i agree though that if infraction notices are served (with all the resulting financial pain) that this would force AD or any commissioners to resign. You said that AD could have implemented closer scrutiny on Essendon if he had have chosen to. Do you mean before it came to light eg by putting in controls about sports scientists and supplement programs (something he has acknowledged the AFL should have done)? Perhaps but i don't see this a failure of governance, perhaps poor management but not a sacking offfence. I can't see any failures of governance post it all coining out either. Maybe some poor calls by AD but again not sacking offences.

I would add that he got the list a lot fitter and improved the professionalism of training. Roos will reap the reward of that work. Also by being such a hard ass and seemingly overseeing an atmosphere where there was not a great deal of fun the players will get a short term shot of relief and revitalization, that again Roos will reap the benefit of. Also, whilst i know its not in the spirit of the thread, it has to be said if were not for how dismal his time was the AFL would not have stepped in and got us Jackson and therefore no Roos (not to mention 2-3 players)

The AFL have not been corrupt in this matter. You could argue they made an error in electing to do a joint investigation and clearly they had the self imposed time limit of not wanting the es to play finals. But corrupt? Silly talk straight out of the Hird spin factory

I had thought that but i don't now. The AFL should have done an investigation based purely on the breakdown of governance and for the supplement program itself (ie the processes involved - lack of records, off site injections, players health put at risk, experimental program etc etc) and left ASADA to focus on the use of performance menacing drugs. I reckon there was enough in the bombers own report ('pharmacological experimental environment, sidelining medical staff etc) to hit them with sanctions anyway. If they needed more they could have got it. For one thing the AFL could have said prove to us that your players were not administered anything harmful to their health - produce your records.

Good post. I have to say i didn't think the joint investigation was a bad idea but in hindsight it clearly was. What i would say is that rather that whilst Little has been abrasive Hird has been the real wild card. The AFL would have expected it all to disappear but they underestimated Hird's manic refusal to let it go. I best they wished they slugged him harder. But given they control the draw (amongst other things) the AFL have still got some cards to play in terms of whacking the bombers

I'm serious I'll bet you the toump will become an a grader. Do you want to put your money where your mouth is? Perhaps, given the brownlow is the mid fielder's medal a way of defining an a grade mid would be 2 years with 10 or more votes. You said never but perhaps let's limit it to the next 6 years ie he gets more than 10 votes in 2 of the next 6 years. If you agree with that metric we just need to agree on a stake

. I'll take that bet. What shall we wager and how will we determine a winner?

A great quote from that thread: Well I believe I actually invented the term, correct me if I'm wrong. It is always being misdiagnosed. It's when we obviously have something good, the MFCSS sufferer will automatically build a defense mechanism for when this good thing is inevitably taken away. Everything at MFC is too good to be true. Eg. Damn Liam Jurrah was exciting in his 3rd game, too bad he'll probably go back to the Northern Territory. Unfortunate example! Even a fan with a severe dose of MFCSS would never have guessed that Liam returning to NT would not come close to capturing the full extent of the associated drama.

Where's Roger's report?

Sexism is defined as: 1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women. 2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender. The LLF is an an event that involves women dressed in lingerie (note not sporting attire but clothes that are designed to specifically sexually titillate) performing for the gratification of men (in an event owned and promoted by a man) that promotes the stereotype of women as sexual objects (objectifying women in the process and making a mockery of serious women's sports) Perhaps you are thinking of definition 1 but surely any right thinking person would concede that such a scenario meets the definition of sexism. Perhaps you don't think it meets this definition, that's up to you. I won't bother to try and convince you further. But as Choke notes above this drivel exists because of the demand for it. It seems to be we are going backwards and some of the posts in this thread merely reinforce that view.