binman

If a player is suspended for 6 months what does this actually mean? Obviously he can't play but can he continue to train with the club? The reason i ask is the talk is the ASADA/AFL investigation will take a few more months (read just near end of season). Lets say Essendon (and possible Trengove god forbid) players cop 6 months (which is what Dr. Peter Bruckner suggests in the Age would be the best case scenario) at the end of the 2013 season, they would be right to play at the beginning of the 2014 season. This would save the AFL (who hand down penalties - though ASADA would have to OK them) the problem of Essendon not being able to field a team (with all the implications) and if the players could still train they would be right to go in 2014. All sounds a bit convenient i suppose but i could see it play out this way. As for the punishment for the club, using the punishment meted out to MFC for bringing the game into disrepute you'd have to imagine Essendon will be fined several million dollars and the CEO, board, President and surely Hird (who will have been all over this, there is no way a control freak like him wouldn't have been) will be suspended. There is no way the AFL - or ASADA for that matter - want this to go to court (for different reasons: the impact on the games image and the chaos that it would cause to fixturing, TV rights etc for the AFL and the resource drain for ASADA). The AFL could a scenario such as the one outlined above to cut a deal with the Bombers not to challenge the punishment in court. Its a horror story all round but at least some of the damage would be contained.

I read on DL that SEN had reported he was getting scans on his knee today.

Ahh those were the days.

Troll. Goodbye.

Which was weird as there is no way that ball crossed the goal line and therefore no way it was a goal.

i have to admit i'm confused by this whole scenario and agree with WJ that there must be alot more to this story. I also now agree with Redleg who counselled caution before calling fro scalps and i have to admit i am guilty of going off half cocked in declaring a breakdown in governance and calling for head's to roll (though in my defence in the absence of denials from the club i was assuming AD was being truthful in his assertions the MFC had lied to the AFL about our involvement with Dank - perhaps he was being disingenuous and was referring to us not advising them about AO cream?). Who knows what is what and i'm not going to make the same mistake twice but if the latest articles are to be believed it appears we were made full admissions to the AFL about Dank (again assuming it to correct we didn't know about the cream, which is plausible). Again if the article is to be believed we did a thorough review of our supplement program which included information on the connection to Dank. If this is the case there has been no breakdown in governance. RR you are correct that the club is responsible for the actions of Bates in terms of him not fessing up to the use of a potentially banned substance but this does represent a break down in governance (a company whilst responsible for the actions of its employees can't stop them doing stupid things - only try and minimise the chances of doing them in the fist instance, respond appropriately when they do and mitigate against risks). But where does this leave the club statement that said we had no direct contact with Dank, never employed him and that at the least implied we had no connection to him whatsoever? Not quite a lie but certainly not transparent and poor form. I noted in another thread a couple of weeks back that i was concerned about our media management (eg putting the DeeTv with Mat Burgan and JW where he bemoans the lack of leadership up on the website) and this is just another example. Who is responsible for media management? The CEO and i suspect this will have been a factor in the boards decsion to axe CS. I'm still confused though. Why have the club not come out yet with specific rebuttals to ADs comments?

Please, for the love of god would people put mjt on their ignore list as i have done or at least refrain from continually quoting him. Just getting peripheral (almost subliminal) exposure to his inane statements causes me head pain. Perhaps there needs to be some new orthodoxy for quoting posters like MJT and (insert disliked posters here) where all texted is deleted and the post number is referred to instead.

I like Davey as a sub. Has a touch of class and fresh can hurt sides later in matches when perhaps they are tiring. Perhaps not so flash (pardon the pun) as cover for an early injury.

To be honest i wish he would stop saying stuff like this. I'm no psychologist but surely the team could do without messages that basically suggest they are going to lose matches against more experienced sides. I get he is trying to temper expectations but he needn't worry about that the performances in rounds 1-3 have achieved that aim.

I posted this in another thread but it makes more sense here: I have expressed my concerns for Neelds approach and whilst i have not advocated for him to be sacked i am on record as saying that results will determine his future. Critical to results is whether his players play for him as once a coach has lost his players he's gone. At 3/4 time the whole team would have realized if they came out and turned their toes up there was every chance Neeld was gone. They didn't - quite the opposite. Say what you like about the strength of the opposition but we were terrific in the last quarter last week and i saw a team finally showing support for their coach and for each other for that matter. There was a spirit there that was not there previously. I reckon demondames comments about the drug stuff playing on the team were spot on and in my mind would have been a big factor in the funk they were in. But also i suspect the Sorrento trip may have been an opportunity to get some things out and dealt with. Also i wonder if Neeld has realized that his approach has needed some adjustments and perhaps he's making them I'll add to the above comments that there is a chance that with a crisis such as the one that has engulfed us this season there is the always the chance it can galvanise the FD and playing group. I'm hoping that it has in this case and that last week we turned a big corner. We will see in the first quarter of Sundays game. If we don't 'turn up'then my concern he has lost the players will be reinforced. Alternatively if we play thw whole game with spirit and intensity, then maybe, just maybe the corner has been turned and we are on our way. Fingers crossed.

I love seeing Sylvia listed as smack bang in the middle. I hope they start him there and play him there for as much time as his tank allows. I would love it if Neeld made it publicly clear that Jones and Sylvia are our mid field leaders. I have expressed my concerns for Neelds approach and whilst i have not advocated for him to be sacked i am on record as saying that results will determine his future. Critical to results is whether his players play for him as once a coach has lost his players he's gone. At 3/4 time the whole team would have realized if they came out and turned their toes up there was every chance Neeld was gone. They didn't - quite the opposite. Say what you like about the strength of the opposition but we were terrific in the last quarter last week and i saw a team finally showing support for their coach and for each other for that matter. There was a spirit there that was not there previously. I reckon demondames comments about the drug stuff playing on the team were spot on and in my mind would have been a big factor in the funk they were in. But also i suspect the Sorrento trip may have been an opportunity to get some things out and dealt with. Also i wonder if Neeld has realized that his approach has needed some adjustments and perhaps he's making them Which leads me back to Sylvia. A great coach will get the most out of all players, including the less focused one - not just lift the overall standard of the group. Finding the key to someone like Sylvia is a challenge i suspect but if Neeld can it could be critical given how poor our mid field is. One avenue to explore is go against the normal wisdom and give Sylvia more responsibility not less. I would have loved to see him being put into the leadership group this year for this reason. Tell him he is one of the leaders - jeez promote him to the lg now. We had a glimpse last week of how influential Sylvia can be. If Neeld can support Sylvia to show that sort of leadership week in week out we will do much, much better and Neeld might save his coaching career.

I shouyld have waited a few rounds before backing the dees to make the 8 before the season commenced!

I had the same problem. Hopeless app and as i said the cropped screen drives me nuts. The way around it i found was to refresh the page restarting the application, then going to the last goal of the 3rd quarter (GWS and Nevs report!) and watch from there. The 4th quarter starts automatically after that. You could go to the 1st goal of the last but you miss the first couple of minutes

Forgive me if this has been noted in last couple of pages. RobbieF (i think) made an excellent point a few days back and one that i'm surprised has not been explored by the media. Namely that the MFC have themselves said that the day of the Essendon presser they ensured all ties to Dank were severed. A bit tricky to do, i would have thought, if they had no knowledge of any dealings the club doctor (or anyone else) had with him. I mean you can't cut ties with someone you have no idea you have ties with.

Same problem when i went to the second link (you're not in Australia). Had this issues last week but eventually the replay loaded. However screen was cropped and inside a stupid red box meaning you can't get a full screen. The first two games were available on Big Pond TV and there was no cropping but that seems to have disappeared. What was wrong with the links on the AFL site/ ie free replays with no stupid box and easy to find. They still have videos there but only highlights and uselessly replays of NAB cup games.

Good point well made. Lets hope we get to the true facts as soon as practicable. Perhaps i've just had too much dees related drama but worry there will be more. Time will tell.

Redleg i appreciate you replying to my questions but i suppose where we differ is on what constitutes a failure of governance. Baghdad Bob post above sums up nicely how i define it. Without banging on about it Bates is an employee of the club and therefore the board are responsible for his behaviour and the ramifications of any poor practice. Of course the board can't be across all 'conversations' an employee has but we're not really talking about conversations here are we. The club Doctor had what appear to be regular contact with Dank over at least 6 months and tat the least took advice from him on how to treat our players. As Bob notes good governance is having the proper internal systems to mitigate against risk. The board seem to saying they did not know about Bate's dealings with Dank which is clear breakdown in governance. I really should have asked another question. That is do you really believe the club doctor would plan treatment of the players without checking it off with the FD, that's to say do you really believe the FD did not approve the contact with Dank. Me? I cannot believe that with their seeming fanatic focus on process Misson, Craig and Neelds would not have known exactly what contact Bates had with Dank and to be honest i'd be surprised if they were not directly involved.

Perhaps over the journey Jumbo has had some shots at JW but i was thinking the other day how measured he has been in the last few weeks about JW given his form. Differerent topic (related?) but i have been really disappointed with how Neeld has managed Watts this season.

The first text from Bates was September 2012 and the last (on the day of the essendon presser, bates advising Dank that the presser was happening!) was Feb 5th 2013. Months.

FGS governance isn't a buzzword!

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/melbourne-demons-are-kings-of-the-crisis/story-e6frecm3-1226624768204

You have to be kidding. Again i ask do you understand the concept of governance? This exactly a real world scenario. The board are ultimately responsible for the actions of the organisation's employees. If the employee does something without the board knowing and it causes real problems for the organisation it is evidence of a breakdown in governance and a failure of the organisations risk management policy and procedures. Do you really not understand that?

Ok redleg. can i ask you three questions. One. Given the board apparently did a thorough review of our use of supplement program post the Essendon disclosure i am assuming, based on your comments, that you believe they did not uncover the fact the the club doctor was in regular contact over several months with Dank (the common link in the ACA report across two football codes). Is this this the case? The second question is if this is the case does that not cause you concern? The third question is , if evidence comes to light that the board knew about the club utilising Dank's services (ie 'knowing about these conversations") do you believe this to be evidence of a failure of governance?

Do you really believe that? If so i retract my comment that you appear relatively switched on.

Redleg and Stuie i am really surprised that you are both taking the stance you are as you both seem relatively switched on. Do either of you understand what governance means? Lets say it is true that the good Doctor did not follow proper processes and there was a "breakdown in reporting protocols". Leaving aside the fact that President of the club has said the club did a thorough review of the club supplement program (and seemingly did not pick up this breakdown in protocols - i mean what sort of review fails to pick this up?) the responsibility for such a breakdown is the completely that of the boards - not the employee. This is what governance means - and this is why being a board member, little lone a president is such a huge responsibility When the [censored] fails it is on your head! They have seen fit to sack a CEO and now a doctor. The CEO is the board's representative and a doctor their employee. Can either of you seriously suggest that this does not directly reflect on the board? Governance 101