binman

Spot on i reckon. Denham and KB were having a shot at the dees fro picking him this week after not playing him at Casey last week (with Denham suggesting it is further evidence of the chaos at MFC), Bolloocks, and to me shows a distinct lack of sophisticated or nuanced understanding of how a club operates. As noted by LDC he simply wasn't right to play. If conditioning was an issue one session, however intense, aint going to fix that. They no doubt took him to Perth to support him in the team environment, get him away from Melbourne and the spotlight and get his head straight for the tiges. Smart man management i reckon, which should be applauded not derided. Lets hope it pays off in spades and AD plays a blinder. I feel strangely confident about the game this week. Perhaps all the drama of the last few weeks will bring the team and FD together and actually end up being a blessing in disguise.

Credit where credit is due> If the CEO has to take responsibility for not securing a sponsor, he gets to take to take the credit and kudos when one is secured.

At the risk of going round and round the Darling bush I put more stock in his AFL form than his 2010 underage form. In any case the fact he was being selected for a senior WAFL team indicates he good enough in their eyes to play at a high level and against men so we would have been pretty confident he could have made the next step (which of course he has). So his "top age form"was good enough to play senior footy in the WAFL as an 18 year old, that's good enough for me. I wonder if Cook was still available at 26 if WC would have picked him before Darling. Me thinks not. Well played WC

Yep i reckon chasing a few more wins now wouldn't hurt. Getting smashed doesn't help our chances of winning a flag. Besides adding Darling would have helped build a structure around (whether that be Neelds or the then coach Bailey who was on record as saying we needed a big player up forward to compete), one of the arguments for getting Clark this year. And for that matter an arguments (along with adding grunt) for taking Sellar, Couch and Magner rather than younger players with more potential. Its the bird in the hand argument really. We have no idea if Cook will come on, if he will be the 2nd or 3rd strong KPF who clunks contested marks. We do know Darling, barring injury is likely to be a 150 game player. And on the logic that big men take time he is likely to get better and be reaching his peak about the same time Cook is playing his first handful of games. As a punter i like the odds of Darling being the better pick. The obvious question (which i think may have been posted by someone else) is if we had a choice right now between the 2 who would you take. I guess JM you would take Cook but i'd suggest, and i could be wrong, most footy experts (eg media analysts etc) would take Darling. I reckon Neeld certainly would.

I hope you a right about this, well to be more accurate i hope he delivers on that potential. I suppose part of where i'm coming from with that is if he does deliver on that potential it is likely not going to be for another 2-3 years, by which time Darling may well have racked up 80 odd games of footy. You are right he probably isn't a power forward as such but the aggression you note would be very handy over the next 4 seasons and is something we so sorely lack. As much as Miller was frustrating i miss his desire to throw his weight around

To clarify. We should have taken Darling not Cook. It was an error, in my opinion, not to do so. I don't see how you could argue it is revisionism to say Darling had been playing senior footy in a strong league (the WAFL) and as we have seen was ready to step straight in senior AFL footy, as a KPF no less. ​It is a statement of fact - he was playing senior WAFL football and he has slotted straight into a top 4 team as a KPF. Jose, there is a reason some posters are adamant you are also Dr Who (i could care less if you are or aren't though i have to say having multiple names strikes me as very strange). Both of you (and for that matter previous incarnations such as e25 et al) seem to feel it is appropriate to consistently use an insulting, condescending tone in your posts. It almost seems to be your default position. Perhaps your goal is to deliberatley create conflict (and if so that's sad) but surely you would be cognisant of the fact that consistently using such a tone contributes nothing positive, often detracts from your argument and makes it hard to take your posts seriously. As my dear departed gran often said about wankers such as Sam Newman - ïf you can't say anything nice, don't bother saying anything"

Yep. I don't understand how any one could seriously argue we should have taken Darling instead of Cook. It was an absolute no brainer. Even if you think that Cook will end up being a better player Darling had been playing senior footy in a strong league (the WAFL) and as we have seen was ready to step straight in senior AFL footy, as a KPF no less. We were crying out for such a player to give some chop out to Watts and Jurrah and we would have a player now who could fill that role at base rates. Even if he did end up going home to WA after a few years he would have served his purpose and perhaps we could have benefited from a trade. As i said no brainer.

It's not about the journey, it's about how you get there

Fight apathy............or don't

Damn. He's in my supercoach team. I hope Carlton takes the feather duster approach!

Yep, i agree. Neeld def gave the story oxygen with his emotional rebuttal and did look a bit silly a day or so later saying there was now no need or urgency in finding the "source"

Really? Grey? We don't have a FOJ sponsor. Our major sponsor has been sacked (and even if you accept that due diligence was followed in letting Energywatch on board the buck still stops with the CEO for selecting a company owned and run by a borderline lunatic - his self published autobiography at the least should have raised some red flags). There has been rumblings that Kapersky were less than impressed with the service they received and didn't re-sign. Not much grey there i wouldn't have thought. Red faced but not much grey. Like any business a CEO is judged on results and unfortunately the scoreboard does not look good for CS. Oh and you don't think the CEO has a role in building unity and ensuring everyone sticks to their roles?

As opposed to forging a united club, attracting the right sponsors and having clarity about roles

Topic should be Recruiting and Development

Bring back the roller coaster!

Keeping the sad vibe going, just over heard a fella tell his mate as they were walking a busy street "i reckon GWS and GC will get a win before the dees". Jeez louise. Let's win this week dees! That will leave the toiges 0-3 and the gloom and doom talk might transfer to them

What choice do we have? Our enthusiasm might wane. We might find it hard to convince ourselves to trudge of to the footy mid winter to watch the dees get smashed. Like watching a car crash in slow motion we will read about more crazy stuff happening at the club. We will put up with (just) the oh so funny comments about the dees from family and friends. We will slowly accept that we have to almost rebuild from scratch and won't progress until we have turned over every player older than 25 (with the possible exception of Jamar). Despite ourselves we will start wondering if the curse of The Red Fox is real. But what choice do we have. As i said to my 9 year old son once you barrack for a team, that't it, ther's nothing to be done.They're our team and for better or more likely worse we have to remain loyal.

Yes, i agree. My feeling is we are still dealing with whatever did actually go wrong last year. It was widely reported around the time of 186 that the admin and footy department (and players) were at loggerheads, suggesting Hells Gate's comments about how involved Schwab has been in the football department's business over the last couple of years are close to the mark. My sense is this might well be central to what went so badly wrong last year and i also feel it continues to impact this year. Don't get me wrong i'm not suggesting Schwab is responsible or should go but there was definitely some sort of trauma last year (beyond the obvious in the sacking of Bailey and 186). Trauma takes time to deal with and can linger for a long time, particularly if it swept under the carpet and not properly acknowledged and/or addressed. There is no such thing as drawing a line and fully starting afresh, something Neeld is now having to come to terms with. Something still doesn't feel right at the club

Apparently he's got a pretty good right fut on him

Yes there are many, not last of which is the brand is Energywatch, a brand that will forever be tainted. It is a company that is dead in the water

Perhaps Demonland could be a sponsnor

Have you read what he published on facebook? There is a litany of disgusting references, comments etc. He makes multiple obscene racist comments, misogynist rants and direct personal attacks. The guy is a lunatic

Thanks this post has clarified things for me. You are taking the [censored]!

Are you serious or are you taking the [censored]? Of course we have to dump them as sponsors, we have absolutely no choice. From an ethical and moral perspective we simply must immediately sever all ties - i'm surprised they haven;t done so already'. Leaving aside the ethical imperative we also have to cut ties on financial grounds. Do you think we have a hope in hell of attracting any new sponsors (or keep our existing ones for that matter) whilst this fella is involved in the club. How do, in good faith, negotiate with say an large Chinese company (ï'm not racist because my cleaner is Asian"). No company in the world will come near us, now or in the future unless we cut ties. For god sake the Prime Minister has come out and criticized him - the Prime Minister!

Not returning multiple calls (and tweets) over a 3 week period from a club CEO (knowing full well what Schwab wanted to talk about) . Refusing to take Aaron Davey's calls or return messages from Tuesday on and then not wanting to participate in a mediation session his own employer had wanted to happen. What's his role again? That's right community engagement. I don't see much evidence he knows much about engagement. Perhaps he could google the word (and whilst at the computer might also look up the words confidential and trust). His "mate" Thomas might also consider looking up the word friendship as it would appear he has no idea what it means. With friends like that ......