nutbean

I agree with you that LG is more than just training hard and playing well but I disagree with you on Judd. Whilst he has had a couple of well publicised lapses ( Fevola at the brownlow and the the kid who was tied up on the boat to mention two) he has great leadership qualities in my opinion. The number of times Carlton has needed someone to get them back in a game or take it by the scruff of the neck and Judd has done one or two things that sets the team going is countless. He leads by example. I liken Nathan Jones to him in that over the last 2 seasons when we are getting creamed it seems to inspire Jones to work even harder. He not only runs himself into the ground when the game is still on, he does it when we are 100 points down.

my mind is hazy on exacts but as a long time 'ology poster I can also state from memory she is a respected poster and breaks news over there.

I must have a short memory but I dont remember him at all (groan)

I dont recall the clue being "one good game".

True story - I was torn on how to vote and I voted with my head and voted "merge" - I went to the letterbox at the end of my street and popped the letter into the hole and then felt ill - I sat by that letterbox feeling sick and waited for the pickup and talked to the postie when he arrived to collect the mail - of all things he was a Hawks supporter understood my agony and we retrieved my letter, I ripped it up, got new forms the next day and sent off a "no merge" vote

Their fitness and natural atheleticism is something that all our players should aim for but we also have to be careful in that the likes of T Mac, Nicho and Jonesy are exactly that - phenomenal athletes - that doesnt mean they go above and beyond the call or can be called leaders ( Jones in my opinion is one player that does) I have a great love for Joel Mac - turns the ball over and makes some really dodgy decisions - yet I have never seen him once shirk an issue - or go less than 100% at a contest or drop his head. Come better times he wont be in the team because of his shortcomings but I admire him none the less - I have watched him train - he is not the first the past the finishing line and is far from a natural athlete but he gives 110% on the track none the less. Every footballer on our list should be thinking to themselves - "I have the talent to kick the ball well and make decent decisions but if I can just emulate Joel Mac's commitment to the contest then I will be a better footballer"

Being a good trainer doesnt necessarily make you a leader - being in the leadership group shouldnt be a reward for being a champion footballer, top trainer or a motivation to do better. Elevation to the leadership group should be a reward for showing good leadership qualities.

Agreed. And why do people also believe that "talent" means a player is a leader ( Watts ? Howe ?) I checked on Mike Sheahans top 20 ( not that his list is definitive - but ok for this exercise) and noted that around 40% of the top 20 aren't in their clubs leadership group.

100% with you - not sure how to read that the leadership group is picked by a combination of the players/admin and coaches in relation to how much say Neeld actually has. Either way - you earn your place in the group - not get given a place in the hope that you will earn it on the job.

Keep doing the same thing over and over again and you will get the same result. What gives me great hope is from top to bottom since the arrival of Neeld there has been a recognition of the above . From last year, dropping players regardless of reputation or seniority, recruiting mature age players, recruiters youngsters who arent project players, trading out players who in past lives we would continue to hold onto in hope of them making the grade, training harder and differently than we ever have before - these are actions of a club that recognise that we got it wrong before and this is the way forward - whether it works remains to be seen but Neeld and Co are certainly living by adage - keep doing the same thing and you'll get the same result - the MFC is doing things completely differently to try and not repeat mistakes of the past

I dont sweat history I can't change. I look and feel comfortable that I can see that the ruling junta are not going down the same path with project players. Having said that we could all be sitting here in 18 months time and thinking - what the hell was Neeld and Co thinking with picking up mature age players - I dont judge over one year but if we were to - would you say the selection of 4 mature age footballers last year was a success ?

So now that we have completely buried the kid let's try for some objectivity. He won AA honours in the under 18's - arguably that puts him in the top 24 junior footballers in the land ( I say arguably as footballers miss the championships because of injury and certain top ten picks have a few off games in the championships and dont make AA). By my reckoning that makes him at least a top 30 pick. Yes, it was over ambitious with pick 12 but based on the evidence at the time he was a highly touted draft pick. What does that tell us? Not that we picked up a footballer with pick 12 who should not have even been drafted by anyone ( to claim that again is retrospectivity of the highest order) - we picked up a footballer maybe 10 rungs too early in the draft who just didnt make it - we paid first round for probably a second round draft pick. Some make it - some don't - them's the breaks. Whether Cook will make it is a moot point - some footballers just take longer to mature and are showing little at Cooks age - what I think is very apparent is that Neeld has little interest in project players - his picks are going to show their hands pretty early or out they go.

everyone said it all before me - my fondest memories would be the strategic move by his then coach ( my memory of who that was is hazy - could have been Skilton) to move everyone to one wing for the kickout from fullback - and in those days it was in our backline alot - except he would leave Robbie one out on halfback against his opponent and the fullback would kick it on his head- 11 times out of 10 Robbie would outmark his opponent. I always thought that opposition coaches really should ignore everything else and just put most players around where Robbie was for the kickout - that was where we always went with good reason. He was poetry in motion and just oozed magic.

I call this the "my kids" approach by the AFL - with the media playing the part of my kids and me being the AFL. kids - are we there yet ? me - not yet kids - are we there yet ? me - not yet kids - are we there yet ? me - not yet kids - are we there yet ? me - not yet When we do get there it has taken so long that my kids have lost interest and moved on to something else.

Stars VS Depth.. That's always been my hobby horse, Fan. I tend to believe that if you can get two stars into the midfield it can have the effect of bringing other lesser lights into the game and on occasions help them develop into more than just depth footballers. With the pressure off by being the 3rd or 4th best midfielder it makes it easier to shine. I have no doubt that with Tigers Delidio, Cotchin and Martin it certainly makes it easier for the likes of Grigg, Concha and Houli ( and to a lesser extent Tuck and Foley who are good players in their own right) to shine as they get lesser attention/opponents in the match ups. I may get howled down but give me a couple of stars and some honest triers in the midfield over a uniform and even bunch of footballers any day. I think Beams shined this year as he is still third cab off the rank behind Swan and Pendles. Develop some stars and it helps others around them.

No heat at all... If the best they can do is a half arsed Chris Connolly and an hysterical Caroline Wilson then if the put that show on before the commission it will close on opening night. I understand that the MFC have hired "the fink" as a strategic exercise ( AFL - we have a much bigger one than you so dont mess with us) but in reality if it truly is the "comments" that the AFL are hanging a case on then we could have hired Lionel Lutz to defend us.

Please don't tell me this whole investigation hinges on a stupid CC comment ??? I think we need some Jack Nicholson action - get McLardy into the box to respond to the AFL. "Now are these really the questions I was called here to answer? Bad Chris Connolly jokes and numbnuts Brock McLean? Please tell me you've got something more, AFL. Please tell me there's an ace up your sleeve. The MFC is on trial for it's integrity. Please tell me the AFL hasn't pinned their hopes on failed humour and Bogun donuts braindead..... Do you have any other questions for me, AFL? Well ? Do you punk...." (I went a bit "Clint" at the end for effect) (They can't handle the truth)

I know there is an old saying " there is no such thing as bad publicity" but do you really believe that AD wants the publicity of this issue where there will be no winners (and one big loser which I am tipping will be the AFL) ? In most sections of the media we have be judged and sentenced passed - when the AFL come out with a finding of "insufficient evidence" do you think that the CW's of the world will say thats ok then, everyone move in. The AFL are damned if they do, damned if they dont - Unless there were players instructed to lose or there is manual that the investigators found on 20 ways to lose a footy match then the AFL can't bring charges but if they dont bring charges the media will lash the AFL. AD does not want this publicity - he wants this issue to GO AWAY.

I think we border-line tanked so I gotta leave games at half-time.

I will go down the simplistic route and NOT look at the profit in isolation. I look at a $70K in relation to a year where 1/ our football was atrocious 2/ we had to replace major sponsors 3/ were never off the front pages for various reasons and none were particularly positive Being in business I fully understand that you are only as good as your last profit result. The strides we have taken under this current administration in my mind has been significant and I see no reason that given what they have accomplished in adversity will not continue - we could not get any worse onfield and made profit so even a hint of improve will help the cause. Cudo's and applause to those who made this result possible.

I'm not kidding myself because I 100% agree with you - there was a checklist of one in all three cases - and it is called a big bagfull of money. But there is a huge difference in Judd/Ablett vs Scully. Did you hear Ablett/Judd say at any stage I want to be a one club player and envisage that will be case (to the question on how you can reject large sums of GWS money) because I am happy at the club and happy what i am doing Neither myself nor my family or agent have been contacted by GWS ( thats after Phil had already signed up with GWS) Alistair Lynch his agent saying that Melbourne supporters had every reason to be confident that Scully would stay Ablett and Judd kept schtum and played out the charade - Scully and his team lied through their teeth - a very big difference in my eyes

So take this to its logical conclusion.The investigators/commission give an unambiguous definition of "tanking" and how the MFC has brought the game into disrepute - Melbourne is sanctioned and it goes to court - Personally I think it is so grey and fluffy that a court would have problems upholding any charge of wrongdoing on a rule that required significant defining AFTER the event but lets say that they did uphold the charge. A standard has been set and the AFL would be obliged to measure 6 other clubs against the same court approved standard. Can you see this as something the AFL wants ??? The only thing I can possibly see happening ( and the MFC would have to tacitly agree to it) is the AFL will find no case to answer but question the actions/comments of CC as a "role model" for good admininstration of the game even if the comments were said in jest and he would fall on his sword. As yet I have yet to hear anything that implicates CS. As I said - the club would have to agree to this. Anything harsher than this - including monetary punishment or draft pick removal I think you will find the MFC going the AFL head on in court.

And i dont have a problem with that - I dont have a problem with Judd's selection - where we were and what we were offering compared to Carlton - I would have taken Carltons offer in a heartbeat. But Ablett and Judd had one thing in common - as much as a charade that it was - both refused to confirm or deny their intentions to their clubs until seasons end - they gave no promises - no undertakings. If Tom had held his ground and stared down the club ( and yes - he may have suffered consequences for this action) then I have no problem in going for the bucks - however Tom Scully has been shown up to be a liar - he lied to Jim Stynes face, he lied to supporters, he lied to the media - he has zero integrity in my eyes.

"Everytime I try and get out they pull me back in" - Michael Corleone and Demonland on Scully. For me it was never about loyalty - it was about honesty. Gazza Jnr refused to enter the debate the whole of the year of his going to GC17 - he refused to say if he had signed, hadnt signed - end of story Little Tommy on the other hand ( and his management) lied through their teeth through the whole process Jimmy was wrong when he said that the system forced players to lie. The system was horrible in that it forced Gazza Jnr to show his club a stone wall by refusing to confirm or deny anything until seasons end. Tommy went the other route and lied. Thats what irked me.

I havent and wont peddle the defense that we should get off because others have done the same thing. What I am strong in my view on, is if the AFL set standards/definitions of "tanking" and we are found guilty of what we did in the past then so be it. However then the AFL must also apply the same standards to ALL clubs and what they have done in the past. This is not a call to use other clubs actions as a defense - its a call for equality in dispensing justice.