nutbean

Yes - this issue should be tabled

wink wink nudge nudge say no more actually told me he was staying.

Sorry - forgot to follow up with the "tongue in cheek" emoticon

I just looked at the player review. Is it just me or is it a much better reflection of what we saw rather than the fairy floss we usually get delivered?

Just thought you argument was reality vs crystal balling - who would know ? P.S. We could have had Darling

I could go with the line that a few of our players have earned the right to have the words "Energy Watch" on their jumpers but I won't

Did the sun come up this morning - yes it did Will the sun come up tomorrow - I hope it will

I am not criticizing him at all ( as I explained in the post) but he certainly gathered a reputation of shirking a few and not going in where angels fear to tread in his very early days. He was very slight and very new. Look at him now. I guess the take home message is - look what two or three preseasons and 50 plus games can do to the body and mind. Would call him anything but soft now. Daisy Thomas was also a show pony fringe dweller in his first couple of season and is now kamikaze ridiculous at the ball.

or maybe we could hope that Tom is a pea heart like Murphy was in his first two seasons. I stress WAS - his last two seasons have seen him eradicate the unjustified soft tag that he carried. I say unjustified to the extent that he wasnt hard at the contest in any way shape or form but was a young kid built like a twig. Five seasons of football and look what he is now.

Jimmy Phil or Nathan ?

I will not post.... I will not post.... I will not post....

On a weekend with not much to laugh about - Sunday Footy show - Todd Viney when asked about his son Jack's attributes gave the questioner the Todd Viney death stare and said " he'll have a crack". You may have had to have been there but made me laugh.

Not the turning point but the umpiring is really taking the enjoyment out of the game for me. I thought we got the rough end of the stick but geez they made some rubbish decisions both ways. The one that upset me was the Jack Watts decision down the Punt Road end where he refused to pick up the ball and his opponent had his hands wrapped around him - simple umpiring rule - I know his Jacks arms werent pinned but you cant wrap your arms around a player that doesnt have the ball - its called holding the man. Easiest decision of the day unpaid.

Real leaders do not need to be voted in - through their deeds and actions they scream without voices - " I am a leader". I will temper this with the disclaimer that we are only privvy to an outside view of leadership. For example, Tom Harley from the outside looked adequate but all the insiders at Geelong always raved about his leadership qualities. And HO007 - I will always be as constructive but this behind the 8 ball due to spends and facilities should not diminish good leadership. The best of everything does give you an added edge but also doesnt necessarily give you the desired end result. During the 90's the West Coast Eagles with state of the art facilities were playing off in finals against North Melbourne who worked out of shipping containers at Arden Street. I actually dont think it is indictment on the club that we dont have a strong leadership group. I think actual think the reason we dont have a strong leadership group is because we dont have strong leaders.

I find the above concerning staffing and the boards disappointment - if the above is true then it is truly amatuer hour and everyone should be on their bike including the board - the above means that the CEO works outside his parameters and without accountability to anyone. The Board has zero idea of what is happening at the club and allows the club management to do as it pleases and its annual budget sessions and monthly financial reviews are non existant. I say this with the firm belief that this is a load of hocum and not the case. People who have worked/work in a corporate environment, will tell you that have a little thing controlling the company's actions called "budgets". The Board would be presented annually a financial plan for the year ( and subsequent years). This would be reviewed and reassessed monthly at the board meeting. The spends would be tracked against budget and the biggest of these items would be staff. The budget would clearly spell out staff numbers and dollars in the football department ( players, coaches, boot studders, water boys)and in the administration ( CEO down to the girl Friday). The monthly review would flesh out how the actuals are panning out against budget. To suggest that CS surrounded himself with "expensive" admin staff and the board is disappointed can only mean that the board and CS work in complete isolation with no accountability. If true ( which I doubt) it is as much an indictment of the board as it is CS. I dont believe that to be case. EDIT - what i will say as a postscript to this post is budgetry processes and business plans are rarely if ever "pen to paper, present and approve". They are a negotiation between management and the board ( and negotiations between sections of managment and sections of the board) to get agreement on direction and spends. There will be invariably people on the board and in management who will agree or disagree with the final majority concensus. I will not discount that these rumblings around certain actions or inactions are from parties that may not have agreed with directions or decision that the "majority" approved.

I posted elsewhere how the journo's and Paul O'Connor looking rather silly in suggesting that Taylor Walker had already signed with GWS when in fact, with Davis going - this cannot be the truth. Jon Ralph tweeted last night - " Just a thought: Taylor Walker was the first certainty to go to the expansion club who didnt go. So is there a chance Scully hasnt made up his mind ?" I couldnt resist - I tweeted back - "Scully hasnt made up his mind ? Who knows. It does prove that Journo's continually write rumours and pass them off as facts" I am now torn between "don't believe everything you read" and "dont believe anything you read"

I actually believe that the playing group should be held accountable for their performance on Saturday ( and like performances this year)and in particular our leaders. It upsets me when I see North Melbourne whom I draw parallels with and see their "shin boner spirit" as opposed to what serve up far too constantly. Can I ask this HO007 - do you think the leadership group at Melbourne deserves respect because they have earned it or do we give the leadership group respect when they have earned it ?

It really shows you how much the experts do know and how we continually get sucked in - Paul Connors stated Taylor Walker had in fact signed with GWS. You got that wrong Paul !!! http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/taylor-walking-away-to-gws-connors/story-e6frecj3-1226071299201

Yes - a 200cm centreman and Lawrence 178cm at CHF - inspired !

Now I am in 100% agreement.

Again this is your opinion not fact. Ablett and Campbell were two that came out and said that money was a large factor in their decisions but not the only ones. And the common thread in case you have missed is...they all left - that is the only fact that is not in dispute.

Even I am not naive enough to believe that money was not a huge factor in most players going up North. Whilst there is only newspapers for me to back up my statements, please point to any player that went to GC17 on less money than their original clubs offered ? The reason many cant quote the untold is because....its untold.......its your "no win" argument again. So Ill have another go. You can only make your judgements on what is known. It maybe flawed but thats all we have to work with. You try and make the best sense of what you read and hear. You try and make a judgement on what you believe to be true and what you believe is opinion and spin. But here is the kicker - last year 7 players that were named by this time of the year as holding off on negotiations and being linked with GC17 ended up there. Please point to the other 000's that by July/August were holding off on negotiations and were linked with GC17. So can you not appreciate why the likes of RR choose to believe differently ? I have filtered and judged differently what I have read and have heard to what RR has and have reached a different opinion but I can understand clearly what has led RR to reach his conclusions. In the absense of facts I have reached a different conclusion to RR .

I tried to quote untold stories but am having great difficulty. Your present a "no win" argument here. Dont rely on well publicised leaks or quotes in the media - rely on what isnt written and we dont know about. I will be clear - by this time last year - the big 7 were named as being strongly tipped to go the GC17 and that transpired. I cant recall others that were mentioned in July/August 2010 as going that didnt (I agree that at the beginning of the year GC17 threw a large net out -I am talking about mid year reporting). Correct me if I wrong. Therefore for people to draw the same conclusions from what is happening now as compared to last year is entirely understandable.

Nearly all the information we receive to do with anything we get from the media - be it newspapers, internet, TV, radio etc. The question is what to believe ? When TS and his management said something how did we receive this information ? Through the media. The media is only a conduit for passing on information and the information may come with heavy filtering to no filtering at all and commetators opinion is often passed on as fact. So the question is what to believe and what not to believe. And you are 100% right - what about the stories we dont hear. If you dont hear them then you cant factor them into your judgements. This time last year the drums were beating very loudly for Krakouer, Bock, Harbrow, Richtelli, Brennan and Ablett and they all came to pass. I am sure there were others mentioned but these names all came to pass as going to GC17. So retrospective judgement on the media who put these names forward showed that they got it right. By this time last year I cant recall big stories regarding footballers that were going to GC17 that didnt end up (happy to be corrected on that). So I do choose to believe TS and his management and I do choose to question a lot of opinion in the media that is being passed off as fact but by the same token I can understand people making judgement calls the other way because there was a lot presented in the media last year the came to be reality.

One of the problems with accepting Tom and his managements request of waiting until the end of season to decide is the history of this strategic timing last season with GC17. The vast majority of players that held off until seasons end and were linked with GC17 left their original clubs. You can put whatever reason on it you like - but they did leave. Whilst I am prepared to take Tom and his management at face value I think we must also acknowledge that this end of season timeline leaves it open for opinion to suggest that it is designed to cover an easier exit. This unique set of circumstances that will not be unique in subsequent years due to one more year of GWS concession on uncontracted players and the advent of free agency will mean any player that stalls decision to post season will leave themselves open to the suggestion that they are on the move. Tom and his management have chosen this timeline - I accept it and chose to believe what I am told. That the MFC and Tom and his management are asking why doesnt everyone believe us - unfortunately history last year showed that this strategy of post season decision delay had only one outcome. As I said, I have chosen to believe that nothing has been agreed to and the decision is up in the air until the end of season but I could just as easily argue the opposite side of the debate.