La Dee-vina Comedia

Drop the first five words and you could be talking about Mitch Robinson.

Really? I thought Goodwin was primarily a half back flanker. (No, that's not rhyming slang). I've always been a fan of the principle of succession planning. The execution is as important as the principle, though. Collingwood's succession plan wasn't handled well due to Malthouse's unwillingness to move on. I hope we also see something similar occur with the CEO's position, although it doesn't have to be pursued as publicly as the coach succession process.

Just a hunch, but if someone does that to you I'd predict they're probably not a good coach. Hope that helps.

I hadn't realised Sandilands had had such a good year. (To be honest, I didn't even know he was in the squad of 40).

I think both Bailey and Neeld had plans. Bailey's just seemed to be out of date and Neeld's lacked quality of execution. For example, it seemed clear to me that Bailey wanted to play what has subsequently been called "bruise free football" by using speed and running the ball through the corridor. Neeld wanted fitter and physically stronger players (ie, Sellar) to enable a contested game style. Both may have failed but I believe each had a plan.

I know what you mean, but he may well because of his circumstances consume more back of house resources which could interfere with the development and well-being of the rest of the squad. If that was the sole risk, though, it would be one I'd be prepared to take if I thought he had any chance of returning to the field.

More misses than hits in my opinion. Sellar and Gillies were a waste of time. Rodan was just OK. Pedersen just gets a tick, given he's had half a season of good form out of two completed ones. But I think I understood what Neeld was trying to do - get more bigger bodied players in the side to help our grossly, physically under-developed playing list.

My fear is that it might become a Junior McDonald over-correction policy. I'd be happy if we pursued something similar to last year: an early draft pick for a top young player (Tyson deal) a couple of experienced campaigners (Cross and Vince) a couple of fundamentally untried players on senior lists for a couple of years (Michie and Riley) Not every trade is likely to be immediately successful but I think last year had far more ticks than crosses.

How does this even make sense? If Melbourne wants him, we'll redraft him through the PSD if St Kilda don't take him first. High risk option for Clark I would have thought. And if Melbourne doesn't want him, why wouldn't we engineer a trade to at least get a draft pick? Whatever Clark's motives, I don't see how there's a downside for us compared with where we were just a week or two ago. Then we had a retired player freeing up a spot on the list. Now we either have Clark playing for us or an extra draft pick earlier in the draft order than we would otherwise have had.

This is clever posting. You provide two "facts" of which only one can be ever disproved. That leaves your other "fact" not disproved. Like I said, clever.

Maybe we've all got this back-to-front: Melbourne says to MC: "We'll put you on the rookie list" MC's manager says to MC: "That means you would have to go into the rookie draft and you might end up at St Kilda" MC says to manager: "Help! I really, really love the MFC. They've been good to me and I want to stay there. Please don't let me end up at St Kilda." I also believe in the tooth fairy.

While I agree Geelong's resurgence had a lot to do with gaining Scarlett, Ablett (x2), Mark Blake, Tom Hawkins (and others?) via father son selections, most if not all were recruited when the system didn't put a market price on them. Instead they got them for fixed positions in the draft - I seem to recall it was a third round draft pick. Imagine getting Gary Ablett Jr with a third round pick. That's value!

GNF, are you suggesting that if MFC were to offer MC a spot on the main list in 2015 the issue would be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties? If so, that's an interesting dilemma for the club.

I'm trying to visualise this. Planes colliding with icebergs. Top Gun meets Titanic, perhaps.

Having relied solely on the last 10 pages of this thread for all my information about Mitch Clark I now feel like I know no more than I did before I started reading. On balance, though, it seems that Roos was being cautious and trying to warn Clark that rejoining the AFL comes with some risk for a person prone to depression. Roos wouldn't want to be seen to be in any way responsible for Clark having a relapse and he also wouldn't want Clark to be taking a spot on the list only to have him "retire" once again and leave us one short. It also seems to me a very similar style of story about his time last year when the speculation was rife about whether Roos would coach us or not. In short, because there's a shortage of facts there is inevitable conjecture and uninformed opinion to fill air time and column inches (and whatever the equivalent is for social media).

I don't know if Matthews or Sheedy said it, but Malcolm Blight certainly did.

So, how does the voting system work? I seem to recall in previous years and not that long ago, all players got rated by the coaches from 1 to 7 for each game they played. Consequently, if you played, you got some votes. Clearly that's not the case now given Nicho, Blease and Evans played but got no votes. And just one other point. I've been banging on for a few years about our players being developed poorly and being undersized. It's no surprise to me that three of the top 5 come from other clubs and each has a much better football body than most of the rest of our squad. It helps that they also have the talent to use it effectively.

I think you're trying to suggest Watts doesn't do this. If that's what you're arguing I think you're wrong. It is exactly what he does. He just doesn't do it often enough.

The worst thing about any potential "mass walkout" by Essendon players is that Caroline Wilson will be able to say "I told you so".

I find the timing of the decision more interesting than the decision itself. It would seem to me to make for a better B&F night if the squad remained intact until then. Do Nicho and Clisby go along? Can't blame them if they don't want to yet I feel they should be there. It's possible they asked to be told as soon as possible to allow them to get on with their lives, I guess. Anyway, I wish them well and thank them for their service. It's not their fault if they aren't quite good enough to stay on the list.

How much of a delay will he have? With the mandatory rest break would it be about 4 weeks?

I don't recall that we had a systemic problem with this in the season just gone. Is there data somewhere that shows how many of our players were suspended during the year and how that compares with other clubs?

It stopped being 'private' when the players themselves posted photos on social media.

Did they actually intend to be a double act or was the picture just an unfortunate association? Makes quite a difference to the perceived 'story'. I think Rolf Harris on his own is definitely less offensive than with being paired with a woman. And if Georgiou thought coming in drag is somehow fancy dress...well, no wonder he's a rookie.

I'd like to think Jesse Hogan will play Round 1.