La Dee-vina Comedia

Imagine for a moment that it's 2013 and the question being posed on Demonland is: Can we beat the top of the ladder team in Round 11? Now think about this year. We probably won't win, but isn't it nice to go into the week with that optimism that comes from being a competitive team again?

Beautifully summarises the situation and this thread. In particular, the ambiguity of last 5 words. Those who think the GWS experiment is a disaster can read it one way and those who think GWS are a necessary part of the national development of the game can read it the other. With both GCS and GWS the AFL was on a hiding to nothing. If the teams were too successful the AFL would be criticised and if they lost too many games they get criticised. If GWS can maintain the bulk of their squad I expect in about three year's time they'll be playing finals, along with GCS, Port Adelaide and Melbourne. By then Sydney may have dropped out of the eight, but the AFL will have what it wants - and needs - a successful NSW-based team which will be worth a fortune in broadcast rights. Relying solely on Sydney to keep the nation's biggest TV viewing market interested in watching football is a formula designed to fail.

Is Stewart Dew completely untouchable? That is, does he have a watertight contract at Sydney that's long enough to keep him out of contention? I would have thought if Roos wanted him once he may try to get him again.

I'd rather they concentrated on doing the job they were elected to do.

Just think of it as traditional Australian irony, such as, "Bluey" for redheads, "Lofty" for undersized people and "Tiny" for overweight people. Then it doesn't seem so bad.

Thanks, and apologies for mis-spelling your nom de plume. As I said before, I appreciate where you are coming from. So there are two issues here. The first is the content and the second is the scope. The general consensus appears to be that if the club is going to do this then the honest 'warts and all' approach is best. However, is it fair just to target, or at least, be seen to be targetting, a select group of players, being those that are not playing in the seniors? For what it's worth, I prefer the honest approach and the targetted scope. In other words, the status quo.

PC using Safari. And I like the clever non-specificity in your last line. Makes me think I'm special until I re-read it and understood the generality.

AFL statement re Appeals Board written decision http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-05-23/afl-statement-jack-viney

George. No. I've just had a "slow post" on another thread without using the quote function. I just closed Demonland and came back later to see if it had been posted...and it had.

Sorry rfpc, but what do you mean by "an archaic division"?

I think rfpc's point is a legitimate question. I'm not sure I agree with him, though, but I can see where he's coming from. Which raises in my mind the question of whether the difference in approach for AFL and VFL player reviews (public v non-public) and the content of the VFL reviews themselves are part of a grander strategic approach or just the way the cards have fallen. Two years ago I would have said that it was an unplanned approach which just happened to have this outcome. Now I'm happy to say that it's quite possible that this is a deliberate strategy. Whether we agree with the strategy or not (and clearly some do and others don't) it's nice to think that perhaps there is a grand plan in place.

Although it's been claimed that under Neeld the players were getting mixed messages from the coaching and development staff. If Brett Allison's comments as published are consistent with what the players have been told privately, I have no problem with them being made public. And I would certainly prefer that players are reading the truth about their performance rather than some confected whitewash which might mislead them into thinking they played better than they really did.

Exactly.

Things are getting weirder. I've tried to edit the above post to point out that I should have said the post function is "sometimes" so slow. Not only would it not let me edit it (twice...even though it says it's been edited), but when I first tried to post this message, I was told that my post had no content. So, this is a second attempt to explain the edit failure which talked about the slow post problem... Am I being targeted? Did I not donate enough?

I think it's happening again but under a specific set of circumstances. In the last week or so the 'Post' function is so slow that I think I can't have clicked on it properly...so I click again. I then get a message that I've been too quick and the reply can't be posted...and then the post appears twice. I'm not sure which is more illogical - the message from Demonland or the fact that I've fallen for the problem more than once. (I've deleted the second posts, so don't go looking for them.)

He's over 60 years old. Why would he want the stress which goes with an ongoing CEO role when he would have no difficulty picking up part time consulting gig or Directorships? I accept that he might like the challenge, but after another 3 or 4 years the challenges he initially faced will have gone and the job will be more of a daily grind.

I expect and accept that neither PJ or Roos are likely to remain long term as CEO and Coach respectively. Just as Roos has been publicly discussing his succession plan I'd be very surprised if PJ isn't privately considering his. It's what a good CEO would do. Importantly, however, it would be important for the club and the confidence of the players that PJ and Roos don't leave at the same time. One has to continue on at least a year after the other has left.

I'm sure the Coach and Match Committees would deny it, but I suspect a player's pay packet influences a decision whether to drop him. Imagine the criticism any club would receive for dropping one of its highest paid players whether it be NicNat, Scully, Franklin or (hypothetically only, of course) Ablett?

This is a really interesting approach. Most players are given a clear and public explanation of their failings on the day. Hopefully, they've already been told this before it's published. (I assume it is, but didn't we hear that under the previous administration the players were getting mixed messages from the coaches?) It's quite clear which players are closest to getting a call up (McKenzie and to a lesser extent Michie). It's also clear which ones seem to have difficulty concentrating for four quarters or, if you like, have difficulty bringing the right mindset to the game.

What chance Brisbane is given a priority pick at the end of the year? (Lights touch paper and stands back)

As a matter of interest, is there a time limit on Westrupp? That is, are we forced to make a decision at the end of the year about whether to keep him?

And has the time to keep Demonland running. Extraordinary effort. Though might explain why his posts are generally no more than about three lines. I had thought it was just that he was articulate, but perhaps he just doesn't have the time to write more.

Are there rules (laws?) about what an auction house can claim about a product being sold?

Perhaps things didn't change that much for him. If he'd stayed our club might have remained at the bottom, been broke and he still mightn't be getting a game. Instead, we're off the bottom and I don't care what he's doing.

Keep in mind the rubbery nature of what a "member" actually means with different definitions used at each club. I'm not actually concerned about what each club defines as a "member" but comparing clubs' member numbers is a reasonably fruitless exercise because of it.