La Dee-vina Comedia

It's not a plan; it's just a slogan. I'm not either for or against Stockdale or Bartlett. I need to see more substantive information from both of them before forming a view. If "Melbourne Matters" is the sum total of all the Stockdale ticket reveals, then they wouldn't get my support.

Glad to see the term 'moneyball' is no longer being bandied about. Question: some posters have raised the idea of "paying out" someone's contract (usually in discussions about Pedersen). Is that even possible under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (apart from players who fail on behaviour grounds)? If not, we should stop discussing delisting Pedersen. The only options would be trade or coach him to be better. That concept of "coaching players to be better" might come in handy.

Care to elaborate? Do you mean the credit should not be his or that their recruitment does not yet deserve any plaudits?

Who would have predicted that Craig would have chosen Dunn to play on Thomas? (Please treat as a rhetorical question. Only put your hands up to say you predicted it if you can show a timestamped entry on Demonland prior to Saturday gametime).

If Tom Boyd goes as Pick 1 to whoever, that means we'll have the best available mid at pick 2*. That's got to be better than any possible trade scenario. And for what it's worth, I don't think we'll get a priority pick ahead of every other club's first round draft pick, if at all. *assuming Nasher's prophesy that we'll end up above St Kilda doesn't happen. (Nasher - you're dreaming)

Neeld may have been a coaching disaster, but he gets a big tick for getting us Jesse Hogan and Jack Viney.

Not sure about that. If he has a contract for next year, we may have to pay him out if the new Senior Coach doesn't want him..

Turning it the other way around. How many coaches has someone like Nathan Jones had in his time at the club? Daniher, Riley, Bailey, Viney, Neeld, Craig. That's 6 coaches (unless I missed someone) for about 150+ games. Hardly gives the players a chance to put into practice one set of expectations before they have to unlearn one gameplan and learn a new one. Perhaps it's not entirely the fault of the players.

Whether Magner is eligible to play or not, if he's not going to be on the list next year I don't see much point in playing him. If he is going to be upgraded or if the club is uncertain whether to keep him or not, then now would be an excellent time to give him the last few weeks as an opportunity to convince the club he's got what it takes (if he can be upgraded). I didn't see or hear the game on the weekend, so I can't comment on specific individual performances, but just a comment on Dunn's kicking. As I've said before, his long kicking is only an asset when having shots for goal. He kicks the ball so high to get distance it gives the opposition too much time to get to the drop and spoil.

Given it isn't really saying much, there are a number of possibilities as to why this has just been announced. My feeling is it is a way to clear the decks of employees with the title of 'Assistant Coach' to make it easier for the new Senior Coach to recruit who he wants. It doesn't mean those working as 'teachers' in the Academy won't be chosen by the new coach to be his assistants. It's just that he won't have them foisted on him.

Fact, opinion or hearsay?

Well said alias275.

Actually, I was hoping Nicholson would play in the seniors to tag Harvey. I doubt anyone else can keep up with him. (I would have given Kent a rest). Interesting what it does to a player's psychology. Imagine explaining, "Dan, you're close to playing in the seniors this week. So close, we're going to give you a run in the Casey seconds".

You make an interesting case. I wonder how Bailey and Neeld will be remembered in future. I suspect Bailey's tenure will be seen as a failure but Neeld might be respected for putting in place a more professional on and off-field structure even though he may not have been the complete package.

OK. In my view the papers have taken hearsay commentary and turned it into unsubstantiated 'fact'. If James Hird told ASADA that he believed Andrew Demetriou 'tipped off' David Evans, then the papers are taking Hird's alleged testimony as fact when it can itself only be hearsay as James Hird wasn't part of the alleged conversation. It is quite conceivable that Hird knew there was a conversation between Demetriou and Evans but mistakenly believed that Demetriou tipped off Evans because of subsequent events. It's also possible that Demetriou didn't tip off Evans but Evans, with his knowledge of what had been happening at Essendon, realised that his club was the one (or one of a number) in trouble, even if Demetriou didn't know or didn't say. The papers draw long bows and as far as I can tell, no-one has confirmed what they've written. Conversely, I believe Demetriou, Evans, Hird and the ACC have all denied that Demetriou tipped off Evans. And perhaps a lawyer can comment (I'm not one), but I suspect that Victoria's watered down defamation laws (which I believe limit payouts) reduce the financial risk to the media so they may be less concerned about reporting facts. (Which may also be behind the lack of attention in reporting the tanking stories, too.)

As a matter of interest, do we have a Match Committee that selects the team or just the senior coach? If we have a Match Committee, have there been any changes to it, apart from the senior coach, since Neeld left? Who's on it? Typo: grammatical correction to satisfy the pedants (see Mitch Clark thread)

I haven't read everything in this thread, but I'm amazed how many people here choose to believe what's written in the newspapers.

I think I dismissed all but one (Drugs in sport) and have a qualifier on a second - GWS. My view about GWS is that the AFL has made two mistakes. The first is that it should have moved into western Sydney at least 5 years earlier than it did. And secondly, it put in place a process for recruitment of players to make GWS competitive from the beginning but didn't realise that GWS management would choose to ignore any chance for early success.

Though you should have used the upper case on the first letter of the first word. Perhaps there should be comma between the second and third words, too. Your turn.

I'm just referencing the line in the OP which says we've won 7 and North 13 since 2000.

I hope you're referring to his foot skills rather than his work ethic and attitude.

Such is the conditioning we supporters have had for so many years I was surprised that we've actually won 7 of the last 20 against North.

And do MFC/MCC members have free entry to this game?

While I don't think the stats differential from one game has any statistical merit, the way the game is being played does. We're now a poorly performing AFL team. Previously we weren't playing a standard that was worthy of even being in the AFL competition.

Contrary to others on here, I prefer Laidley to Craig and Eade. I think he's tactically superior and showed at the Roos he knows how to coach. Would still rather Williams, though. Would be ironic (probably not quite the right word) that if we don't get Roos we might instead get the Roo's coach.