Striker475

Didn't WJ come out with something about how it was going to be shut? Not that I care, in between the bananas it's a great thread read.

Jackson Paine excepted, kid is a gun

Good. Planning on getting a white 2013, was going to get 16 but much prefer this!

Neeld gone full moneyball. Would have been available in PSD/rookie, surely

Mix of BF and Instagram - Hogan posted it on Instagram, JT was interviewed on MMM and reported that he now has Byrnes as a 'neighbour', and a BF person spoke to Byrnes at some point and said Viney was taking 7.

Reportedly so far: Hogan 1 Viney 7 Byrnes 10

The Paul Chapman role - slightly outside, playing around a HFF but running through the middle and either hitting a forward on the chest or kicking it themselves.

I don't think we'll move out of Casey. They'll rejig it, but they're not silly - they know how important the area is. Not the only VFL club in strife IIRC - aren't Coburg in trouble and once the agreement with the Tiges is up they plan on setting up a standalone?

He's a bit of a unit. At the player sponsors' function he said he was aiming for day 1 preseason, so I'd assume so. He said he could probably have played in August if he wanted, but didn't want to risk an Evans-style retrigger.

Jetta worrying. Ankle probably has stuffed him for good.

Well the quote is that he's behaving like the typical 80s footballer. The problem for Richmond is it's not harming anyone (apart from the pills incident) so it's harder for them to react.

There's a lot more to this than what the media are reporting according to BF...apparently been in court and lost his license. Cousins-esque...

When it's done.

I'd be happy with Schwab and Connolly removed. Don't understand all the furore with the board apart from clear political interests in this thread - ultimately the Stynes/McLardy board initially made financial recovery and health the absolute priority over on-field success. By comparison, the Gardner board almost ruined the football club for good in this regard. Ultimately, winning games is the priority, but off-field stability is the priority of this. Up until Jim's passing, the club was probably the most stable it had been since the 1950s, but now the wounds Jim had begun to heal and the fighting that he had suppressed for the good of the club is coming back. Rather than making this about politics, though, we need it to be for the good of the football club. The members want flags, don't they? They want on-field success. [censored]-for-tat between Gardner and the current board isn't going to bring that about. Assuming Caro is correct, the dismissal of Schwab and Connolly is essential. Beyond that, I think the board should stay in place. Let's be realistic - the board in 2009 was much more focussed on off-field situations than the on-field stuff, which is what allowed Schwab and Connolly to operate. The mistake has been realised and he has been reigned in but will probably go for indiscretions anyway. Nevertheless, to dismiss the board at the same time as the CEO risks a power vacuum and extreme damage being dealt to the club off-field.

It'd be under 'bringing the game into disrepute.' Furthermore, there is rules for individuals to not coerce others into attempting to lose games, but whether this rule can be expanded to cover a club is yet to be seen.

This club is making it very freaking difficult for us.

Let's look at it then. The club makes money from its 11 home games based on gate receipts. Now, one of these is sold, sure. That's the Darwin game. 10 games left. Of those: - 1 is at Etihad Stadium. Well-recognised that we get significantly lower attendances at Etihad. - 6 of the MCG games are against interstate sides. Of these, two of the sides are the brand new clubs. These will naturally bring in less revenue as there is a lower 'away' support base. - Our one 'quality' time slot for a home game, Saturday night v Western Bulldogs, is just that. The Western Bulldogs are not a high-drawing club. - We have two home games against high-drawing teams. One is the Collingwood game, which always is, thankfully. The other is the Hawthorn game - but even this has had the edge taken off it, being put on Sunday at 3.15, well known as an unfriendly timeslot. Meanwhile, we have away games at the G against Essendon, Carlton and Richmond. Yeah, we've been screwed.

Looking at it, my guess would be the AFL intended on using the draw to 'fine' the club by denying them gate receipts. Something that I honestly expected. But on top of that, some sort of actual punishment and sanction is now possible. All the good financial work done by Jim is going to go down the tube over the next 12 months.

Connolly was in the FD still at that point, remember. And Schwab presumably was still interfering. Perhaps it was their grand scheme that they were focussing on rather than the other crap?

Angry email regarding 'those involved in the decision to lose games' sent.

Seriously worried here about the future of the club. AFL may sanction us. But the real ones that will nail us are the State Government if there's enough political pressure. They'll take the club to the cleaners, and damn the consequences for the organisation. Big can of worms, this.

Tell you what, that ****head should at least have the balls to put his name to the comments. Don't hide behind the 'source' [censored] if you're going to say that.

A few things. - When did this 2009 meeting take place? If the meeting was, say, between rounds 12 and 14, when Melbourne sat on a grand total of one win and were out of the finals hunt, what does it then get interpreted as? There was no hope by that point of Melbourne playing finals, so getting some 'experimentation' in and testing players for different roles is probably useful by that point. - Were any members of the administration involved? While Wilson 'alludes' to Schwab being 'involved', does actual presence at the meeting require the sanction or is it just being at the club? - What are the ramifications for other sides? Carlton 2007, West Coast 2010, Collingwood, Hawthorn. Cases to answer.

See, I'll always be able to wear my #11 now. It's great.

Howe to receive 24 - should be a staple of leaping players. No player in 5, leave for Hogan. Give Dawes 31 if he wants. Viney #1. Let's get the ego train going.