Ouch!
-
Posts
2,027 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Everything posted by Ouch!
-
True I guess, but to me personally, almost everything associated to the GWS feels slimey, and leaves a bad taste in ones mouth. Sheeds, Gubby Allan, Mark Williams all feel like snake oil salesmen, The Recruiting guy (formerly from Nth) who was stood down for verbalising a fellow recruiter. The Scully situation, Basically all wrapped up with the feeling that the AFL will stop at nothing to ensure this club wins a premiership ASAP in order to try and get a foothold in a high risk area. Just doesn't sit well with me.
-
yeah yeah I know! The issue I was trying to make was more that the AFL didn't want GWS and GC to be set up like the Bears were.... so they wanted these clubs to pick up some established players to be somewhat competitive. That's how I suspect the other clubs interpretted what was going to happen, and not that GWS would just ignore the "intent" of the concessions entirely. I think GC have gone about this "generally" in the spirit of what was proposed. Do you think GWS have?
-
if the picks can be on traded, GWS can effectively use 2 other clubs as mules with a promise to upgrade their picks.... which means the pick can come back to them again. Only thing preventing this from occuring in my view is that this has to occur as separate trades which means that one of the clubs could in theory stab the GWS in the back as a part of it.... Would LOVE to see that happen
-
The AFL should not allow the picks in the mini draft to be on traded... Cannot believe that they have left this as a "loophole" open. But I bet that Gubby Allan was thinking/planning this sort of thing all along. Pathetic if you ask me. The AFL set these things in place to get mature players to the GWS so that they would not be a joke in the first year or two... and GWS is doing exactly the opposite... effectively bottoming out intentionally in the first couple of years by taking young players (Scully, Ward etc) and taking picks for the under 17 mini draft, rather than making plays for players who have been in the system for 5-6 years who they should be tempting over with the cash. They are funded by the AFL, they don't really care if they win a couple of spoons, it just means more young players and draft picks. It's against the spirit of what the other clubs agreed to when these concessions were granted.... although spirit and integrity doesn't seem to mean as much these days as it used to. It's a business I guess
-
Jordan Lisle from the Hawks would be my preference. Behind Roughead and Franklin as a power forward.... and they want Gunston as a more mobile 3rd tall option.... and they have Hale as well.
-
Agree that they still trump us, but not by much. Do you know the value/type of Compo pick GC have to offer with pick 4? Ours possibly could be stronger. We still might offer a player as well to sweeten it (even though GWS have said they want picks) Pick 6 just gets us closer to the mark if we are seriously trying to secure O'Meara...
-
Ahhh sorry, I probably wasn't clear in what I was replying to, I was referring to your second point about pick 12.... I got the bit about our compo pick. ... and incidentally I agree, I don't know why the other picks would get involved... but perhaps Port are rating the value of Pick 6 a fair bit higher, hence why we trade our 1st and 2nd picks for their 1st pick and their 3rd one (.... and Bate)
-
It might be the way we are trying to position ourselves for a crack in the 17yr mini draft. We might not be able to get the deal done with GC having pick 4 and us having 12. Pick 6 and a compo pick means that GC have to come up with a stronger package as well. Even if we can't pull it off it means GC have to up their price and weakens their position a little more.
-
Haha, no need to apologise, I read what you wrote and actually thought it was my post for a couple of moments Only reason I could see Port wanting Warnock was a) Primus thinks it is Robert or B) Primus watched the infamous Dees v Tigers match a couple of years back and thinks he is getting a forward...
-
Whilst the list is average, they actually have semi-decent big defenders in Carlisle, Trengove and Chaplin. Not sure why they would load up on Warnock as well...
-
I wouldn't be suprised to see him head to the Swans either. They lost Bolton & Kenneally from their defence, perhaps Warnock could help Ted Richards could bolster their defence. As to who/what you might get from them....they just picked up Tom Mitchell, so I don't know whether players like Jarred Moore might be offered up, or perhaps an upgrade of a pick (although the swans first pick now will be in the late 30s.)
-
I would imagine they just see what they are offered... and see if any club is prepared to accept pick 3 or 4 and they get enough value.... All 4 would be on offer this year, but as to whether they use them all is another thing.
-
IF GWS likes the offers it gets from this.... all 4 can be done this year. If they hate it, they pull up stumps and say try harder next year. The 4 picks are just that. Seems like you are geting confused by reading too much into it. OK, IF Gold Coast say we want to give you pick 4 in the national draft for a pick in the mini draft. If that's the best offer then GWS Say here have pick 1. Someone else might trump that offer with players, and then GC might say not interested without it being pick 1. It would be no different to anything else that goes on in trade week... except you are trading for picks. Some clubs might be gunning really hard for pick 1 to get O'Meara... where other clubs like Geelong, Hawks, Collingwood would see it as an opportunity to get a player who is possibly a top 5 pick in two years time (again there is a lot of speculation in draft order) but they can jump the queue offering a player and a pick given the likelihood to get a top 5 pick after being a top 4 club is highly improbable The incentive to trade is to improve your list, same as it always is!
-
Agree, in some ways it is a bit sad.... he and Bartram show the competitive and aggressiveness that we want to see from ALL our players. But.... lets face it, if Neeld succeeds in making the team the hardest to play against... then all should show such traits... and then these guys don't have anything.... although if they can follow the team plan and be a role player there is a spot I guess
-
I am not sure this is quite right RPFC. What you are stating is an outsiders perspective of the status of the coach in the football department. They are the public face for the football team, they put the coaching strategy in place, But they don't run the whole show. Neeld would work with Misson and together they would come up with a strategy for fitness, performance etc... but it's not Neeld's role to put it into place. Similarly with other areas such as player recruitment etc... Neeld would work with Prendergast on the types of players he wants... the gaps he sees in the list, Prendergast's job is to recommend the best fits and the 'likely' candidates. I have no doubt that the club when chosing Neeld looked at his vision and proposed solution to making the football team a success, and then provided the resources in order to help him achieve that. But Craig reports to the CEO, the Senior Coach reports to whoever heads up the football department. .... otherwise you end up with something more like Grant Thomas and his time @ St Kilda.... or worse still Greg Miller (Not that he was coach,) at Richmond.
-
Pretty certain this is correct as well. The Neeld interview on 5AA alluded to this as well. I think Craig sits atop Misson and Neeld structurally Neeld defined it as a Mentoring thing where they are challenged and discuss things with Craig. I don't think the Viney position as such was discussed, but it would unlikely fall under Neeld anyway, it has a lot in common with List management and Tim Harrington I would imagine too... As to the other comment regarding counting 8. I didn't factor Craig into the equation, and I still don't think he is classed as a coach as such. He is a big appointment and a great get, but pretty certain he stated himself that it has no match day component (Happy to stand corrected on this though) He is more a Football Director/Football Ops type of thing... and sitting above Mahoney I guess... Anyway.... as long as they know what is happening thats the main thing
-
The club announced that there would be 8 coaches didn't they? My assumption here is that meant 8 matchday coaches,.... Obviously the development coach for the backline still needs to be announced, but that still only makes 7 unless one of Dunbar/ O'Donnell/Viney has a match day involvement. So we still could be looking at 2 more announcements... Not sure what the role for the other coach would be.... Did anyone see Eddie saying that Eade was not appointed to replace the hole left by Malthouse, his role has a match day focus, and is there to fill the void left by Neeld... His title is football and coaching strategist .... But could we see a similar role maybe someone like Laidley who was always seen as a good matchday coach in a similar role? http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/eddie-still-coachs-boxing-on/story-e6frf9io-1226157784440
-
I guess it depends on the definition of a Senior Assistant.... Is it Senior in terms of experience, or given the rest of the structure where there are 2 coaches on each line.... could there be Neeld and an assistant across all lines ? Doesn't seem like you need such a thing though....
-
I assumed there are 3 vacancies still, the two you mentioned and potentially a Senior Assistant... Neil Craig doesn't appear to be a part of the coaching panel. Neeld and an assistant, then 2 coaches on each line is how I got 8... or is that wrong?
-
With all the "off field" issues at the club, since Garry Lyon went in there, it is fair to say that at least publically we appear to be doing a lot to sort out that crap. Who knows what issues remain with players and admin etc... but at least the perception (from here) is that we are putting a lot of effort/expertise/resourcing into the football department.
-
.... Is the role that Neil Craig has just taken up fill the shoes that Garry Lyon has been doing? or is that different again? Neil reports to Schwab, but not to the board.... so it would appear as though Garry still needs to find someone to allow him to exit the scene (Would love someone like Greg Healy to go on the board, and be the person in this role.) Happy with the appointment, would love to see a structure chart seeing how it all fits together, and excited to hear people wanting to come here, best of all listening to people on SEN questioning the number of resources we are able to throw at the football department and calling for Caps on football spending .... That sort of thing NEVER seems to be raised when discussing the MFC people!!! Still potentially have a senior assistant coach, a forward coach and an assistant backline coach yet to fill don't we?
-
Have to agree.... looking at the coaches we have bought in.... it feels as though we have announced all of the "easy to obtain" assistants (without wanting to sound rude) hopefully the last couple...yet to be announced have a little higher profile.... for example Neil Craig, Laidley, Sumich etc .. not saying I want these, but I guess the fact that some coaches are still to be announced hopefully means they have been involved in the last couple of weeks of finals.
-
From my vague recollection of the 2011 season... Brisbane whilst it didn't win a lot of games, never got blown away either, so if Rawlings was in charge of the Brisbane Defence, he did a pretty fair job. http://finalsiren.com/Fixture.asp?SeasonID=2011&TeamID=2#BigLosses says that their average losing margin was ~30 pts, not bad for a team that lost all but 4 games. (Our Losing Margin was up around 56pts) Also for those saying he wasn't much of a player (I might be biased as someone from Tassie) but he had a pretty good career whilst at the Hawks, I think he got curtailed by back injuries, and I think he saw the writing was on the wall when Franklin, Roughhead... and there was another tall forward who's name I can't recall started to come on. He got stuffed around in trying to get to Nth, but ended up at the Dogs.... never was the same at those clubs... I think it is a pretty reasonable pickup for us. Wouldn't be the most expensive coach to get, but he has some good experience as a player and as a coach.
-
wasnt sure which one but don't mind both of them... but don't know about the rookie-listed players, but seeing how he took that inside mid role from McLean, I can't see him staying on the rookie list, surely he played enough games and showed enough to be offered a senior contract.
-
Doesn't Ed Barlow play for the dogs (former Swans player) ...isn't Ed Curnow the Carlton player?
