Macca

I've always found it amazing the effect of the music that one listened to when aged 17-21 - it just stays with you. Not necessarily the bands or the songs but the style and the beat. My favourite style is funky jazz/rock but I can listen to and enjoy just about anything. Here's 'Conquistador' from Procul Harem followed by a funky number featuring Bruno Mars. A huge contrast but there's no accounting for taste! (especially when it comes to music)

Neeld was a less than average coach and we had a shocking list ... change was always going to happen even if McLean had never opened his trap. It was just a matter of time. It was more a matter of what path we went down - a successful, experienced coach and a CEO with a wealth of experience was a no-brainer. I'm saying the change that eventuated would probably have happened anyway. By the way, there are a stack of appointed coaches who aren't or weren't up to it. Neeld did well to get the gig and it's no disgrace to not be a successful AFL coach. It's a tough job to be good at (the huge amount of money that they receive is fantastic compensation though) As for the list ... well over 30 players have departed since the end of 2012. Over 20 in the last 2 off seasons are gone. What has happened was always going to happen regardless of what McLean said. But he still did the wrong thing.

Back on topic ... Unlike a number of others, I believe that all our boards and administrations have contributed in some ways to how we're set up now. Because some people are remembered for the wrong reasons, it's easy to forget their contributions that have left a legacy ... Many people have had a hand in the ongoing revenue earning capacities of the Bentleigh club, Leigh Oak, Foundation heroes, Increased membership, Corporate sponsorship etc etc. Plus, our training set-up at AAMI and a whole host of other things that have been set up at the club.

He did the wrong thing ... forget about the outcome. That's irrelevant in my eyes. We may well have gone on the road to recovery in any number of ways. We had a poor list regardless of his words. Change was always going to happen to the list, coaching, board and administration ... it was just a matter of when. Anyway, I'm a firm believer in what goes around, comes around.

And then there's the hypocrisy that surrounds tanking 'Gonzo' Secretly wanting their team to tank and then the do-gooder attitude later on. That's for all the teams that tanked - not just our club.

I edited my post with the Dean Bailey reference - it was unnecessary ... however, the fact remains that he was the senior coach and he could have said no in an adamant fashion (that's if we can believe the story that the directive to tank came from above) My position on tanking is that it requires a buy-in from the key people (the players are just used as pawns) In other words, you can't "not know" about your own club tanking if you hold down a major position at an AFL club. Most supporters will know what's going down as well. Usually it's a matter of following the money but with tanking there is (or was) 2 prizes ... the PP and the 'other' top end draft pick. Quite an inducement really. And one that many clubs were happy to chase after.

Yep, I reckon a lot of us would do what you've suggested 'bb' but for various reasons, it hasn't happened ... and it's now 2 years on. It's been a remarkable story all the way through and I won't be surprised with any sort of outcome. If there is absolute guilt I won't be surprised with either really harsh or really lenient penalties. However, if there is absolute guilt coupled with harsh penalties, I'd expect a fair dose of litigation claims down the track. Absolute guilt for me would be the players being found guilty of taking copious quantities of PED's (or peptides)

So why didn't McLean say the same sort of thing about the club he joined? Carlton. They were the kings of tanking - they tanked for Walker, Gibbs, Murphy, Kennedy, Kreuzer & Judd. And, they got away with it. It was common knowledge about what they were doing - even the bookmakers wouldn't take bets on the Kreuzer cup match. I was at that game and they threw the match. It had less intensity than a soccer friendly. Way less. Ratten was their coach and Kernahan was their vice-president at the time.

I doubt it would have happened anyway because of the chairman - maybe Libba was worded up. Not saying you're wrong, it's just my opinion. We had no one on the commission in our corner (the Bombers are represented by 2 or 3 people on the commission) Not sure it was ever mentioned but we started that year (2009) losing 12 of our first 13 games - we were crud. The way some carry on here and elsewhere you'd think we should have been pushing for the 8. This thinking that somehow we got to the position that we did (rock bottom) because of tanking is just a ridiculous notion. Tanking has an absolute attachment to the draft and we just had rotten luck with our picks ... because we didn't improve, key people were moved on and the rest is history. In hindsight, the mistake the club made was not making sure that anyone was ever going to blab. All the other clubs who tanked covered their tracks beautifully. Essendon has shown us how a club can stick pat even when under a ridiculous amount of pressure - closing ranks in such an arrogant way but still very effective (up until now)

The other thing is do you put your mates in it? Former teammates are often still 'mates'

The other thing to remember is that if one of the 34 were to break ranks and admit guilt, he'd probably have to do it 'Martin Vinnicombe' style. That ended badly. We've heard every excuse in the book over the years from spiked drinks to "it was in the steak I ate" (slimming tablet anyone?) Quite frankly, I don't believe the public could 'stomach' another excuse ... especially when considering the amount of injections (thousands)

As we all know the clock keeps ticking at the end of a completed 'inbounds' play (unless there's a time-out) and a team will often use up all their allotted time before snapping the ball (when given that opportunity) I guess it's feasible but I was still really surprised by the 12 minutes bit though - 4 hours put aside for just 12 minutes of actual game time - that's just wrong Couldn't find the youtube video but have a listen to the reaction of the Seahawks fans in the latest podcast of 'Highly Questionable' (about 15 minutes in) Intolerable cruelty I'd call it but it's hard not to laugh.

What we're witnessing is an aberration though ... why have so many kept so quiet? I agree with you on what you'd do if you were a player and I'd almost certainly do the same. But ... we're not directly involved so let's look for the logical answer ... in my mind it's a mixture of protecting their own career, they've been brainwashed, they don't want to admit guilt, they may have been paid off (or have reached a settlement) and as old dee suggested, they're fearful of the consequences of coming clean. Careers can be over very quickly in the AFL and a lot of players still aren't very well prepared for life after footy - especially if you're in your early 20's.

Yep, so is money. What player would want to curtail his own earning capacity? Players would be acutely aware about keeping their own house in order - going back to the average wage is for most of them, a huge fall. Money can motivate in other ways of course - 'settlements' are often reached. Employee agreements even after termination can be binding can't they?

They most probably will but they've got good reason to protect the identities of those concerned ... if it was public knowledge, and all 34 players were being constantly named, you'd reckon that eventually at least one of them would 'spill the beans" to a hungry media (in reality, the media haven't been anywhere near hungry enough) As it stands, the solidarity has been remarkable and I'm astonished that not one player has broken ranks publicly (with a tell-all) Sporting clubs can be very 'tight' when they want to be but what about those who have been delisted? ... draw your own conclusions on that one 'bb'

The Essendon threat is another furphy. Many won't see it for what it is. They are not giving anything up or risking anything and they're playing on the footy public's veracious appetite for the sport. The telling point through this whole saga is that most don't want to see the season disrupted (that's non Essendon supporters) The way the game is played now why would a club risk injury to any of their players in these practice games? Why is it still called a cup anyway? We're not playing for a cup any longer. What cup? We're now getting a lot of the clubs giving their players a 'bye' during the season to save their legs - that's apart from the fixtured bye. Teams assured of a spot within the 8 will rest players when it suits. The players are now trained to a point where it's now a matter of "plug in and play"

It's quite remarkable that we even produced a small profit this year but such is the way how the clubs are operated these days, poker machines play a huge part in a club's revenues. It's not something that people readily want to talk about either but ... nevertheless, it's a trueism. How North get by without them is all the more remarkable. I'm not advocating that North should get them nor am I endorsing poker machines in any way. I'm simply stating the obvious. Even if we only get to 8 wins this season I'm expecting the club to post another profit. However, once we get to 10-12 wins plus, the flow-on effects in terms of revenues can increase substantially (providing that we're well run)

Many of the clubs are posting excellent profits these days and those profits can often be directly attributed to poker machines ... our overall revenue last year from our 2 venues was over 11 million dollars. Carlton's was over 18 million whilst the Hawks was over 19 million. Big bucks. Sure, we cut costs but our revenues are still increasing despite being a poorly performed side - those revenues would be increasing to a far more substantial level if we were to have winning seasons. We're well set up to produce healthy profits - we just need to win.

And not many will care and not much will come of it ... There are 'big statements' made all the time in sport but those comments only matter if the sporting public cares. GWS are out of sight and out of mind for the most part. Now, if they were a finals team or a more visible team, it's a different matter. Gubby can probably still say whatever he wants and probably won't be held to account. There are often other reasons why a story never gains legs ... this one is interesting or rather, it should have been .... Athletics runs rings around AFL Prophetic words in some ways hey? Back then, I'm reckoning that most didn't want to know about it (possible PED's in the AFL) Even now, many won't want to know about the lack of 'real' testing for PED's in the AFL. It's any wonder that the Bombers tested the boundaries.

He's had a busted foot for (probably) 3 years ... before that he hadn't played enough football to be able to make an accurate appraisal of his form and his future. He did however, show us some glimpses that he could be a fine player. It's like judging Toumpas now - way too early. Early last year it had looked like he'd overcome his debilitating injury but alas, we now know he had another major setback ... the post below sums up that game against Richmond very well - he was 'everywhere' and in my opinion was easily best on ground. I really hope he gets back so he can show us what he can do.

Well there's a lot of big names in the league that have direct or indirect links to tanking. I'm not going to list them but it's easy to work out. We're talking about a veritable cavalcade of names. Tanking has been practiced by numerous clubs and has happened on numerous occasions from the mid 90's (it perhaps started even earlier) Tanking was at it's height in that 3 year stretch ('03 - '05) when no fewer than 9 priority picks were handed out. Strangely enough the league changed the rules on the PP eligibility after '05. I wonder why? Carlton alone have tanked on at least 5 occasions - when are they going to be investigated? (rhetorical question)

The first episode of 'Better Call Saul' airs in a few days in the States ... the show is a prequel to Breaking bad but also apparently skips in time on occasions to post Breaking Bad and maybe even during the time span of Breaking Bad ... the show has the same creator - Vince Gilligan Interview with Bob Odenkirk (Saul) re the show.

Footy as an overall sport might become more enjoyable again if our blokes can start getting in the winners circle ... when you perform as poorly as we have it's easy to switch off the sport. We need to be able to realistically compare ourselves to the better teams instead of looking at those teams with pure envy. As unambitious as this sounds, even if we were able to win 1 in 3 games on a regular basis, we'd probably be relatively pleased (more so as a first step) When Roos was appointed my main ambition for him was for him to build a proper list ... in the last 4 or 5 years I'd be usually ruling a line through a dozen players or so - not this year though. I can only find 3 or 4 this year - that's gotta be a good thing

Don't ya just love stats ... Apparently the Pats faced 6 rushes on the 1 yard line this season and allowed 5 TD's ... that's right 5 TD's (and none of them were from 'beast mode') I guess they were overdue to stop one Anyway, for a bit of lighthearted entertainment, here's this mornings episode of 'Highly Questionable' (with Dan Le Batard, his Dad & Bomani Jones) For the first 10-12 minutes they chat about the SB ('that' play is discussed with both sides of the story given fair hearing) They also go back in time and look at their over reaction to the Pats plight after their loss in KC (about 4 minutes in) ... Highly Questionable Podcast

The play they chose can probably be "explained" a hundred different ways but it's the play they chose not to use which will be talked about (for a long time I'm reckoning) You nearly always need to do what the opposition doesn't want you to do ... handing it off to Lynch was the play. 3rd & 4th down plays might have been a different story as they'd already used 2 of their time-outs (some are saying they used them needlessly) There's also talk that the Pats knew about the play that they did use. Malcolm Butler made mention that they'd been practicing that play in that exact type goal line situation. Belichick probably should be getting the credit if that is the case.