rjay

If only it was one mistake. The only allegations that matter are that the club was less than truthful as they have admitted it in their statement. I don't expect you to see this because you are blinded by faith in people that don't deserve your support. The club does, not the people who are destroying it by their ineptitude.

Amazing that you actually seem to believe what you are saying here.

No mate, you are really kidding yourself if you believe this. There was no competitive advantage to be gained here it was more people covering their backs and hoping everything would go away. How stupid.

It could but I think it more likely that Jacksons brief will now, if it didn't already consist of a restructure of the board.

He reminds me of the way Jeremy Howe was handled in his first year. Needed to play some consistent footy at Casey and hasn't looked back since getting the call up. Kent will get his chance soon, would love to see him this week but am prepared to wait. I think he will be worth it.

Wake up! we brought this on ourselves. If we had of been up front in Feb there would be nothing more to answer.

'stuie', the facts in this release tell us the club has not been honest. Technically yes they can say Dank was not employed by the club on the payroll at least but he was in fact working in some capacity. It's this sort of stuff that gets us in deep water and it's why I'm happy to see our last CEO gone, this is just not acceptable.

Not me mate, they should have come out with this statement back in Feb. This part in particular is the cover up, yes technically Dank wasn't employed by the club but we did use his services to a limited extent under consultation with the club doctor. Why didn't we just come out and say it! • As soon as the investigation was launched into the Essendon Football Club, the Melbourne Football Club instructed all staff including Dr Bates to sever all ties with Stephen Dank which occurred This is a damning statement on the integrity of those running the club at the time, some still with the club now.

Might well step in as administrator now.

The club has been less than honest at best, Jacksons role may well be extended to administrator the way this is going.

Yep 'Robbie' I said something along the lines of hoping we were being truthful at the time it first came up about Dank and Melbourne. Past history concerned me then and it more than does now. No matter if everything was above board there is no excuse for the deceit here and another reason why change had to happen at the club. Th sooner Jackson gets to the club the better but he has much more than 6 months work ahead of him.

No evidence from me but I would think they played more than a small part in the appointment. Don's picked up the phone and had a chat with AD.

Appoint a CEO and they've done it. He has to review everything at the club and that's why he has been appointed, nothing will change (should change) until he has done this.

No thanks.

You think I think they would? No way, but if Frawley were to go given he is not yet a free agent then it is this calibre of player that we should ask for as a trade. We don't just roll over and give him away for nothing or a draft pick, key backs are a very valuable commodity and his experience in valuable to us. Better he stays.

It shows in the way he plays the game and the way he is improving different aspects of the way he goes about in each of his 3 games to date.

Thanks 'bing', so we picked up Kent with this pick or Jones. I guess it wasn't to bad then. I thought we might have lost out on this pick with Byrnes, not as a direct pick but where the formula cancels out picks.

I thought we were due a 3rd rounder for Moloney and Rivers (just one pick for the 2 players) and Byrnes cancelled that out. So as well as Rodan with pick 80ish Byrnes effectively cost us what ever the 3rd rounder was. Does that sound right?

Always a bit of a dreamer Kev. There was no way Geelong were going to move Hawkins on, he had played some very good football mixed up with some average stuff. His superstar is lucky to have played any average stuff to date.

Didn't we give up a compensation pick as well by taking free agents against the ones we lost?

I think that's not quite right, I'm not sticking up for the old regime but we did spread and create options, it's why we were able to get some big wins. Gut running I associate with running both ways along with getting to the disputed ball no matter what and there's little doubt we failed there, it's why we got some big loses. The ball is in motion more now with the new rules and it's not doing us any favours. We had been working to get better at the contested ball when the AFL has been working to free the ball up and get less congestion. I hope we are on top of this shift but evidence to date is to the contrary.

With you both on this.

My point on this is not so much about winning and losing or the flat track bully tag (maybe down hill skier is the wrong term) but is that we were prepared to run forward of the ball to set up attack but not so prepared to get back hard when our opponents had the ball. Also we were and still are not good at running to support teammates. Unfortunately now we don't seem particularly good at running forward, back, in support or in any way.

Agree 'Robbie',and I don't think anyone can justify them because they were low draft picks. No draft pick should be just thrown away.

My overall point is to pick class mids and the small forward role will take care of itself.