Lucifers Hero

I just hope this isn't another knee-[censored] decision by a Board who wants to be seen to be doing something. Should have let him coach out the year. Very disrespectful of our Premiership Coach. Gave everything he had in at times very difficult circumstances. Deserved better. I believe he truly loved the club. Leaves a bitter taste in the same way as the sacking of Junior.

Trac's contract isn't in the same league as Oliver's which reaches $1.7m by end of contract. Trac is in the top 3 impact players at the dees this year. He has no baggage. In the top 3-5 in the league on a number of metrics. Versatile positions. So Hawks or any other team should pay full value to us and to Trac. A hypothetical trade to Hawks should be 2 first round picks: Carlton's 1st this year, a future 1st and they take his full salary. Clark doesn't have a clue and trying to stay relevant.

Thanks. Towards the end of the article it says the club kept Oliver and Petracca to their contracts and at the Board's request extended Viney's contract! Another dumb Board decision as Viney was already contracted The irony is the Board has now unceremoniously and very publicly put all 3 (and the whole team, bar Max and Kozzie) on the trade market. How stupid does the Board look now re keeping those 3! The other irony is the Board has little idea of how it exposed its incompetence in the last week: admitted it hadn't monitored the FD review implementation didn't ask for an agreed start date from Guerra put our whole playing list (bar Max and Kozzie) on the trade table. We have 17 players uncontracted. An unheard of situation for us at this time of year. After the Board's statement any player, contracted or uncontracted, would be within their rights to call their agent. That would test the Board's mettle. Look out for their back-pedaling!

How could the Board possibly not agree a start date with Guerra before appointing him. Then be surprised it wouldn't be until September ... Incompetence, right up there with failing to monitor the implementation of last year's FD review!

I may have missed something but what is the difference? And interested in the drafting rules for players from the 'aboriginal academy'.

The Saints missed some capable players but they struck the jackpot: Nasiah was part of Port's NGA!

It was a rusty start but yesterday showed we can successfully play the 'transition' game. It was great to see players looking for targets and using precise handball or short kicks to find them. Max handballed, Clayton ran in fwd waves, tackles were broken and we used the corridor for better shots on goal. After half time it all clicked and we scored 15.7. While better teams won't let us do that all game, I hope it gives enormous confidence to players that they can make the system work. They looked very happy. btw, loved Max's huge smile and teammates all over him when he kicked the 'round the corner' goal. 100% strike rate using that technique 😁. I'm sure we will see more of it.

Not match winning but Oliver’s best game in many a day. Ran hard. Took time to find targets so had good disposal. Seemed invested. Delighted for him. More of that in the next few weeks would be nice ❤️💙

You may need to watch Sunday's first quarter again. A number of those goals came directly from Petracca's kick i50 exactly to the target he intended.

If so Ralph did us a favour. Has not performed at recent Port level. One report was he may be dropped given the number of Pies players to come back. Dodged a bullet!

Thank you. The answer is the same: The politics is not my go.

Would have preferred the 'we' pronoun there. He should watch Simpson on AFL 360 last night and see how coaching contributed to the last minutes confusion/fiasco.

Very good question 'Mono'. Answer: If he has met his KPI's and acted to fix any under performance he stays. If not, he goes. To determine that The Board had to monitor performance vs KPI's and give guidance and feedback during the year. imv recommendations by Shand had to be included in Goodwin's KPI's. Given the article earlier says The Board will: examine whether changes recommended then were properly implemented this year", suggests they weren't included as KPI's or the Board hasn't monitored performance. Otherwise they would already know. It is inexplicable to me that the Board doesn't know how he has performed vs KPi's nor given periodic feedback. So the right reasons are a considered and objective assessment of his performance. Without that, I fear a knee-[censored] decision to quell the noise and dare I say protect their own backsides.

On Sunday, I immediately thought of that comment from Goodwin. Once a team gets used to thinking we are in front 'we don't need to score' its a slippery slope. That mentality isn't ingraining a winning culture to play the game for 120min. The slippery slope landed us at the the bottom on Sunday.

I say knee-[censored] because as recently as a few weeks ago there was no apparent public threat to his position. It is only after Sunday's embarrassing capitualation that the Board suddenly says the FD and his position are to be reviewed, again. That looks like a knee-[censored]/scapegoat reaction rather than a considered one. They should have been monitoring it during the season. I'm not saying he shouldn't go. I just hope it is for the right reasons and not to take the heat off everyone else. Then everyone goes 'Phew' the heat is off but nothing fundamentally changes.

We have a recent history of knee-[censored] changes to quell the public blowtorch. I just hope if they sack Goodwin it is for the right and considered reasons and not another such knee-[censored] reaction. Goodwin is part of a problem. The whole problem? I doubt it! The Board needs to look at itself in what has happened and not just look for a scapegoat to deflect the heat, again. btw, what happened to that Board 2024 review... crickets.

Thanks for the article. A good summary of DL thoughts throughout the year. This in particular caught my eye: "Senior Melbourne sources said the board would analyse the football department and performance again, look at Shand’s review conducted at the end of last year and examine whether changes recommended then were properly implemented this year." imv the bolded part is saying the Board did not follow up during the year. After last year's disastrous performance, the much heralded Shand review and the 0-5 start, a progress report should have been at the top of Board meeting Agendas. Every. Single. Meeting. Many times this year I have asked on DL 1) if Shand is still involved. And 2) why we haven't had an update from Green or the Board. Now we know the answer to 2). On 1). As someone with a management consulting background I would bet my bottom dollar that Shand tried to implement the review but met with great resistance by the FD. It often happens that a department being reviewed doesn't believe in or like it. They give the consultant lip service, appear to be working with them but their resistance undermines the implementation. Given Shand's main task this year was to work on leadership with off field and on field leaders the review implementation has failed. Lack of leadership was evident during the year and the last quarter on Sunday demonstrated the extent of our leadership void or incompetence. I might add, It would be rare that a consultant does not report directly back to the sponsor (ie Green and the Board). My professional opinion is the Board did get feedback but didn't know how to handle it so just kicked the problem down the road. On Sunday those chickens came home to roost! And the paragraph quoted above is just a smokescreen. Whether the Board didn't ask for progress reports, didn't know what was/wasn't happeing or didn't act on them is a dereliction of duty and a complete breakdown in due diligence.

Fair comments. But, clubs will factor in the sal cap implications especially as many have forward committed its growth from recent and future CBA's. Hence the big contracts being thrown around. Can't think of clubs who have or will have sal cap to take their contracts, especially relative to what their existing players get. imv it is realistic for mfc and fans to consider $ and contract length when looking at it from a buyer's pov. Sure we need to negotiate to get the best deal but at the end of the day the market sets the price.

Out of interest, if you were List Manager for any club what would your trade offer be, assuming they are both on $1.5m pa and 4-5 years to run on their contract?

Bit of poetic licence taken there...

Yes being ruthless is to improve the list. And I am not suggesting anyone be traded for 'unders'. Really, there is no such thing as 'under' which by implication means 'under market value'. Selling something/someone not in high demand means meeting the market regardless of what owners/fans think the value is. The Grundy example was about meeting the market price, regardless of the reason for 'selling'. Another example of meeting the market was Freo trade of Hogan to GWS. There are many others. If we want to improve our list by trading players out not in high demand we need to meet the market for them, be it Oliver, Petracca or anyone else. Simples.

It isn't exactly a sellers market for Oliver. We missed our opportunities to get a reasonable trade. As a precedent, Pies traded Grundy for pick 27 which end up in the 30's. They also paid about $400k p.a for four years. Goodwin talks about being ruthless. Ruthlessness starts with our list. Letting Oliver and other players go that he might be attached to but not in the interests of the club to keep, is being ruthless.

Appeal starts at 5pm. Follow it here: Fox SportsLIVE: Dees’ last-ditch bid to free star after polarising...LIVE: Dees’ last-ditch bid to free star after polarising bump in AFL’s most complex case

People have short For all intents and purposes Goodwin is the FD! Unlkely assist coaches will upset the boss. Richardson has had plenty of opportunities to overhaul the list. iirc Taylor and Lamb report to him. I've not seen much evidence of a list overhaul (aside from adding 1st round picks) so am not expecting them to in the future. If Graham Wright was coming in as CEO we might see an overhaul. He overhauled Pies list to win a premiership. He is about to overhaul Carlton's list. Hopefully, they don't win a premiership any time soon. At this stage there is no obvious person in the FD/Club to push back on what Goodwin wants.

Goodwin said in the press conf we had an extra fwd. This morning on MMM Max said he thought it was an extra fwd and tried to bring one into the square when he had a few seconds to do that but in fact it was an extra defender. Not sure who is correct. But it doesn't matter. We messed up for the whole quarter and that was just another blunder.