Lucifers Hero

You are quite right! I just get tired of so many media knuckleheads writing stuff about the club or Trac, that doesn't make sense and many including dees supporters buy into it as fact. And, while it was a little mischevious 🤣 of me I wanted to highlight that Purple is one of the biggest dumb...t media knuckleheads going round !!!

Sometimes I wonder if he reads what he writes or if he ever heard the word 'logic'. If Trac was a chance to win or even place of course he would be there! Logically, that means he would have played the whole season so wouldn't need to rebuild his body for day one of the preseason. And, surely, there isn't only one camp ... if he was fit he could go to the BnF and head to a later camp in the off season as he has in other years. Like many others, Purple never lets facts get in the way of some juicy and derogatory 'click bait'

Good to see that, Tim. Thanks. My two cents worth. Two assumptions by him are presented as facts: the club made the call whereas it is clear it was a mutual decision with full involvement of medical/fitness teams inside and outside the club. Duty of care says they couldn't afford to put him at risk if his body wasn't ready for the camp. the club wants to protect players. Maybe Davis doesn't know Trac addressed players, was happily interacting with them at training and was with them for our last game. It doesn't make sense that they suddenly need to be 'protected' from him !!! imv there are more plausible reasons for the club agreeing/encouraging Trac to skip the BnF: The stated reason by the club and Trac to get him ready for day one of the preseason. As many DL's have said to protect Trac from fans inundating him with support or criticism. His mental health needs to be a consideration in exposing him to the public. The media would turn the bluey into a circus if Trac attended. By not attending the focus is on the worthy award winners and the very worthy past demons in whose honour the awards are named. Davis is usually a good commentator but that is not his finest hour.

I agree. While there are no guarantees I didn't see info that provides that likelihood. We are on the same page layzie.

I should point out a feasibility study cannot be a guarantee a project will happen. A feasibility study should have a detailed road-map to completion with several points of go/no-go decisions. The email would have had more substance if a high level version was published indicating among other things, that there was support (at least in principle) from AFL, Racing, governments, community to undertake their responsibilities within the road-map time frames. Having said that, I see no reason for anyone to resign as we simply won't know if he project goes ahead for a year or more.

I'm not surprised by Allen's take. The club's announcement was very carefully crafted. It said the feasibility study was 'stakeholder engagement' which I took to mean (unknown) local community groups. Therefore it didn't include other stuff usually in such a study (eg macro level business case, risks etc) that lead to a go/no go decision that has a very high assurance of going ahead. The 'tell' tucked away in mfc's email is: While the success of the feasibility study does not ensure the future of the project ... Without being too cynical the announcement looked like a dressed up progress report. That there was no press conf let alone fanfare from other key stakeholders: AFL, Racing, Local Gov't etc says achieving a limited feasibility study is no big deal. As to the timing: the club needs some feel good news out there ...

Lamb deserves some credit. imv it was T.Viney and Mahoney who led the trades charge so to speak. I clearly recall reports of Mahoney's negotiations with Adelaide/Freo/GCS re Lever, Hogan, May. And his negotiations with GCS for pick swaps to get Oliver. Of course there is no way of knowing who did what behind the scenes or who attended the negotiation meetings.

1) Yes. Pert's acknowledgement of Mahoney when he left: mahoney-to-depart-the-demons “He was one of the key drivers of our AFLW program at its inception, oversaw our AFL list management strategy and has played a pivotal role managing the Casey Fields facility redevelopment" Since then Lamb has been our spokesperson for trades, player contracts and referred to as List Manager. Note: I earlier referred to 2020 Mahoney's new role as GM List Mngt which isn't quite right. It was a new role of 'GM Football Facilities and Administration', with the new GM FD role eg coaching, game plan, development etc. going to Richardson. 2) Yes. As GM's organisationally Mahoney and Richardson were 'equals' and both reported to Pert. When Mahoney left it is unclear who Lamb reports to. I don't think he has 'GM' in his title. Unfortunately, the club stopped publishing the 'who's who in the zoo' type info around 2020 so my interpretation and recollections could be incorrect.

Yes, I read it as the opinion of most posters and not yours. tbh I could have written my response quoting any number of recent posts on this. It was not a reflection of your post(s). I selected yours as it was the most recent and the reference to KPI's. Always have lots of time for your opinions.

Some long bows in those conclusions. The last point says St Kilda have the wrong KPI's. Probably the reason they have traded in very expensive players who have not performed or forever injured: Burgoyne, Hannebury, Jones etc. Having such a wishy washy job description explains why their list is and has been a mess for years. No decent playing list means no decent on field performance and little finals action. For an alternative and more typical Job Description for a List Manager list-manager-gws-giants The GWS GIANTS List Manager is responsible for the establishment and maintenance of the playing list that will develop and sustain a top 4 AFL team and to deliver on the Club purpose of winning premierships. The roles primary responsibility is to draft and trade players, effectively negotiate player contracts and ensure compliance with AFL TPP and broader Club and AFL regulations. The role supports the Football Department strategic objectives which include playing entertaining football, playing in finals and winning premierships as outlined in the annual business plans and budget. The role is then summarised in these categories: List Management Compliance Adminsitration Promotion and Development (in representing the club) RE mfc. With our 2020 restructure two roles were created: GM LM (Mahoney) and GM FD (Richardson) both reporting to Pert. Lamb reported to Mahoney. When Mahoney left he was not replaced and the role was absorbed by Lamb. iirc this was a result of FD budget cuts during covid. I haven't seen anything since to say he reports to Richardson altho I expect there would be a 'dotted line' reporting. Prior to the 2020 restructure T Viney was the List Manager with Mahoney leading player trade negotiations. imv we miss their negotiating skills. My understanding is Lamb's role is closer to GWS than St Kilda. Also, Lamb focuses on trading and Taylor focuses on drafting (vis a vis the FD's game plan and LM Committee guidelines). The Lamb/Taylor trade/draft roles can be inferred from our spokesperson/interviewee for Trades and Draft respectively. I am not advocating Lamb going, simply putting some other facts into the discussion. Whether Lamb is getting poor input/strategy from the FD, not listening to the FD, doesn't have the skill set to sell the club to players for trades, adequately managing the TPP, I don't know. What I firmly believe is our trades of the last 3/4 years have left us with a lesser list. imv we need to invest in a T Viney type List Manager with Lamb reverting to his role and reporting to this person as he did prior to Mahoney leaving.

Cheers. The thanks go to @red and blue forever as he has taken over this thread. And agree it is tricky keeping up with all the changes at this time of year. Confession time: it was me that suggested to randbf the number was 32!!! I inadvertently excluded ANB.

Below is my response to that in the Contracts thread.

The 'new' Goodwin thread by some newbie trollll got the short shrift it deserved! Well done mods !!!

Good behaviour maybe? LOL !!! 🤷‍♀️🙄🤔

I'm glad for Noah. However, it deepens my concern that in filling all our A-Rookie spots we are denying ourselves the chance to get a player who slips out of a very even draft, either in the Rookie draft or as a SSP recruit.

A curiosity ?. Any idea what the 'trigger' was ... he played only a handful of games this year.

Some possibilities: The rules changed. (I could be wrong but I thought originally the parental criteria was a parent born overseas and in 2020 that was changed to a parent born in Africa/Asia). MFC didn't understand the rules or the changes MFC is being a good community citizen if neither parent born in Africa/Asia MFC is being a good community citizen if he joined the academy before the parental rule change and understandably not want to 'dismiss' him from the academy.

Very pleased for the lads. A concern is we have only one A-Rookie spot left. In a very even draft a good player may slip through the main draft, leaving the rookie draft and the SPP as pathways to join a club. The latter selection is also as an A-Rookie and usually via an 'invite to train with' and the club has till Feb to decide. I hope we haven't created a bit of a catch-22 for ourselves with just one A-rookie spot.

Some very clever puns in the last few days🤣. I have taken it upon myself as a connoisseur 😉 of all things related to Italian food and drink, to award a prize for the best. The contenders in no particular order are: The prize goes to @OhMyDees for Can wash it down with a Leoncelli Limoncello! Fittingly the prize is a virtual decanter of Luci's homemade Limoncello. ps I decided against awarding a 🍋 to the least deserving.

His current rookie contract includes a promotion to the senior list at the end of this year. But he will be OOC at end of 2025 so am desperately hoping it is extended at the time of the promotion.

Green probably accepted as a courtesy given Gutnik was President in the early part of Green's career. Green seems a lovely bloke but not very 'street wise' particularly in the business world. A bit naive perhaps. It was fairly low for an ex-President to blab to the media and I have no idea why he would give Robbo a complete rundown of his own ideas. Lots of people will come knocking on Green's door. He would do well to heed these lessons. beware the Trojan Horse keep your friends close but enemies closer

It is a joint promotion. On the left showing the mfc logo and sponsorship at the bottom is the version emailed to members. The version on the right doesn't show the logos as it is on the club's website. As I mentioned sponsors often use players in their promos.

How you feel is fine. But when folks ridicule a product or ad simply because it has Trac's name, they are ridiculing him, the club and its sponsor. The club often allows sponsors to send promotional emails eg New Balance.

Do folks realise The Sporting Globe is a club sponsor and it is their ad? Not sure why folks are complaining as it also promotes the club and God knows we can do with positive promos right now. The only person to comment that gets the benefits of the promo is @Bitter but optimistic

I wonder if the AFLPA review is what did/didn't happen in the 2nd qtr. Tracc went back onto the ground at approx the 8-10 min mark. iirc he was left on till half time approx 20 min without an interchange. That seems a long stint even if no injury had occurred. We will never know what additional damage/risk occurred during that 20 min. The AFLPA would rightly ask questions of doctors/sports science/coach why he had no interchange and no injury/welfare check during that time. If the doctors (mfc and afl) left it up to Trac to come off that is a lack of care. He was in no condition to make that decision. A duty of care suggests they should have brought him to the bench at regular intervals. Gawn didn't help by telling Trac to 'toughen the **** up' when Trac struggled. Maxi's own words. In the post match press conf Goodwin said Trac was given pain relief. iirc the AFL review concluded the process mfc/afl doctors followed was 'adequate'. I wonder if the process is written? Either way I suspect the process is moot on letting a player continue and is left up to medical discretion. Only guessing but I doubt it allows for player discretion. Even if it does doctors can't abdicate that responsibility. The simple question is did the doctors do everything they could to safeguard his well being in those early stages? An interesting task for the AFLPA.