Lucifers Hero

I did say this in the post.

On Talking Footy last night Gil said a structure that they are leaning toward is: - All teams play each other once in first 17 rounds. - Then the ladder is divided into groups of 3 and in rounds 18 to 23 the: - Top 6 play for the top 6 spots on the ladder. Incentive: top 2/top 4 spots - Next 6 play off for spots 7 to 12. Incentive spot 7 and 8 and playing finals - Last 6 play off for ????. Incentive: ???? - AFL may also look at changing the draft order to avoid the bottom 6 loosing all of the last 5 games - The pts a team has at the end of rd 17 will carryover. - In any group, those higher up the ladder have a slight advantage (if they have more points). - Other fixture structures also considered - Not sure whether he said a fixture change might come in in 2015 or 2016 It looks like a more formal way of having the better teams play more of the better teams and vice versa. So the last 5 weeks would be like mini finals for the top 6 before the 'real' finals start. Most of the rest may just as well pack up shop and go on holidays. Hopefully we will be playing well enough so that some day I will care about such a fixture change.

It is not only in the draft that the new franchises have hurt us. GCS have hosted home games at MS for nearly all the big Vic clubs: Richmond, Hawthorn, Geelong, Collingwood, Carlton. This means they are getting packed houses and great game day revenue from the gate etc. This is also great for their sponsors and of course good for membership. Of the big Vic clubs we hosted only Collingwood (and even that is considered a gratuity by some) and Geelong. The result is revenue that we may have and exposure that our sponsors may have is going to GSC (and probably GWS). Not to mention the impact on membership. We all know that off-field fixturing etc will only improve when on-field does but the AFL has done us no favours by taking home games against the big Vic teams away and givent them to the new teams. I hope they look at this when deciding a pp.

By the games that could have been won I think he means those where we were leading in the final qtr then fell away. Can't see any other sensible meaning. So we won 4 but could have won 6/7 others in 2014. Thats my take on it.

Gil said pp will be on Oct Commission mtg agenda (no mtg in Sept). He said Evans will look at: a subjective view of the list; # games won; # games that could have been won. (No mention was made of past performance) My immediate reaction was that there will be no PP. That could be Dee supporter pessimism but he didn't offer the hope that he did this time last year..

Ah...a long way for her to go from Philadelphia, unless you also live in the USA

If we don't have a very good list and a really good player development program with sustainable, on-field success (at or near top 8) at both AFL and Casey by the time Paul Roos 3 years is up I walk away from the Dees and AFL. If we haven't reached this by end of 2016 we will just be fodder for other clubs to poach any good players we get and the subject of eternal ridicule. Our beloved Dees deserve better than to rot at the bottom of the ladder. Better to put a dagger thru our hearts once and for all and shut us down.

Recognise something needs to be done and Roos is the man to do it. But I find the prospect of giving up those 4 players as seriously depressing. Prior pick 1, pick 2, pick 4 and pick 12 and two of which are current and recent co-captains. Very sad day that it has come to this (if scoop is true). Not the players fault!

Agreed, but what makes this the right moment? Genuine question.

The really worrying thing about this article is this: "But Peter Jackson’s future as CEO remains unclear... Club president Glen Bartlett told The Age: ‘‘We’re in talks at the moment but we won’t be making any further comment on contracts.’’ When Roos signed for the extra year PJ said he was just waitiing for Bartlett to get back from OS to sign up. It seemed a mere formality. Hope nothing has gone wrong on this front. I'm nervous.

I'm still perplexed by the timing. What if we were to win the last two games? If we get thrashed we leave ourselves open to 'putting the cue-in-the-rack' accusation to strengthen the pp case. There must be a good reason for not waiting till at least the end of the H & A games. Given that PJ is a smart cookie and wouldn't make such a bllunder, I assume they have built the case regardless of the outcome this year be it 4,5, 6 wins. I can see the case being built around the: -obvious on-field under-performance over a number of years, -we have already paid the price for not-tanking so don't punish us again and again -total lack of depth at Casey as they have also been underwhelming and not good for player morale/development -risk to the game and possible sponsorship if we have don't have sustainable improvement Perhaps one of the most persuasive things might be if we can demonstrate that we really have a player development program to ensure that current and future young players are set up to succeed. Player development is really the key to our future success. We have and will get really good, possible great young players, so their development is THE major thing we need to get right to have a sustainable future. If we can demonstrate we have such a program it might just get us the PP. Without it the perception and the reality will be that coming to MFC is a career killer and everyone will keep blaming the recruiting. Time to fix the player development side of things, folks!!

The only hope we have is Gil. About this time last year he said (in a Ch 7 interview) there was a good case for the Dees to get a pp. Then all the other clubs ganged up and he couldn't get it through. Also, he is a very passionate St Kilda supporter so the only way they can get one in the next few years is if Gil goes to bat for us now (unless AFL hypocracy kicks in when the Saints put their hand up.) Time for Gil to show his mettle and make a strong decision for what is right and not what can be lobbied, otherwise it will always be 'survival of the fittest'!! BTW, where on earth did Evans dig up this new pp interpretation of 'only in tragic circumstances' BS!!!

From Patrick Smith: Melbourne are being rebuilt by AFL goodwill and money. Roos and Jackson will be dragged back inevitably by the previous rancid culture of the club. It is beholden on the AFL and its league clubs that the Demons are not shackled to their past altogether but given a key to a better future. Melbourne need and warrant a priority pick. Similar comments from CW on FC Monday night.

but you also have to give back Salem who was rated the best kick in that draft and we sure do need someone who can kick

Sunday probably scared him off!

Yes, a very bad look, bad message to give the players for next few games and the timing makes it a lot harder to win the public hearts and minds (if that is at all possible). ATMo it looks like a knee-jerk reaction to the GWS loss altho' its been in the pipeline for a while. Going before the end of the H & A games just gives other clubs and the media more anti-Dees ammunition. Would prefer to wait till after GF as it doesn't distract from the game/finals and then gives more opportunity to present it as a strategic plan rather than a knee-jerk which is what the perception will be.

Mixed feelings about a PP. But why did we ask now and not at the end of the season or at least wait for the end of H & A games? Have we surrendered the last 2 games already?

They probably have Peter Costello, the recent EFC # 1 ticket holder and Treasuer in the last Lib gov't, lobying Tony and his mates as we speak. Interestingly, the new CEO of ASADA (forgotten his name) has been very very quiet, keeping his powder dry. Bet he will fight Abbott and Co tooth and nail to ensure it doesn't just 'go away'. EFC and AFL shouldn't underestimate him.

The article says: “There seems no debate that Essendon Football Club made these representations. However, for the point to be made good against both Applicants ASADA must show that James Hird affirmed this position as well. The point of Hird’s cross-examination was therefore to obtain concessions from him that he too endorsed the concept that ASADA and the AFL had been invited by the Club to investigate Essendon’s supplement program. He did not do this.” The article goes on to give 3 reasons why. Hird seems to have taken the position that he disagreed privately with Evans, The AFL, ASADA, EFC Management and Paul Little (at the B&F) and was gagged. Privately could mean a passing ‘…not to happy about that mate’ comment. Where are the letters, emails, sms or meeting notes to give evidence to these private concerns. Surely if he was so unhappy with the investigation there would be some documents to someone! A legal Question? Could the judge find for Hird but against EFC? Or is one in all in? If the latter it seems mindboggling that Hird’s evidence hasn’t been tested in court.

Wouldn't mind 1) knowing what the threats and inducements were that caused the duress and 2) why he didn't have the ticker (ie integrity) to just say get lost. Is he trying to say he was bribed and he just couldn't resist. Can he say this in a court of law and still be a credible withness.It sounds like he is saying he is weak (didn't resist the threats) and a mercinary (couldn't resist the inducements). I can't believe he is for real and not realise what he is saying about his own character. Sheesh!

...and the umpires! 31 frees to Freemantle's 14! 26 to Geelong in the first half!! As bad an umpiring effort as our game vs Collingwood where we had 5 and they had 19 (I think).

GWS don't need to tank as there is talk that if GWS finish above us, St Kilda will trade pick 1 to GWS (to get Petracca), for GWS first pick (3/4, to use for one of the tall KPP - Mc Cartin) plus another highish pick/player. (GWS have 2 more picks around 20/21 to play with). Such a deal not within the rules but then when it comes to GWS there are no rules.

Firrstly, he fails the NDH rules. Whats more how could any of us barrack for a player who snidingly tagged us as 'bruise free'. It was the snideness that was as annoying as the comment.

For several years (2007 to 2009) we were involved in a 'race to the bottom'. In 2009 we got 'lucky' and got the pp for Scully/Trengove. 3 years of 'loosing mentality'. New players came into a toxic environment with little development to build confidence/skills/belief. 2010 relatively uneventful but the stoush between the late Dean Bailey and the orchestrators of the 'race to the bottom' was just warming up with players caught in the middle. New players came into a toxic environment with little development to build confidence/skills/belief. Fast Forwrad to June 2011 and the infamous 186. Players lose their beloved coach and feel incredibly guilty (for going directly to the President) and incredibly responsibile (for the 186). New players came into a toxic environment with little development to build confidence/skills/belief Then in 2012 arrives MN. Losses started to pile up. The thrashings were happening on and off the field. New players came into a toxic environment with little development to build confidence/skills/belief. . So while not many of the 2007-2009 players are still at the club the perpretators of the 'race to the bottom' strategy were there, right up to mid 2013. MN was still there 1 year ago. The resultant cumulative and lingering affect of 7 years of 'losing' be it orchestrated or incompetence has left players with deep, deep scars without confidence/skills belief. It is this to which Roos was referring: The 'tanking' years were just the foundation stone for the 'we can't win' mentality. Surely DL's (and Garry L) can see the affect 7 continuous years of rubbish has on players. It will take a while to fix it but we have turned the corner...at least the thrahings have stopped.

Bernie will play better once his 'butchered' hair cut grows out