chookrat

I'm wondering if we will see a Coach traded to another team as part of a soft cap dump. Honestly if Don's and St Kilda were more organised they could have simply swapped Rutten / Ratten and saved alot of $$$.

I'd get him to meet up with Carey at the Casino.

Yep, before he injured his knee was ranked number 1 in the AFL for winning 1 on 1 marking contests.

Can we play him in the WAFL and collect the money in a brown paper bag for each match he plays 😎

Are we collecting man buns as our new list strategy?

That would absolutely be treated as draft tampering and there is no way the AFL would go along with it.

I suspect the difference btw 25 and 27 is that we might offset this against the portion Collingwood pay of Grundy's salary, e.g. rather than 300k they might chip in 280k or similar.

I believe the saying goes that behind every successful man is a surprised woman.

I've just come across the original ABC article re the allegations and reading this I've been way off the mark in suggesting the coaching staff don't have much to answer for. Previously I'd read comments from other articles in isolation (which don't really provide any context) but the ABC Sport interviews with the families paint a disturbing picture that is difficult enough to read, let alone experience. For anyone like me who hadn't previously read the ABC Sport article it paints quite a detailed picture of the allegations from the players and families perspectives, noting the content is quite distressing. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-21/alastair-clarkson-and-chris-fagan-named-in-hawks-review/101452320 The most disturbing part of this is the seemingly preemptive, systematic approach described in the players stories of separating young First Nations players from their families. E.g. this doesn't look like an isolated incident of a young player having poor habits and getting into a bit of trouble and the club acting to provide a stable environment. Anyway, I was very wrong on this and this will send shockwaves through the league. I think the players have done the right thing in going public as the allegations are serious to the extent that the AFL investigation would have been compromised before it started. if I am to be fully honest I am disappointed with you Demonlander's for not getting stuck into me properly for having a poorly formed opinion on something I clearly didn't do the requisite ground work.

Pickett, while this approach could work and we 'win' the trade, such a transactional approach harm our reputation of being reasonable in negotiating trades and is likely to bite us on future trade. Like others have suggested if we can trade up on of our later picks to an early / mid second rounder through the loss of Hunt and Bedford. through the Jackson trade we should then have a early first round pick this year and an extra first round next year.

Fair point Sue. What I'm trying to say is that the players could have waited to see how the AFL handled the investigation, especially given Hawthorn looks to have conducted the investigation in good faith.

Dr Gonzo I'm not sure how my post is a joke. You are relying on media reports based on selected information provided by the players without any context. Happy if you want to elaborate further.

I think Kennett has a valid point that the players we participated in the review on the basis that it was confidential and then spoke to the media. The flip side of this is that with a history of this sort of thing being swept under the carpet it is understanding that the players and their families spoke to the media to get their story out. The issue I have with the players and their families could have waited to see where the review ended up before speaking to the media and they have put Clarkson and Fagan in a position where their reputations are tarnished without right of reply.

Does anyone know what the purpose of the AFLPA is? If we look at the Essendon doping program, Adelaide's camp and now the findings of Hawthorn's cultural safety review the player association has done absolutely nothing. Do they advocate from a purely economic perspective, e.g. remuneration, number of games etc, or do they also have a role in player wellbeing and safety? This is a genuine question as no-one has brought up their role in any of these.

While some of the stories look to overstep the mark re what many if us would find acceptable, Clarkson and Fagan's primary role was to win Premierships and they were very successful at that during the period in question. It is pretty clear that a stable home environment is conducive to high performance on the field so it is reasonable that the Footy department discusses with players their relationships, plans to have children etc. It looks like their approach is consistent across both First Nations and non-indigenous players, and that while the approach may not have adequately taken into account the cultural sensitivities of the indigenous players, this is an area we are still learning about as a society. I'm not convinced Clarkson and Fagan have done much wrong here, certainly not to the extent that the media has portrayed, and not to the point that they should be stepping down from their roles.

Are you saying Riv is leaving too? What kind of haunted house is it that they live in?

I hear he Yze's class like his old man.

From a list management perspective letting Hunt go makes sense. He'd command probably 400 - 450k on a 3 year deal and we don't want to end up in a position where we cannot afford to pay our young talent as they establish themselves. Also with bringing in Grundy we will also reach out 3 x man bun / head band limit so if Hunt were to stay then one of he, Grundy, Langdon or Brown would need to shave their heads.

Salary dump or not, Grundy is worth an early second round pick (or a late first with a second in return) and $800k per season for the next 4 years. The salary dump is what has presented the opportunity for us to try to bring Grundy in and he has attracted interest from more than one club. We should be prepared to pay what is fair taking into account what he is worth to us, how much Collingwood want to trade him on, and what he could earn elsewhere.

Lord Nev, this scenario works well for us if we can get at least 3 - 4 years of quality service from Grundy (should do given he's 28 and has been quite durable over his career) and can turn pick 8 into a quality key position forward / defender that can have an impact in their 2nd or 3rd season. I include defender as this could free up Petty to play forward.

Sheedy is a loose unit. The Board doesn't vote for which coach it wants but rather votes to endorse the recommendation provided by the expert panel it appointed to identify the most suitable candidate. Sheedy didn't vote for Hird, regardless of whether he voted with or against the rest of the Board.

Thanks ET, we heard it here first 🥇.

Why would 32 go back Freo's way? Jackson is worth at least this and next year's first round pick. The only way Jackson gets to Freo or West Coast is if we agree to a trade. The alternative is he walks into the draft or agrees to a 1-2 year contract extension which provides time for Freo and West Coast to put together the required trade currency. If Jackson felt that Freo were playing games then he'd probably tell them to get their house in order and come back in a year or two when they're serious about trading him in.

Tiers my concern with such an approach is that while such an approach may seemingly provide a more 'independent panel' it may introduce different bias such as viewing the actions from the perspective of random people and not the demands of a high performance sporting environment tested against the league's duty of care to player wellbeing. I'd rather have a panel of experienced operators with the mix of perspectives relevant to the investigation. In my view the AFLPA call for a former coach or footy boss to be part of the panel is necessary to provide a balanced context context between the cultural sensitivities, player well being, and the demands of a high performance program. The panel should also include a senior indigenous figure and a senior figure with a focus on player welfare. I believe that assembling a panel of random people will result in bias because none of them will understand the cultural, player wellbeing and high performance context of what took place.

My mail is McStay goes and DeGoey stays.