My first and last two cents on the matter:

Look, Aker is a wanker. We all knew that the moment he ran onto the field as a ratbag kid, and we certainly knew that when he came over to us from the Lions. Yes, he brought this on himself because he can't keep his mouth shut -- we also knew this, yet we said go ahead and do your media work because we can't pay you your market rate anymore. And you know what? That was a good thing -- we don't have to be so ridiculously precious about this stuff.

My point is, how has any of this blindsided the club? Were we that naive to think that Aker the media personality, who's entire raison d'etre is to be an opinionated dickhead, wasn't going to say some things that may be a bit.. risque? If we didn't want innocent opinions (and I mean innocent, more on this in a second) to air, then the last person we would want on a dual media/playing contract is Aker.

It just seems to me that the club hadn't really thought through the implications of the contract offer to Aker from the end of last year, and hadn't really done a thorough risk/mitigation audit on its impact, and are now reaping the consequences of this shortsightedness.

I'm not absolving Aker of his part in this mess, but what was he reasonably expected to do? Take a media job but be bland and unopinionated? Take a 50% pay cut with the blessing to do media, but be expected to churn out the same output on the field yet shut up off it? He had two jobs, and as far as I could see, he was doing them both well (enough) in their own sphere -- it seems that the cross-over was where the Dogs had a problem, but they should have thought about it BEFORE they offered the opportunity to him. It was a very badly designed experiment (and let's be frank, if the match committee didn't think he would be able to contribute this year they would have made him retire -- they wanted him, but just on the cheap), and it has blown up in the administration's faces.

My final point will be about the rest of the team: there have been numerous reports about how some of his teammates have been offended about this that or the other. Well, all I can say is, seriously, harden the f**k up, boys -- everything he has said about the club has been, relatively speaking, pretty innocent, if tactless (which, again, can't be a surprise). Other clubs can successfully integrate rapists, murderer's mates, wife bashers et al and still be challenging for a flag, but we get our panties in a knot because a guy is a loud mouth. Surely the players should know by now that Aker's the kind of guy you take with a generous pinch of salt, unless of course their personal and collective insecurity is too great to handle being criticised by a triple premiership player and brownlow medallist. And if the retort to that is that being a rapist etc. is okay as long as you fit into the club rules and culture, then there is far more wrong with our game and our so-called 'club cultures' than I would care to go into.

If we all want groupthink, we will go down together. Some of the best teams in history had people who openly hated each other, but they were professionals and got on with the job. The perceived softness in the group has been regularly linked in the past to a need to be liked and safety in numbers (thus the lack of individual initiative from anyone when close games are on the line), and rightly or wrongly, this is just another example of an inability to display maturity or handle individuality constructively (or even just ignore it) -- if Johnno, Gia, Murph, Coons etc. can't collectively or individually temper Aker, what chance at tempering a rampant Geelong or Hawthorn or St. Kilda (all hard nuts) come September? Well, from past experiences, zero, actually.

Aker made his bed and has to lie in it, but the club bought him the materials and tools to do it, and made themselves and the playing group look just a bit too precious in the process. For those who have said that Brisbane did the same thing, I would observe that the Lions have not experienced any type of success since that time, and while pinning it all on the manner of Akers' dismissal is too long a bow to draw, it was certainly a symptom of the collective insecurity and malaise permeating the club then that they still haven't recovered from.

One can only hope that this isn't just a way of deflecting on our underachieving year (the last 6 weeks notwithstanding), or for underperforming players to blame an external factor as a distraction rather than looking at themselves in the mirror. And of course I still hope we win the flag, but if the reports of players' thoughts on this matter are any indication of our mental state as a group, then I despair.

But that's just my two cents, and I'm sure I'm in the minority.