Post-flag plummet was always possible

[G-Mo77]

Re: Post-flag plummet was always possible

I've been a member since 81 and I've never been happier with where the club sits. Since 2014, 2 X VFL, 1 X AFL, 1 X AFLw premierships, no debt, profitable, record membership, great alliance with Ballarat, Mercedes, Mission and others, our vice president was integral in a deal to get Disney involved in docklands ( which will hopefully benefit us), a brilliant young CEO in Ameet who is very impressive; not to mention the amazing work done in the sons of the west and multicultural programs driven by the club. To suggest we are a joke or thought of as such doesn't have a factual basis and is more suitably written in rubbish newspapers and particular forums (not the fine folk of woof) where contemptuous armchair warriors rail against the club. Im not suggesting we are perfect, The failed Edgewater project, the sad departure of Jake and that abomination of a jumper yesterday is proof of that, however I think from a big picture point of view we are in the strongest position Ive seen in my days supporting the club which makes me very proud to support the red white and blue. ��⚪��

A financial side is only part of what happens off the field and I'll agree we have done pretty well there. Just read some of the things mainly BT posted and some others which are all off field decisions over the past 18 months. When you line them all up and have a read it is embarrassing.

[GVGjr]

Re: Post-flag plummet was always possible

I've been a member since 81 and I've never been happier with where the club sits. Since 2014, 2 X VFL, 1 X AFL, 1 X AFLw premierships, no debt, profitable, record membership, great alliance with Ballarat, Mercedes, Mission and others, our vice president was integral in a deal to get Disney involved in docklands ( which will hopefully benefit us), a brilliant young CEO in Ameet who is very impressive; not to mention the amazing work done in the sons of the west and multicultural programs driven by the club. To suggest we are a joke or thought of as such doesn't have a factual basis and is more suitably written in rubbish newspapers and particular forums (not the fine folk of woof) where contemptuous armchair warriors rail against the club. Im not suggesting we are perfect, The failed Edgewater project, the sad departure of Jake and that abomination of a jumper yesterday is proof of that, however I think from a big picture point of view we are in the strongest position Ive seen in my days supporting the club which makes me very proud to support the red white and blue. ��⚪��

Great comments on where the club is and there is of course plenty to admire about some of the things we have achieved but it's Chris Grants comments in the article that is being tested in this discussion and to me they don't ring as being true and accurate.
Surely we can have some constructive discussions on where we need to improve on without it being construed as a negative anti club sentiment? It certainly doesn't dismiss any of the other achievements.

So I go back to a couple of the original questions I asked, if the club suspected there could be a slide why have we been so passive with our list management especially at the draft table? Why did we deem our list strong enough, including our rookie list, to make minimal changes at the end of 2017 and now say we knew a slide was likely?

We have been debating this on the forum since 2016 flag and the article just opens up that discussion again.
If we've made some errors in list management and player assessment then call it out, it won't stop any of us supporting the club in the slightest.

[Twodogs]

Re: Post-flag plummet was always possible

Great comments on where the club is and there is of course plenty to admire about some of the things we have achieved but it's Chris Grants comments in the article that is being tested in this discussion and to me they don't ring as being true and accurate.
Surely we can have some constructive discussions on where we need to improve on without it being construed as a negative anti club sentiment? It certainly doesn't dismiss any of the other achievements.

So I go back to a couple of the original questions I asked, if the club suspected there could be a slide why have we been so passive with our list management especially at the draft table? Why did we deem our list strong enough, including our rookie list, to make minimal changes at the end of 2017 and now say we knew a slide was likely?

We have been debating this on the forum since 2016 flag and the article just opens up that discussion again.
If we've made some errors in list management and player assessment then call it out, it won't stop any of us supporting the club in the slightest.

Damn straight. We can't fix problems if we don't acknowledge we have a problem in the first place.

For instance this goal kicking problem has been building and building over a few years now. You could see the drop away in players techniques and confidence and eventually it has built up to crisis point. But we have been banging on about it (well I have) on WOOF for a while now, at least two years and probably longer. But we refused to acknowledge that there was a problem for ages (and still are for intents and purposes, we certainly aren't doing anything to address it) and now it's ingrained.

[Grantysghost]

Re: Post-flag plummet was always possible

Great comments on where the club is and there is of course plenty to admire about some of the things we have achieved but it's Chris Grants comments in the article that is being tested in this discussion and to me they don't ring as being true and accurate.
Surely we can have some constructive discussions on where we need to improve on without it being construed as a negative anti club sentiment? It certainly doesn't dismiss any of the other achievements.

So I go back to a couple of the original questions I asked, if the club suspected there could be a slide why have we been so passive with our list management especially at the draft table? Why did we deem our list strong enough, including our rookie list, to make minimal changes at the end of 2017 and now say we knew a slide was likely?

We have been debating this on the forum since 2016 flag and the article just opens up that discussion again.
If we've made some errors in list management and player assessment then call it out, it won't stop any of us supporting the club in the slightest.

Reading the article he doesn't say anything that left field to me, so I don't really get the angst. I respect people's right to (a semi intelligent) opinion and totally agree that we can call out the club and discuss the facts. This forum has some great passionate, insightful posters and thanks to those who maintain it, I'm a daily visitor.
In terms of the media, and information coming out clubs will change their position as situations change, I'm ok with that I don't expect anything different. For those who aren't happy with what he said, what should he have said? He states retirements of Boyd and Murphy were going to leave a hole, some of the young players would struggle backing up with manic pressure (he calls it their one wood), contested ball is the key, we are very young, the moons aligned for four weeks (after last game against Freo and injuries we all didn't think we had a chance), we need to give the kids gametime...etc. It's nothing too radical to me. It's a change in rhetoric from 2017; circumstances change.
Could you plan for Boyd / Cloke depression, Stringer's situation, Hamling leaving, injuries? How could we have done it better? Our recruits from the 2017 draft/trade period : Naughton and Richards have been incredible. Trengove has taken some time but is playing well now, Crozier I think has been ok not great (was better yesterday), Schache has massive potential and Porter I haven't seen a lot of so far but reports are he's progressing well. Previous year English, Lipinksi, Young all look like great choices, Greene also looks like he could be a player.
Trade wise in 2016, who was out there? Hurley was touted but he rejected us not much we can do about that, not sure if we had any nibbles at Prestia, Caddy or Hoskin Elliot but I assume feelers are put out. Last year I think we had a decent crack at Impey but he chose the Hawks, Charlie Cameron, Lever, Gibbs, Smith didn't want to come to us either so short of making ourselves more attractive I don't know how we could do more without inside knoweldge of the discussions that were had between club and agents.

This draft/trade we definitely need to bring in some mids, I agree with that part of the discussion. Possibly get a Gaff type in via trade, and target some young players from the expansion clubs (Ainsworth springs to mind, Jack Martin too).

So I think our actions match what Grant has said in the article, for those on the other side of the debate, I would like to know what guys think we should've done differently, and how we could have achieved it?

Good discussion.

[anfo27]

Re: Post-flag plummet was always possible

Examples please.

We have paid off our debts and created a strong viable club for the future through the hard work of Peter Gordon and the acquisition of primary land from the government.

I would love to hear from you why we are a joke?

Agree PG has done a great job in setting the club up. No debt! never thought i'd ever hear that about our club. For me its hard to remain positive about the club when our on field performance is so bad.
Our on field performance sadly is a joke, we are just far too easy to play against. Our performance added to what some of the other posters have written does make me feel embarrassed.

[Twodogs]

Re: Post-flag plummet was always possible

The no debt/better financial news is good news. So why aren't we trumpeting it? That's my first question.

My second question is, Is our financial situation (and security) relative to how well other clubs are going financially? 25-30 yo ago most of the clubs were deep in debt but some clubs were deeper than others so those were the clubs were the clubs that were in the gun.

Now that most clubs are claiming to be doing well financially and we are doing modestly well, does tgat mean we are still first in the firing line of bright ideas?

[Bornadog]

Re: Post-flag plummet was always possible

I've been a member since 81 and I've never been happier with where the club sits. Since 2014, 2 X VFL, 1 X AFL, 1 X AFLw premierships, no debt, profitable, record membership, great alliance with Ballarat, Mercedes, Mission and others, our vice president was integral in a deal to get Disney involved in docklands ( which will hopefully benefit us), a brilliant young CEO in Ameet who is very impressive; not to mention the amazing work done in the sons of the west and multicultural programs driven by the club. To suggest we are a joke or thought of as such doesn't have a factual basis and is more suitably written in rubbish newspapers and particular forums (not the fine folk of woof) where contemptuous armchair warriors rail against the club. Im not suggesting we are perfect, The failed Edgewater project, the sad departure of Jake and that abomination of a jumper yesterday is proof of that, however I think from a big picture point of view we are in the strongest position Ive seen in my days supporting the club which makes me very proud to support the red white and blue. 🔴⚪🔵

Exactly how I feel. When I read things like the club is a joke it makes my blood boil. On field we are struggling big time and as I said no one is happy about that at all.

[Bornadog]

Re: Post-flag plummet was always possible

Agree PG has done a great job in setting the club up. No debt! never thought i'd ever hear that about our club. For me its hard to remain positive about the club when our on field performance is so bad.
Our on field performance sadly is a joke, we are just far too easy to play against. Our performance added to what some of the other posters have written does make me feel embarrassed.

You think we are a joke on field have a look at the results this weekend. Brisbane currently down by 55 points at half time, GC lost by 85 points, Essendon by 70 plus.

Not sure what is going on, but there seems to be a massive divide between the top teams and bottom teams.

[GVGjr]

Re: Post-flag plummet was always possible

Trade wise in 2016, who was out there? Hurley was touted but he rejected us not much we can do about that, not sure if we had any nibbles at Prestia, Caddy or Hoskin Elliot but I assume feelers are put out. Last year I think we had a decent crack at Impey but he chose the Hawks, Charlie Cameron, Lever, Gibbs, Smith didn't want to come to us either so short of making ourselves more attractive I don't know how we could do more without inside knoweldge of the discussions that were had between club and agents.

This draft/trade we definitely need to bring in some mids, I agree with that part of the discussion. Possibly get a Gaff type in via trade, and target some young players from the expansion clubs (Ainsworth springs to mind, Jack Martin too).

So I think our actions match what Grant has said in the article, for those on the other side of the debate, I would like to know what guys think we should've done differently, and how we could have achieved it?

Good discussion.

So if Trade wise there wasn't much happening how does it explain drafting just 3 players and making minimal changes to the rookie list? Did we really not know that know that Hamling was a strong chance to leave? He was unsigned, and we initiated that, surely we knew that the manager of an unsigned player would put some feelers out particularly to his state of origin?
We chased Hurley but missed, found out Hamling was going to leave and also had Adams request a trade back home at the end of 2016 and signed no one. It never sounded like we were on top of it.

Nothing in the Chris Grant article rings true to me unless you just want to believe it more than look at the content of what he said.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Post-flag plummet was always possible

So if Trade wise there wasn't much happening how does it explain drafting just 3 players and making minimal changes to the rookie list? Did we really not know that know that Hamling was a strong chance to leave? He was unsigned, and we initiated that, surely we knew that the manager of an unsigned player would put some feelers out particularly to his state of origin?
We chased Hurley but missed, found out Hamling was going to leave and also had Adams request a trade back home at the end of 2016 and signed no one. It never sounded like we were on top of it.

Nothing in the Chris Grant article rings true to me unless you just want to believe it more than look at the content of what he said.

Yep. You can both love Chris Grant the club champion player, but see through a fair bit of what's he's said recently as the overseer of the footy department (the main under performing area of the club).

[Grantysghost]

Re: Post-flag plummet was always possible

So if Trade wise there wasn't much happening how does it explain drafting just 3 players and making minimal changes to the rookie list? We did we really not know that know that Hamling was a strong chance to leave? He was unsigned, and we initiated that, surely we knew that the manager of an unsigned player would put some feelers out particularly to his state of origin?
We chased Hurley but missed, found out Hamling was going to leave and also had Adams request a trade back home at the end of 2016 and signed no one. It never sounded like we were on top of it.

Nothing in the Chris Grant article rings true to me unless you just want to believe it more than look at the content of what he said.

Nothing ? Seriously ? Murphy and Boyd would leave a hole, be hard to sustain manic pressure with a young list, the moon's aligned what is there not to believe? I won't bang on but respectfully agree to disagree.

[Bornadog]

Re: Post-flag plummet was always possible

Nothing ? Seriously ? Murphy and Boyd would leave a hole, be hard to sustain manic pressure with a young list, the moon's aligned what is there not to believe? I won't bang on but respectfully agree to disagree.

In regards to drafting, how many more young players could we have brought in? We drafted three young players, plus we brought in Trengove, Crozier and Schache. I don't think we could have cut deeper at the time and brought in another two or three young players. How many can you have under 21. We already have 18 players 21 and under and another 11 who are 24 and under.

[Grantysghost]

Re: Post-flag plummet was always possible

In regards to drafting, how many more young players could we have brought in? We drafted three young players, plus we brought in Trengove, Crozier and Schache. I don't think we could have cut deeper at the time and brought in another two or three young players. How many can you have under 21. We already have 18 players 21 and under and another 11 who are 24 and under.

Spot on .

[Eastdog]

Re: Post-flag plummet was always possible

Murphy and Boyd have been big losses but was always going to happen eventually.

I would have liked Boydy to go around for another year as I thought he was good in his final game.

I think our young players we have brought have been a huge positive. English has shown a lot in the ruck, Lipinski has been very good at times in the forward line, Ed Richards been quite good, Aaron Naughton down in defence been good.

We certainly are missing guys like Picko and Libba. Would be great to have these two back although I'm not sure what Pickos future will be at the club. Gowers is still young and beena very effective forward for us this year and Schache since coming in has shown some signs.

[GVGjr]

Re: Post-flag plummet was always possible

Nothing ? Seriously ? Murphy and Boyd would leave a hole, be hard to sustain manic pressure with a young list, the moon's aligned what is there not to believe? I won't bang on but respectfully agree to disagree.

How many good games did Boyd play in 2017 and how many did Murphy play in 2016? To me it's an inaccurate excuse Grant has offered that indicates that the two of them were prime movers in both 2016 and 2017. Also did we not know they were retiring? Given we have a huge number of back flanker types on the list I'd say we had them covered.

I get why some want to believe whatever the club says but no one has said anything close to convince me that the club expected or at least planned for a slide.