People need to chill out.
It's just some survey that was anonymously filled out by club officials and staff. How the hell are the media meant to get to the bottom of it? How are they meant to "re-open the case"? The article itself is probably making a mountain out of a mole hill when as Windy Dill suggests, it's no surprise that players ordered their own legal samples. And since other clubs weren't trying to run 'cutting edge' supplemenet programs they probably had no need to keep records etc like we should have done... We copped our whack and it's not that bad. We weren't a threat in finals, we can afford the fine and we have another proven coach in Bomber T who will stand up and coach. The draft picks MIGHT hurt, but there's a lot of good to come out of it as well... team bonding, membership numbers etc etc
Sure we were screwed over and embarassed unnecessarily, but just because other clubs might have done something doesn't make what we did right.
Time will tell, but I strongly disagree with the bolded. Since the day the penalties were handed down it has been my contention that the draft pick losses will cost us a genuine shot at a flag with the Watson/Stanton/Goddard generation.
Disagree HM. Will argue more when I get on a keyboard.
We have an opportunity now.
It's just some survey that was anonymously filled out by club officials and staff. How the hell are the media meant to get to the bottom of it? How are they meant to "re-open the case"? The article itself is probably making a mountain out of a mole hill when as Windy Dill suggests, it's no surprise that players ordered their own legal samples. And since other clubs weren't trying to run 'cutting edge' supplemenet programs they probably had no need to keep records etc like we should have done...
We copped our whack and it's not that bad. We weren't a threat in finals, we can afford the fine and we have another proven coach in Bomber T who will stand up and coach. The draft picks MIGHT hurt, but there's a lot of good to come out of it as well... team bonding, membership numbers etc etc
Sure we were screwed over and embarassed unnecessarily, but just because other clubs might have done something doesn't make what we did right.
Time will tell, but I strongly disagree with the bolded. Since the day the penalties were handed down it has been my contention that the draft pick losses will cost us a genuine shot at a flag with the Watson/Stanton/Goddard generation.
Draft picks taken over the next two years are unlikely to have much, if any impact on the senior team for around three years. Look at how much influence Kavanagh, Merrett, Ashby and Daniher (the first two picked in the last two drafts) have had. Sure Merrett played some handy footy, and Daniher was great for a half against GC, but I doubt either influenced our win/loss ratio.
When Carlton copped sanctions for salary cap rorting, they were already bottomed out. The sanctions meant that they were unable to rebuild. We already have a strong base, so I can't see the effect being anywhere near as damaging for us. And by the time we are feeling the effect of lost draft picks, our team will likely be in decline anyway, and unable to compete with the likes of GC and GWS. It might mean we fall harder as some key players retire or their influence diminishes, but that may mean we get to pick up some plumb talent for the next rebuild.
It's just some survey that was anonymously filled out by club officials and staff. How the hell are the media meant to get to the bottom of it? How are they meant to "re-open the case"? The article itself is probably making a mountain out of a mole hill when as Windy Dill suggests, it's no surprise that players ordered their own legal samples. And since other clubs weren't trying to run 'cutting edge' supplemenet programs they probably had no need to keep records etc like we should have done...
We copped our whack and it's not that bad. We weren't a threat in finals, we can afford the fine and we have another proven coach in Bomber T who will stand up and coach. The draft picks MIGHT hurt, but there's a lot of good to come out of it as well... team bonding, membership numbers etc etc
Sure we were screwed over and embarassed unnecessarily, but just because other clubs might have done something doesn't make what we did right.
Time will tell, but I strongly disagree with the bolded. Since the day the penalties were handed down it has been my contention that the draft pick losses will cost us a genuine shot at a flag with the Watson/Stanton/Goddard generation.
Draft picks taken over the next two years are unlikely to have much, if any impact on the senior team for around three years. Look at how much influence Kavanagh, Merrett, Ashby and Daniher (the first two picked in the last two drafts) have had. Sure Merrett played some handy footy, and Daniher was great for a half against GC, but I doubt either influenced our win/loss ratio.
When Carlton copped sanctions for salary cap rorting, they were already bottomed out. The sanctions meant that they were unable to rebuild. We already have a strong base, so I can't see the effect being anywhere near as damaging for us. And by the time we are feeling the effect of lost draft picks, our team will likely be in decline anyway, and unable to compete with the likes of GC and GWS. It might mean we fall harder as some key players retire or their influence diminishes, but that may mean we get to pick up some plumb talent for the next rebuild.
it does allow for the trading of good quality players. Not having those first two picks, puts us on the back foot when trading as well as drafting.
We are complaining about the lack of reporting in the mainstream media but why is the EFC silent?
There is no mention of this issue anywhere on the website. Was that part of the settlement? No matter how much we (AFL) provoke you, you must remain silent?
Herald Sun say s"12 OTHER CLUBS INVOLVED" then have a picture of Hird. HA!
Don't tell me he was overseeing their programs as well?
Or NOT overseeing their programs as well - actually that's the bit that gets you into trouble isn't it?
Herald Sun say s"12 OTHER CLUBS INVOLVED" then have a picture of Hird. HA!
Don't tell me he was overseeing their programs as well?
Or NOT overseeing their programs as well - actually that's the bit that gets you into trouble isn't it?
Yep, Hird will get another twelve months for not properly overseeing the programs at twelve other clubs. According to C. Wilson anyway.
It's just some survey that was anonymously filled out by club officials and staff. How the hell are the media meant to get to the bottom of it? How are they meant to "re-open the case"? The article itself is probably making a mountain out of a mole hill when as Windy Dill suggests, it's no surprise that players ordered their own legal samples. And since other clubs weren't trying to run 'cutting edge' supplemenet programs they probably had no need to keep records etc like we should have done...
We copped our whack and it's not that bad. We weren't a threat in finals, we can afford the fine and we have another proven coach in Bomber T who will stand up and coach. The draft picks MIGHT hurt, but there's a lot of good to come out of it as well... team bonding, membership numbers etc etc
Sure we were screwed over and embarassed unnecessarily, but just because other clubs might have done something doesn't make what we did right.
So you're saying the media that (at least if you believe them) found every single person Essendon dealt with in 2012 plus receipts, emails, phone records and who knows what else, suddenly can't even figure out the clubs involved? Getting to the bottom of things that people want covered up is, fundamentally, their job. If they want to call themselves journalists, that is.
It's just some survey that was anonymously filled out by club officials and staff. How the hell are the media meant to get to the bottom of it? How are they meant to "re-open the case"? The article itself is probably making a mountain out of a mole hill when as Windy Dill suggests, it's no surprise that players ordered their own legal samples. And since other clubs weren't trying to run 'cutting edge' supplemenet programs they probably had no need to keep records etc like we should have done...
We copped our whack and it's not that bad. We weren't a threat in finals, we can afford the fine and we have another proven coach in Bomber T who will stand up and coach. The draft picks MIGHT hurt, but there's a lot of good to come out of it as well... team bonding, membership numbers etc etc
Sure we were screwed over and embarassed unnecessarily, but just because other clubs might have done something doesn't make what we did right.
So you're saying the media that (at least if you believe them) found every single person Essendon dealt with in 2012 plus receipts, emails, phone records and who knows what else, suddenly can't even figure out the clubs involved? Getting to the bottom of things that people want covered up is, fundamentally, their job. If they want to call themselves journalists, that is.
Exactly, they got to the "bottom" of everything at the EFC pretty quickly. Lack of evidence didn't stop them digging and making up ■■■■ to fill pages day after day.
It's just some survey that was anonymously filled out by club officials and staff. How the hell are the media meant to get to the bottom of it? How are they meant to "re-open the case"? The article itself is probably making a mountain out of a mole hill when as Windy Dill suggests, it's no surprise that players ordered their own legal samples. And since other clubs weren't trying to run 'cutting edge' supplemenet programs they probably had no need to keep records etc like we should have done...
We copped our whack and it's not that bad. We weren't a threat in finals, we can afford the fine and we have another proven coach in Bomber T who will stand up and coach. The draft picks MIGHT hurt, but there's a lot of good to come out of it as well... team bonding, membership numbers etc etc
Sure we were screwed over and embarassed unnecessarily, but just because other clubs might have done something doesn't make what we did right.
Time will tell, but I strongly disagree with the bolded. Since the day the penalties were handed down it has been my contention that the draft pick losses will cost us a genuine shot at a flag with the Watson/Stanton/Goddard generation.
Draft picks taken over the next two years are unlikely to have much, if any impact on the senior team for around three years. Look at how much influence Kavanagh, Merrett, Ashby and Daniher (the first two picked in the last two drafts) have had. Sure Merrett played some handy footy, and Daniher was great for a half against GC, but I doubt either influenced our win/loss ratio.
When Carlton copped sanctions for salary cap rorting, they were already bottomed out. The sanctions meant that they were unable to rebuild. We already have a strong base, so I can't see the effect being anywhere near as damaging for us. And by the time we are feeling the effect of lost draft picks, our team will likely be in decline anyway, and unable to compete with the likes of GC and GWS. It might mean we fall harder as some key players retire or their influence diminishes, but that may mean we get to pick up some plumb talent for the next rebuild.
I can't think of the last time a side won the flag witout one or more of its 1st-3rd year early-round draftees playing a significant role.
Bradley Hill, Luke Parker, Alex Johnson, Christiansen, Beams, Sidebottom, Selwood, Rioli, Harry Taylor. I could keep going.
Just because our first-year draftees haven't had big first years (barring Heppell) doesn't mean other clubs have been in the same boat. And the better your side is, the more likely a kid is going to perform well off the bat because they have more support.
Not to mention that the pemalties also block us from getting any finals experience this year, and finals experience is VITAL for winning flags. Blokes as integral to our best 22 as Ryder, Hibberd, Belly, Carlisle, Hooker, Hurley, Zaka etc etc have played at most two finals games each in their careers, both times in horrible lopsided thrashings.
It's just some survey that was anonymously filled out by club officials and staff. How the hell are the media meant to get to the bottom of it? How are they meant to "re-open the case"? The article itself is probably making a mountain out of a mole hill when as Windy Dill suggests, it's no surprise that players ordered their own legal samples. And since other clubs weren't trying to run 'cutting edge' supplemenet programs they probably had no need to keep records etc like we should have done...
We copped our whack and it's not that bad. We weren't a threat in finals, we can afford the fine and we have another proven coach in Bomber T who will stand up and coach. The draft picks MIGHT hurt, but there's a lot of good to come out of it as well... team bonding, membership numbers etc etc
Sure we were screwed over and embarassed unnecessarily, but just because other clubs might have done something doesn't make what we did right.
Time will tell, but I strongly disagree with the bolded. Since the day the penalties were handed down it has been my contention that the draft pick losses will cost us a genuine shot at a flag with the Watson/Stanton/Goddard generation.
Draft picks taken over the next two years are unlikely to have much, if any impact on the senior team for around three years. Look at how much influence Kavanagh, Merrett, Ashby and Daniher (the first two picked in the last two drafts) have had. Sure Merrett played some handy footy, and Daniher was great for a half against GC, but I doubt either influenced our win/loss ratio.
When Carlton copped sanctions for salary cap rorting, they were already bottomed out. The sanctions meant that they were unable to rebuild. We already have a strong base, so I can't see the effect being anywhere near as damaging for us. And by the time we are feeling the effect of lost draft picks, our team will likely be in decline anyway, and unable to compete with the likes of GC and GWS. It might mean we fall harder as some key players retire or their influence diminishes, but that may mean we get to pick up some plumb talent for the next rebuild.
Carlton's sanctions were multiplied many times over by their shocking drafting before then (....and we weren't much better through that period).
In 2000, they had picks 4, 11 & 15 that should have netted them 3 pretty good players that would have been a core group thorugh the following decade.
But they picked up two spuds with 4 (Livingston) & 11 (Sporn) and one average player at 15 (Wiggins) who really only ended playing just over 100 games because their list was so weak. This was further exacerbated by the fact they were coming to the end of an era with many of the better players much closer retirement than the start of their careers.
We are in a much better position - when you look at the good footballers we have developed on the young side of 25 who were late draft/rookie/pre-season draft picks (Hooker, Hibberd, Crameri, Bellchambers, Howlett, Baguley....with Dalgleish to possibly join this group in the next few months) you can see how good our player development has been the last 3 years to complement what I think has been pretty good list management & recruiting by Dodoro & Keane. This complements the higher draft picks we have had who are now key parts of our 22 (Myers, Hurley, Melksham, Heppell), ditto 20+ draft picks (Zaka, Carlisle, Merrett), top F/S selection (JD) and young talent that needs more development but show promise from a variety of draft positions (Kavanagh, Ashby, Hams, Gleeson).
