Matt Rosa - the new list boss man

[rossoneri]

@Finding_Nino

Imagine telling the team they don’t believe in them

Zac did

[Rana]

its like u want to buy from an unwilling seller then pay what the it required or FO

[Rana]

How can u say this..may be its club decision

[Blummers32]

@saladin

Which is fine, as long as it’s an overall consensus decision of the actual football department based on whatever parameters they’ve set.

What is not fine is if Vozzo / Rosa / Scott and the player welfare section all think he should be traded out, on balance, and then the Board over rules that.

I do think , based on how it’s played out, that they’re all pretty much on the same page on this. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the right decision , of course.

Nor does it mean that even if it is, there isn’t a shitload that needs fixing at Essendon.

That’s pretty much the way I see it.

I have no problems with boards having restrictions or overruling situations. As long as it is in line with the overall strategy.

There is also some nuance to this as per normal. What should occur is healthy and rigourous debate over the positives and negatives of the situation. And then at the end, as a group you come to a conclusion of the way forwards. And act as united as possible to get the best out of the situation.
That’s where Essendon’s downfall has been traditionally (even in the late 90s). Healthy debate is fine, holding grudges and using it to either obtain power over another in the board room (or within the leadership structure) or to weaken the power of another is not on. And is in no form of measurement considered being ‘united’.

In the end, if Rosa wanted to trade Merrett and everyone else was arguing against him, then he either continues doing his job or goes elsewhere. There are just as many restrictions at other clubs, not the same, but they do not let you trade like it’s NBA2K willy nilly. No sporting team does that (not even Hawthorn).

From the outside looking in, it seems the decision making is pretty much united.
I don’t agree with it, nor does it even matter whether I do or don’t agree with it. Their decision will be tested, mine will not. Both sides of the decision could have failed. This is Essendon after all.

[premature_rookie_ele]

If you read my post properly, I said I know he has to say this.

Mali’s, your buddy Zac Merrett effectively did say they suck.

[stander2]

@IceTemple

I wouldn’t bother stander, this place has been taken over by the gloomers who spend more time attacking the club than actually being supporters.
They all tell us they are done with the club then spend every waking moment posting their spite filled hate on here instead of actually being done and going away.

I’m actually intrigued by how they would conduct themselves at a decent game of footy played by Essendon.
Do they actually barrack?

[Paddy2]

They certainly don’t get any joy from wining a game, or being competitive with half a team as per last year. The tediousness of the same opinions expressed over and over is..tedious

[Finding_Nino]

That’s very true. before anyone attacks me yes I too am guilty of posting some dumb crap.

[sausageroll]

@BomberDave5

Well they did give 3 firsts and Hayward but they got 3 seconds back so not quite the same.

I think we would have leveled the deal if we had of got the firsts we were after and a 180 game player who averages 35 goals a season.

Its not as if we didn’t have seconds to send back.

[KingDon]

All those examples mentioned were players traded with the clubs blessing.

[SplitRound]

I don’t really know how to respond to that. Clubs denied trade requests to contracted players, then subsequently had contracted players approached and traded them out. The giants literally made Cam McCarthy sit out a year of football rather than trade him, and they also refused to trade Bobby Hill. So clearly that stance on McCarthy didn’t stop contracted players they wanted trying to leave. Is that better? The Dockers refused to trade Lobb in 2022, then traded a contracted Lachie Schultz despite trying to get him to sign a contract extension all year. Does that count?

[samwoods]

While Rosa may have wanted to accept the trade, I can’t imagine he would be too upset at not taking it for a couple of reasons.

1. It maintains the list strategy he has been planning for all year.
2. It serves as a nice reminder to other teams that when he says something, he plans on sticking to it unless something extraordinary is offered.

[Henry_s_Angry_Pills]

It’s now obvious the list strategy is dictated from the top, no?

We are fine, we just need to #swagger, not rebuild.

The issues at EFC come from the top. IMO. Not the list manager / coach level.

[Speedy_Gonzales]

Trade talk - from October 2025 (Part 10)

From what I was told today from someone who usually is on the money, Welsh gave the ok to Rosa to trade him if Rosa thought the deal with enough. Rosa didn’t think it was acceptable and told Hawks to get more. Apparently Mitchell said to just give us the 2027 F1 as well but was overruled.

[Sniggles]

@stander2

a decent game of footy played by Essendon.

A what now?

[Fairybread]

@MannikMercs

Where does that come from?

Just people making ■■■■ up because things didnt go as they wanted.

[barnz]

@SplitRound

Does that count?

obviously not

[Henry_s_Angry_Pills]

Tend to agree.

[Crod]

Ah so this is what it feels like to have a competent list manager.

[Humble_NSW_Fan]

This bloke is doing a great job.