I think the difficulty is that your study is going to be really interesting, but on blitz it naturally becomes more about Essendon.
For your study it make no sense to change anything, but when we talk about Essendon it’s natural to want to deep dive the numbers a bit to help us understand a bit more.
So we start talking outside of the bounds of the study, which is all fair enough since this is blitz. You do it as well, when you mention the 2 periods of potential causes. That isn’t part of your study, just stuff you know, in the same way that people know other stuff that isn’t in the study.
So we keep talking and thinking about the whole thing from an Essendon perspective. Your study will be very interesting and provide really good information about opportunities and the way funding can help drive increased positive outcomes.
And in the meantime we’ll try and understand the causes of Essendon’s particular issues, and whether they’re in the past or ongoing, and whether they’re relevant to the success of the team, or just to the success of the club as perceived leaders in the area.
And in the end hopefully you can get some ideas about things to help in your area, and Essendon (via the board members who will have read a bit of this) will get some ideas that will help address the issues, and everyone can walk away from this thread knowing it helped.
Or perhaps it will all go to cr*p or become a pun thread or something.