Pathetic

[pie-no-sauce]

Mike said,,,
=>Not only do we have a bunch of incredibly talented youngsters, but they are all maturing together, they know each others game and they will develop as a unit not as a group of players employed to form a team. It's vitally important that we don't break that unit and destroy what has been created, and what has the potential to be one of the great aussie rules teams.
===========
I agree with you mate and, of note in the Grand Final Footy Record which I assiduously read at "the thriller in Manila" was an article which interviewed two old premiership players from Geelong and Richmond. The Geelong player (back pocket)expressed a point of view I've hear many times over the years - "because we've played together for so long we know each others movements instinctively and we're able to back each other up as a result" (not exact words).
I for one am wrapt that Presti stayed, over the moon that nothing came of rumours that Burnsy was a possible trade and also happy that Scoots was retained even though I had been resigned to losing him through what I'd heard. I read with interest on Drivers page that Scoots was charge up at the Copeland night and claiming he'd be playing for us next year!!! Good signs I reckon. Also great signs with Richards putting on 10 Kilo's, maybe that's why Spider and Corey weren't attractive enough for us in comparison to his potential. EVERYONE has HUGE predictions for Richards.
The final point is that our no trading stance delivers a clear message to not only the opposing teams but also and perhaps more importantly to our very own team. That message is of course that there was nothing on offer which could better the existing list without compromise. (Misiti deal folded due to unacceptable compromise). What a message of confidence to our young group. If you haven't already done so, go and read Drivers Copeland report because the trading no-trade result is a fitting outcome to the feeling of team spirit expressed in his great report.
Geez we've come along way, my money is on the current CFC administrators and operational staff coz I haven't seen any group as effective at CFC ever before.

[Rohan Coventry Tateson]

Mike,

AFL members with Club support packages are entitled to vote. Is that a personal reference to me? Stop getting personal and address the issue.

Two members of the current board are from the old board of directors so it hasn't been replaced totally.


In Skob We Trust

[Mike]

Yes Rohan that was aimed at you and was not intended to be personal. The fact is that you frequently remind us of the consequences to the Board of not performing and I have the right to question your credentials.

It is reasonable to assume from the tone of your remarks that you intend to express your approval/disapproval of the administration.

But you can't do that unless you have Social Club Membership.

Only a Member with full voting rights can question the performance of the Board and do something about it. Only Social Club Members have voting rights, AFL members, with or without club support packages, do not.

The fact that you didn't know that leads to the next question. Have you ever voted?

[JiMc]

Rohan,

I think you are mistaken. ALF club support members are no different to seasons ticket holders, ie no voting rights. You had to be a Social Club member to vote at CFC elections. Check out www.collingwoodfc.com.au and go to the membership section.

gO pIeS

[Magpie_Dan]

Its ST KEVINS OLD BOYS, but in realtiy who gives a shit!

Go Pies!

Dan

Go The Richo!

UNLEASH THE TURBO!

[CQ]

rohans post is only an opinion, if everyone dislikes him as much as they say then why let him get your back up so much? he has some valid points, though i wouldnt go blaming admin on a lot of things he does.


249

[the prez]

Rohan as usual you ignore the point I was trying to make to benefit your argument.The point was Dimma & co are purely stop gap players who are filling a role temporarily until they're replaced from beneath by an upcoming youngster.They Are NOT our future and as such should not be referred to as representative of Collingwood's future.Every club has its share of duds.We have ours and even the teams at the top of the tree have theirs.These players make up the final positions on the list.To say a team is only as good as its bottom 5 players is rubbish.In most cases the bottom 5 players on a list would have little or no influence on the team's chances during the season.The top 20 players on the list dictate the performance of the side.
Rohan I have a question for you?
Why do you always persist in raising negative issues on the boards (however trivial) without devoting some time to the positive ones?
To prove you can say nice things about the club,I'd like you to name 5 things you think are good about the club at this point in time.

GO WOODS

[Woodsman]

I have been reading posts on this board for some time now and I have to say that if nothing else Rohan enables some great debate to be had.

I don't always agree with everything that he has to say, though I do agree with a lot too. In a lot of cases, Rohan does say what most of us have at least thought at one stage or another.

[Rohan Coventry Tateson]

Our drafting in detail (The Noel Years)

1997
Of the 6 drafted, 3 are still on the list. Wasley will be delisted (if not already) so basically 4 of these draftees didn’t eventuate. The plus is Tarrant and hopefully Kinnear (jury still out).

1998
Of the 7 drafted, 4 are still on the list. Scotland and Betheras are good VFL footballers while Nick Davis and Adkins appear to be the best of the draft.

1999
Of the 8 drafted, 5 remain on the list. Fraser is a no brainer as he picked himself. Roach has been a monumental cock up. The jury is still out on Shaw and this year is his last if he doesn’t perform.
Johnson and Leon Davis appear to be sound picks but the opportunity cost of forgoing a key defender for him has to be taken into account.

2000
Too soon to make any real comment on this batch however Didak and Lonie are the standouts.

Trades

1997
Of the 5 players received via trades no one remains.

1998
Of the 4 players received via trades 2 remain. Lane is close to be delisted/he is a good VFL at best. Licuira has been the best pick up.

1999
Of the 3 players received via trades, 2 remain. Considering they are McKee and Ukovic they nullify this trade period.

2000
4 players received still remain. Like the draftees too soon to make a real analysis. However Clement, Molloy (opportunity cost with Michael) and Holland are definite gains. Steinfort is a very average player at best.

Rookie List/pre season draft

1998 (Judkins was appointed after the 1997 Pre season draft)

Lockyer is a definite pick up. Credit must go to Noel, Neil and yes, Tony Shaw.

1999
Of the 2 drafted 1 remains. Freeborn has been a good pick up.

2000
Of the 2 drafted 1 remains. O’Bree has been a great pick, considering it was pick 1 it was a no brainer like Josh as it was a given.

2001
Rintoul is an average contributor and player.

Analysis:
Judkins has been at the club for four years. Noel should be judged on the draftees since 1997, as he is the main person responsible for them. Of the 27 players drafted 18 remain.

Tarrant, Kinnear, Adkins, Fraser, Nick and leon Davis, Johnson, Lonie, Didak appear to long term prospects (9/27) whereas Wasley, Betheras, Shaw, Scotland, Roach (5/27) appear to be on their last chance as next year is crunch years for them all. Richards, Cloke and Wakelin (3/27) are too early to make a true comment on.

Given our low draft picks do you think we achieved or maximized our recruiting?

Before December 1999 Tony Shaw had input with the trades with Noel and Balme. Therefore the praise/blame can’t all be directed towards Shaw; Balme and Judkins have to cop some of this.

The gains have been Freeborn, Licuira, O’Bree, Clement, Holland and Molloy (opportunity cost of Michael). The flops have been Lane, McKee, Mark Kinnear (opportunity cost of Schauble), Ukovic, Orchard, Oalernshaw, Smith, Mangin, Gibson and Tape. A success rate of 5 to 10. The jury is still out on Rintoul and Steinfort.

Like I said it is unfair to put praise/criticism solely on Judkins and Balme for this trading. Tony Shaw had a hand in some of these trades but Balme and Judkins were still involved in these trades.

How do you rate our trading in the last four years?

There are some positives and negatives in there Prez. I feel this way because I don't accept mediocrity, it’s my opinion and I will express it when I want.

And by the way Mike it's none of your business which membership I take. As I have an AFL Full Member club support package part of my money goes to the club and thus I am classified as a member.

In Skob We Trust

[Mike]

Rohan as long as you keep suggesting that the administration is somehow deficient and stating that 'questions must be asked', 'administration must face heated debate', 'members will demand results' etc., I will quite happily keep asking you how you plan to achieve this. As I have already said, the only membership to which the administration is accountable is the voting membership.

I am not questioning your support or the value of your membership, I am pointing out that you can't vote and can't demand accountability, which is going to cause you some difficulty when you confront the board and demand an explanation for its performance.

[Brown26]

Rohan - you expect too much out of the recruiters!

you want a premiership team to be on the paddock, full of recruits. yeah, let's get croad, everit, misits, we'll win the premiership. once. maybe

with the young guys it garantees long term sucess. you forgot cloak too - he'll be an excellent player, he's your key defender.

the recruitment never aimed to get big name players, they aimed to get support players for the stars we have a will be developing.

for example: Molloy, a great player, but not as good as tarrant, but he is great when put next to tarrant and rocca. Holland, hardly a standout, but in sharing time with leon davis, he's perfect for what we want!

and michale wanted to go home, nothing we could do about that. lucky we got ANYTHING for him, let alone Molloy, who was a great pick up.

Look at this spine:

Tarrant, Rocca, Buckley, Kinnear, Presti

Presti is VERY underated, how many goals did he get kicked on him?
Kinnear will improve. showed enough in round 22. can ruck as well if needed

next year we will have the best forward line in the business BAR NONE! NONE! (big statement I know,. but look at it!)

Leon will light up games, Nick will kick 2-3 a week, Tarrant four a week (yes, will get 80 at least), it'll be explosive, exciting and devastating for other teams. Rocca will lead the league in contested marks, Molloy will kill his 3rd string tall opponent week in week out. it'll be brilliant.

Our midfield is pretty strong too, buckley, Rintoul (underated) OBree, Licca, and then the real young guys, Didak, Johnson, etc. All good players ready to take the next step. Fraser will rock the ruck world in two years, standout, like brownlow favourite stuff. he's a gun, he'll kill them, Frasr to Buckley to Tarrant goal will be the most uttered phrase in autralian sport.

Backline - our weakness. definately our little guys are good, Lonie and Burns off half back are excellent, but our talls need to step up.

here is where the problem lies - you think we should've got a ready made backman, at the detrement of our other sections of the ground. Others think we should throw Cloak and Kinnear in there, which we got for "free", and give them a chance. have faith, in other words.

give the boys a chance. I'm prepared to - get behind them. It may yet pay off. even if it doesn't we'll still rock!



Pies for Premiers 2002, 3, 4, 5, 6....

[Broadie]

Rohan,

Your (almost admirably) comprehensively listed summary of our recruiting and who has stayed remained ignores one vital point: it is comparable to the vast majority of all clubs in the AFL in terms of the percentage of players who do / do not remain on lists.

My only other comment is this: your have the right to criticise, and have stated it ad nauseum, but will you heap praise on those you currently scorn if they do succeed in creating a top 4 side within the next 2 years?

Broadie

[MarkT]

Mike
- Rohan has already achieved what he says should happen to an extent. The debate is continued/fuelled on here by those who protest the most. You are helping him as I am sure you realise. Personaly I have no problem with the debate and it is (my opinion) based on a reasonable assessment of performance as far as I can see.

Rohan
- you gave us only half of the relevant the facts there. I assume your data is correct and it doesn't show a great performance, especially given Josh, N.Davis and O'Bree picked themselves as you have noted on many occasions.

However, you cannot list trades in with looking at trades out. The point with trades must be did we come out better or worse from the deals "in total". That is, did we end up with a better list as a result of trading in a given year. You would also have to take into account the type of player in v the type of player out and assess that in accordance with team needs short and long term. We are getting into qualitative assessments there and that makes it difficult but that is what the recruiters do.

In addittion, you cannot really judge our performance in isolation. What is the average retention rate of the drafts for the years you have listed? How do we compare with our competitors? What was made of the choices given our ladder position? Then more qualitative factors must be examined such as the relative "worth" of our retained players v the opposition. IE is Lockyer better than the 4 average players still on club x's list.

All that I am trying to illustrate is that you cannot draw accurate conclusions without all the relevant facts. I agree "in my gut" with a lot of the criticism of our recruiting but I also acknowledge some good efforts in a VERY difficult "job description". Perhaps the most difficult thing is to assess needs in 3 to 5 years time and balance that with educated guesses in respect of the development of underdeveloped bodies and minds.

[Mike]

Yes Mark I am aware that I am helping to continue the debate. I have no problem with that, it's what Bulletin Board is here for.

Neither do I have a problem with Rohan's views. I don't agree with them, but they are his views and he has just as much right to debate them as anyone else who uses this forum.

What I do have a problem with is Rohan's constant innuendo. He never misses an opportunity to infer that the administration will be exposed as incompetent. It's always innuendo, never substantiated and I intend to comment every time he does it. I believe that his vendetta against the administration is without a logical base, but he obviously believes that his family connection with the Club gives his views credibility and I think that, in some people's eyes, it might. I feel a personal responsibility to refute his arguments. It has nothing to do with my role as a moderator.

I've highlighted his inability to vote and his ignorance of that because I think it shows just how shallow his campaign is. If he truly believed what he said he would put himself in a position to do something about it. It's no different to taking an outspoken stance in politics and then not bothering to vote.

[MarkT]

Point taken Mike (not that I din't get it in the first place) and no disagreement from here.