Bluemour Melting Pot XXVIII

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Merret would of been a great get for us. Though I also think it’s a blessing in disguise, we should be trying to develop our own mids! Sps can be our merret if we allow him
He’s 23 now, I very much doubt he’d ever have the running power and determination of a Merrett
 

Log in to remove this ad.

2 to 3 more assistants to go as part of the review

Story around Barker slightly different to the public one but all in all he's gone.

Teague safe. My man seen many coaches but actually fan of Teague doesn't think it's his issue.

Big focus on development


Bit concerning if true since the review hasn't started

I keep saying it. You dont start a review without the outcome you already have in mind.
 
not sure eddie would suggest he foresaw the outcome of the do better review, lance............

His outcome was shammed by the media the moment he said "it was a great day for collingwood" or whatever it was
 
I keep saying it. You dont start a review without the outcome you already have in mind.
Not sure if that's is true. Broadly speaking maybe (e.g. not looking to get rid of Teague) but I am hoping that they find specific examples where we can be better (e.g. development or game plan) that might lead to unforeseen changes.

We finally have the funds to throw whatever we need to to fix weaknesses, even if it means going over the soft cap as a one off.
 
Can confirm Carlton will be shocked to hear this announcement....

Finding that statement very strange given how we have performed vs the Bombers who were predicted to be bottom 4 and that we have an external review and coaching uncertainty. Some of the consequences associated with poor performance.

No one is coming here for success yet... only for coin until we show more.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I keep saying it. You dont start a review without the outcome you already have in mind.
Defeats the purpose of an external review if you already know what's best. Unless of course you're doing the external review to make it look like you don't have blood solely on your hands
 
Defeats the purpose of an external review if you already know what's best. Unless of course you're doing the external review to make it look like you don't have blood solely on your hands

Take the initial review essendon undertook of their "supplements" scandal.

They would have known what was going to be in there and it was presented in a way that they and the AFL could control.

Unfortunately for them, there were higher up and more independent bodies that were having none of that.
 
Take the initial review essendon undertook of their "supplements" scandal.

They would have known what was going to be in there and it was presented in a way that they and the AFL could control.

Unfortunately for them, there were higher up and more independent bodies that were having none of that.
Apples and oranges. They would have known their outcome and tried to strike a lesser penalty. We may or may not know if our coach can coach, but even if we do why bother wasting everyone's time if we know already who is getting the chop? Other than making it look good externally. And if our club has stooped to those lows of bowing to external noise that badly, or even worse thinking we actually know best all the time without any success for decades, then we are in trouble for a while to come under Sayers too
 
If there's a list going, can you ask if there's any recognition about the game plan lacking in defensive elements? Just curious why it seems to be the only thing the club doesn't seem to be aware of or acknowledge.

Thanks btw for the info!

The Pav has already stated the poor defensive performance is going to be looked at in the review.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top