I'd like to see Gowers Smith Foster DVR given games at senior level otherwise it's uneducated list management.
We've got time to assess them properly.

Gallucci may keep his spot if we draft Jordan this year, otherwise he'll be lucky.

A bit worried about Everitt. When the going gets tough he seems to go missing ... and even when he does fire ... he tends to go missing for large amounts of game time.

I reckon he has till end of year to prove that he can be a 4 quarter player.

_________________
I am as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!!!

Excellent news, so what comes next year? Reboot?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So we sack the board, then what. Your mythical unicorn board will do what? A new coach? A new recruitment mangaer? A new ceo? You talk about messiahs, arent you being a wee bit hypocritical ? Isnt your suggestion of a brand new board tantamount to the same thing, that you accuse the board of?
What is it about bolton that you are unsatisfied with as you definitely imply this?

A premiership

Not at all hypocritical, what I am saying is that changing a few pieces won't be fully effective, what we need is a good list manager AND a good coach AND a good recruiting manager AND an effective board, etc.

SOS and Bolton will only take us so far in isolation. We need the whole club working effectively to challenge for number 17.

Why should the board be exempt from accountability and change?

They're not exempt, vote them out or find the unicorn ticket that people talk about but have no bloody idea of who it is

_________________
"I will rejoice in their anguish, delight in their failure and revel in our success"

We are Carlton, @#$%&! the rest !!!!!!

The board that seems to be ok with the club not having a recruitment manager during the re-build, re-boot, re-whatever...

I thought Jordan and Andrew weren't related?

I thought Jordan and Andrew weren't related?

Bloody answer Sin!

_________________

I have only read it on the forums so you could well be right.

I could easily be wrong too

Any bunch of people off the street could done as well as our board over the last 14 years, no need for unicorns.....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Put your hand up then

_________________
"I will rejoice in their anguish, delight in their failure and revel in our success"

We are Carlton, @#$%&! the rest !!!!!!

Are you even reading what I type beyond what your bias allows you to see?

I would class myself in "bunch of people off the street who would do as well as the current board".

We need a better mix of board members than that. Give them a fixed timeframe such as 3 years and if they don't show improvement then rebuild the board. Just like we do the playing list, the coach, the list manager, etc.

When I asked why are they exempt from judgment and change you said they are not. Well unless you view the last 14 years as successful then you must agree that they need to change.

Maybe a new board would be worse (it's possible, just look at the drug cheats), but more likely they will be better.

Regardless, claiming that the board should stay because there's no-one better "i.e. Unicorn Board" is a pretty poor argument against change.

Not 1 board member has been there for 14 years. 14 years ego takes us back to the Elliott era.

Your post implies that our board has remained unchanged for over a decade. It hasn't. Fried and Gleeson have been there 10 years, Clarke 9, LoGuidice 6, Pratt 5, Mathieson 3.5, Sayers 2.5, Jenkins 6 months. It's clearly not the same board it was 14 years ago. It has fairly regularly changed and new members have been added to offer fresh perspectives and new skills. Tarring them all with the same 'no success under their reign' brush is unfair.
I'm happy for the board to gradually phase out the long term members and bring in some new ones as needed, but the whole 'sack the board, replace it with a new one' rhetoric doesn't fly with me.

_________________
@cecil_anderson

Given the horrendous decisions, only Sayers and Jenkins deserve a chance.

As stated many times, it's a closed shop with invites only, which is never a good thing for a democratic structure.