I wonder why I don't get the club emails anymore?

Actually maybe I blocked them in a fit of rage

OK then, that's just your opinion. I don't think that's right, and I think you have missed something.

According to Jon Ralph, the AFL has decided (unofficially?) we will be out of contention for the end of round 1 compo pick, if we push our first pick out ourselves. Unless, ofcourse the AFL can't stop us from making our "natural" selection. ie pick the player every other team would have picked ahead of Walker with our first pick.

What are the Draft Gurus telling us? Sheehan and the others? What's the likely order of players picked in the Draft? Hint. Its not Walker.

The consensus all year has been Cochrane goes at first pick and Port will need to hand over 2 x1st round picks to get him (Bargain imo). As of last week, Van Hatton was touted the player most likely to contest Cochrane for the No 1 mantle, putting Walker as the "natural" or "popular", or "obvious" Pick 3....maybe 4, 5... Therefore, its "natural" for us to pick those two boys ahead of Walker.

ie we chose to take, the most popularly agreed pick 1, Cochrane, and Port matches it, effectively pushing our pick 1 to pick 2. Hence the compo pick.

Unfairly, Carlton "may" not be given the compensatory pick because we pushed our own pick one spot. But if Richmond deliberately pick Walker with first pick (knowing we have the two 1sts to match it), to receive the compensatory pick end of round 1, they are allowed. It is very obvious how this can be contested by Carlton, but that's another story.

Why would we pick Cochrane and McHatton before Walker?

The "natural/ popular/ obvious choice" for best player available with our "natural" pick 1 is there for the taking: Cochrane or Van Hatton.

In fact, we have 2 1st round picks use and pick McHatton and to match the bid on FS Walker at 3 or 4.... After all, it was another team who decided Walker was worth pick 3 or 4 ... . The AFL can't force the order of the best players to be selected at the Draft before the Draft; the clubs decide that "naturally" within the rules. Therefore, there's no "logical" reason to lose the compensatory end of round 1 compo pick, that we would use to make up the points shortfall of our second 1st pick (from Sydney) if we had it.

Furthermore, its in our interest to push Walker to pick 3+, because we will require less points to match the bid (than we would have if walker was pick 1 or 2) to make up the shortfall in points our 2nd 1st pick (Sydney pick 15-18) provides.

Whether we do receive the compo pick or not, we have NM's 2nd round pick to make up some of the shortfall of our Sydney 1st round pick.

The question isn't whether we can get McHatton and Walker, if we are wooden spooners, the question and debate is why should we lose our compensatory end of 1st round pick if our pick just because it was pushed back by us as a result of making the same "natural/ normal" decision any other team would make.

For us its worth contesting the AFL for the compensatory pick if we need our first 2nd round pick (from NM) to stay where it is, and not pushed back further back if we used some of its points to make up the shortfall of our Sydney round 1 pick for a pick 3.

Makes sense?

PS: Be mindful, and I'm sure Football Dept is, if Richmond end up last they will naturally bid for Cochrane, followed by Walker (or the other way around) to give themselves a compo pick, and to stick the birdie up at us for taking Walker, who was their train on NGA player. Effectively, we pay 2 x 1sts for Walker, and don't receive a compo pick, unless Richmond select Walker at Pick 2. They can pick walker 1 and Cochrane 2 to stick it right up us, effectively costing us 2 x 1sts and an end of 1st round compo pick, OR 3 fkn 1sts.

Fk that!

Hence I'm leaning to Tank as much as that hurts, because we will not find a Mobile ruck made for the new CB ruck rules for a long long time, and, our mids are lacking a mobile ruck at CB's where we are bleeding 5-6 goal bursts from the opposition because we can't compete in the CB ruck duel when Pitto fatigues.

Makes sense?

they literally said at the presser that AI i a facet of global sport and by implication this will influence our decisions going forward…

Will Deepseek by allowed or declared a national security risk?!

thanks for explaining all the technicalities Bondi.

are you sure it's just on Pitto not being on field or being on field and cooked that results in these 5-7 goal bursts against us? Not sure I can see it the way. Can't be ruled out as a factor but exclusively? I'm sure these runs have come after half time when Pitto is rested and probably on field for parts of those bursts.

Gee, I hope Priestly is a good operator behind closed doors.

Pick 3 is 2,178 points.

1,961 with a 10% discount.

Maximum deficit is 412 points.

1,549 points is the target.

TWO picks.

Best of the worst case scenarios for Swans pick is 796 points. Just three Band 1 free agents would reduce that to 686 points.

Realistically, the second round starts at 25 or worse. That’s pick 429 points at #31 for the North Melbourne pick.

... the club has said it currently has the hand to do this without any players leaving Alberton and it could even go into a points deficit if required.

I'm with Keogh on this one, getting rid of the coach will change very little, we could have easily kept him for most of the rest of the season, nothing will change with a new coach, or interim coach, or whatever. At best we will suffer dead cat bounce and win a bunch of games that make it really difficult to get full value from the draft.

We've changed every role in the club multiple times over the last 25 years with no good result, the only thing we haven't changed is the board. The board needs to acknowledge they haven't delivered access for the club, financial success is meaningless without onfield success, and they have failed in this regard just as much as any other role at the club, yet they haven't been held accountable. We need to turn over every board position in the next 12 months, otherwise we are very likely to repeat our last 25 years of history, and we will be back, sacking the coach again in 3-4 years time.

Be careful what you wish for sinners. How long have the current Board Members been on the Board? Not 25 years, not 15 years, not 10 years. Sayers was on the Board longest and last year was going to be his last.

I'm sure we have learned a lot of lessons from the last 2 decades. Pagan, Ratts, MM, Teague didn't have the cattle. Maybe they werent good enough. Maybe they were trying to save their skin. Who knows? We certainly couldnt attract talent to the club. How does that change with new Board Members.

We aren't getting rid of Vossy for the sake of removing Vossy. We are clearing the runway to give us longer to find the right candidate. Thats what has been stated. To give those looking elsewhere now, or not wanting to step on their mates' grave (Vossy) a clean canvas to canvas the vacancy.

We are not going to change the Board in 12 months, unless there's a huge spill, and that doesn't guarantee all board members go. Not sure if this is the answer TBH. I think its a football issue.

If you don't think Chris Davies and Graeme Wright, experienced and well regarded football people (by everyone outside this club at least), are NOT the right people to manage the challenge of finding the best coach for us, then why bother with the Board spill when you haven't got the right football people in the 2 most important Onfield roles at the club?

The great David Parkin was on SEN this morning. He said he was a part of the panel that chose Voss. Said Voss was the best candidate at the time, and they were confident they had the right person, but he had his flaws. Parko said Voss was a great people person and had a good management brain, but his tactical ability was not the best. We have seen that come true. Makes you wonder why the others got overlooked if they knew his tactical ability wasn't that good....

Deepseek is a national security risk, no one in any government position or any nationally significant company is allowed to use it.

It's not the length of each board members tenure that is the issue, it's their commitment to football success for the club. We need a board full of people who are passionate about the club's success (and making money), and not just making money. I don't mean Matheison types either, I mean new blood, passionate about business and Carlton success.

Why not try it? What could go wrong that hasn't already gone wrong?