Best available taking into account ordinary fiscal constraints.
2017 Chat with the Club - now with answers see OP
- Thread starter feenix67
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Best available taking into account ordinary fiscal constraints.
- Mar 20, 2013
- 4,945
- 4,974
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
predetermined list size which they went above because of available talent despite Thommo being on the list. If he wasn't on the list we would have stuck to that predetermined "ideal" number.
I think they are bullish on the current rookies and don't see themselves delisting most of them. Therefore when lists are merged and invariably reduced they are going to have somewhat of a squeeze.
Why draft a kid you don't rate, develop him for a year which costs money and time of the coaches that they could better spend with the prospects we are more hopeful on.
Good observations geoff. This is some of the stuff discussed last year that i shared tidbits onl.
Fages secured another great sponsorship deal with toyota last year off the back of his approach to managing the supporter base tackling and interaction.
(Confirmed in conversation at the sponsorship relaunch as posted last junish)
Fages secured another great sponsorship deal with toyota last year off the back of his approach to managing the supporter base tackling and interaction.
(Confirmed in conversation at the sponsorship relaunch as posted last junish)
Nah I don't think in a strong draft that ran deep, that you would go into those drafts with a view there isn't a possibility you might find late talent.
We've used late picks and rookies in shitty drafts.
Also we retained Thommo weeks before the draft, you think we've locked ourselves into what available talent will be there so early?
And we didn't actually have to get rid of the kid we chose if he worked out, there are other list changes we can make.
- Jul 8, 2016
- 3,688
- 4,564
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
This is my 1st post in this thread and I haven't read much of it either so sorry if this has been brought up already but with this chat with the club was it ever asked why there is so much BS about injured players that end up being much worse than they originally report. The B. Crouch one was the latest but I recall it happening a few times now under Fagan/Roo. Whilst I kind of like the new hush hush media policy it does piss me off that we find out much later that some injuries are much more serious than they first suggest. We usually hear it 1st here on BF.
That's just wrong I think.
That's just wrong I think.
Kane McGoodwin
Make me an Admin!
- May 21, 2001
- 81,259
- 81,566
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Crows
I told you what Fagan said & gave my own opinion.
You disagree.
Not going to continue the circle work as done to death.
- Jun 10, 2009
- 29,795
- 44,888
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Panthers, GWV Rebels Beaufort Crows
Burtenshaw on the move...
Would he have taken over from Trigg after his ascension to the throne?
dogs105
Sweet Kennels Proprietor
Yep they did. I have the CD.
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,354
- 117,886
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,354
- 117,886
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
Round 21 (Rush version) Mighty
Yet Round 20 ( with jenny61_99 ?
) singing in the background to known as
Yet Round 20 ( with jenny61_99 ?
) singing in the background to known as
- Jul 9, 2013
- 10,715
- 12,711
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Round 21 (Rush version) Mighty
Yet Round 20 ( with jenny61_99 ?
The players have always sung 'Mighty', I don't think that's ever been in question.
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,354
- 117,886
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
Yes, which is where the confusion is. Shouldn't the direction ( from on high) be they sing the Official Version. If they are then the ''Official Version' is incorrect.
And to be honest, like the jumper issue I think there is more important things to worry about, just pointing out there are many versions out there.
There will be players taken in the 2017 draft, some quite high, who were overlooked in 2016.
It's not right to say that everyone overlooked was judged and found wanting.
Taking a rookie on a 1 year contract does not limit list flexibility in 1 or 2 years time, and you'd have to be super dim to believe it does
Untrue. Old P Dub opts out of having an opinion, that's why he regurgitates the official line. Not because his opinion aligns with it, but because it saves him having an opinion
Once you realise this it all makes much more sense
Ah look, I tend to side with them too. At least they got off their behinds and did the leg work to make it happen. You can't knock them for that
If they didn't it wouldn't have happened.
On the other hand it is a valid point that if the interaction can't bring any new information or different answers to what is already in the public domain, then it's value is necessarily limited to what the individuals can derive from it
I think both sides have a point but I'll probably lean toward those making something happen.
- Jul 9, 2013
- 10,715
- 12,711
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I'd hazard a guess that the players think the 'official' version is terrible, as most fans do, and sing it how it should be sung. And yes while there are more pressing issues, while it is being discussed, it's worth discussing.
Pdub
Norm Smith Medallist
I think it does bring new info and options for integration but i may clearly by biased in that.
It gave us a chance to get more people down to meet club honcos in melb to reshape the vic membership package 18 months ago. I thought that was significant - felt like we could directly engage in giving back based on having formed that connection.
For sure the really juicy stuff is probably left in the room. It's why i was so surprised it was hard to get people interested in going.
The turnover in footh department staff this year was something im not sure many would have appreciated before?
What it hasnt done is give people a seat at the selection table or marketing campaigns. Personally im not as surprised by that outcome
Southerntakeover
Hall of Famer
See, I fall on the other side of the ledger.
I don't think that there's any criticism that should be levelled at those that met with the club because I see meeting with the club with current structures in place as an exercise fundamentally without worth.
At best you get to act as a supplicant to our club's (apparently) benevolent ruling class. At worst you're a tool (not meant in a pejorative sense) being used as part of a PR campaign.
I don't think that there's any criticism that should be levelled at those that met with the club because I see meeting with the club with current structures in place as an exercise fundamentally without worth.
At best you get to act as a supplicant to our club's (apparently) benevolent ruling class. At worst you're a tool (not meant in a pejorative sense) being used as part of a PR campaign.
Southerntakeover
Hall of Famer
I will say this. Any merit in such a meeting, in my view, would come through it being used as an opportunity for advocacy. The advancement of ideas and causes for the improvement of our club. The expression of the views of the membership (as presented on this board) etc.
Ultimately for that to be the case/effective the fans or related would likely need to do more work in developing positions that they seek change with respect to (anyone want to join me to campaign for full voting rights?), and formalise those positions. Preferably there would be a campaign of some sorts.
That might serve some purpose.
What we current have in place isnt that though. We inherently approach it in this obsequious manner because we consider that if we don't 'behave' by lobbing up soft balls and giving the club what it wants (a nice friendly PR engagement), we'll lose the right to meet with them. I don't know if the podcast is run for profit or not, but I suspect that having that interest involved would probably only heighten the risk involved to the participants whether consciously or not. I don't mean this as a shot at the podcasters, because bigfooty (a for profit organisation) would approach it in the same way.
The problem is structural. We're not treated as the real club (its membership), we're treated as a third party meeting with the club.
I've seen it before, heck I was a part of it at one time or another. It won't yield results.
Ultimately for that to be the case/effective the fans or related would likely need to do more work in developing positions that they seek change with respect to (anyone want to join me to campaign for full voting rights?), and formalise those positions. Preferably there would be a campaign of some sorts.
That might serve some purpose.
What we current have in place isnt that though. We inherently approach it in this obsequious manner because we consider that if we don't 'behave' by lobbing up soft balls and giving the club what it wants (a nice friendly PR engagement), we'll lose the right to meet with them. I don't know if the podcast is run for profit or not, but I suspect that having that interest involved would probably only heighten the risk involved to the participants whether consciously or not. I don't mean this as a shot at the podcasters, because bigfooty (a for profit organisation) would approach it in the same way.
The problem is structural. We're not treated as the real club (its membership), we're treated as a third party meeting with the club.
I've seen it before, heck I was a part of it at one time or another. It won't yield results.
- Thread starter
- #472
Pretty good observations.
Whilst there is an element of advocacy inherent in maintaining direct ties with the club, it must be remembered that the club largely views the exercise as an opportunity to engage with fans. I have to say that Fagan is very open and forthright, and does take legitimate issues on board. That said, I think the club is far more organised, professional and focussed regarding it's "branding" and engagement now than in years gone by, so they already have a pretty clear strategy in mind and are across the various points of view of supporters out there. They're extremely keen to engage with "non ticket holding" suporters, and I guess from their point of view, that's where we fit in.
The Cast isnt monetised and our main objective in developing good ties with the club, along with being a conduit of sorts for BF and other supporters, is to be able to continue to provide player interviews. We try and do the player interviews differently to mainstream so that it gives people a bit more insight - we talk about back stories, try to get insight into the various relationships between players etc etc rather than just "how do you reckon you'll go this week". The style is more lighthearted and we tend to get much longer interviews than the mainstream media, so we see that as something positive for the Board and other people who listen. The club has become more generous each year in terms of their involvement and I guess our challenge is to make it interesting and something worth listening to.
One thing we will be doing this year is running a "what's your beef" segment. This will be a means for people to air their opinions, grievances and ideas about the club, and any that seem to carry weight with the listenership will be fed back to the club. The club do sometimes listen and they do read these forums as well as others, so that kind of thing can give them insights into the mood of the rank and file. There's been a few examples of this working in recent times - Bigfella touched on the Vic membership issue, the clash guernsey public vote was supporter driven, and now we have them running around working out what happened to "mighty" (lol). I do think the Boards and the Cast are a good platform to provide data and feedback to the club, because we have that established relationship.
I will finish off by saying, however, that there wasn't a massive amount of questions raised for this meeting that were "controversial" or representative of member unrest. The only one really was on elections, and even that question didnt have everyone rallying around it with pitchforks and lighted torches. We asked that question and got an answer, which was basically "the mechanism is there for members to nominate if they so wish". It's now up to those people who dont like that answer to do something about it, and the Boards and the Cast are platforms on which those views can be aired. I must say, I was a little surprised by the lack of questions here, and the lack of engagement from Board members in this opportunity in general. That might have been as a result of last year's snafu - I guess we'll see if people are more engaged next year.
So yes, the meetings are a little "passive", but they do provide an opportunity to raise issues with the Club and get answers. Yes the Cast is somewhat beholden to the phrase "dont bite the hand that feeds you", but it does result in gaining access to players in an interesting and alternative manner. And the whole exercise continues to validate this Board and the Cast in the eyes of the club, motivating them to continue engage with us as a collective.
Did the transcript get published and I have missed it?
How do you know more like it?
Besides their annual survey I've never been asked my opinion.
And I can't help it if some supporters have s**t taste.
Similar threads
