Bumped Eddie adamant he will lead club through a rebuild

[Cyclops]

if the "crisis has Ed's fingerprints all over it", why would he be the best man to lead our club even if he "stays in his lane"?

Evidence suggests he simply cannot avoid swerving into other people's lanes!

Ed's a successful President and has done more good than harm. 1 flag in over 20 year is better than half the AFL. Gave us a very sound financial footing. He tends to be too loyal, the Malthouse "final contract" deal was, on paper, overly loyal to guy well past his prime and bingo flag. Lucky? Yes, but if our point of difference is we are loyal to our own thats a fault I can support.

Eddie has been too loyal to Bucks too. 2017 review he kept Bucks on, bingo into the Granny. Yes lucky, but once again erring on the side of loyalty. Also he stayed in his lane (just for the one year) and it helped. Even when he meddles we make finals, and our downtime has been short compared to most clubs (2-3 years out of finals then back in again) so Eddie is not a disaster area. he has kept out before and hopefully he learns his lesson this time. He's not stupid, just arrogant.

What stinks about the current fire sale is the framing of it as much as anything. Previously we have been loyal to a fault, suddenly we're being "smart" and (worst of all) blaming player's partners as a smokescreen for our contract problems. Its not smart, we gambled big and lost big. Overall Eddie has been good but this has been his worst blunder and he's not putting his hand up, he tried to throw a netballer under the bus when the bas eo0f the problem is his love affair with Beams and his desire (well intentioned) to be involved in the heartbeat of the club.

I mean I want to be involved, I'm full of stupid ideas about what we should do, and no way could I do better than Eddie. He is still probably the best man for the job, he has done it well for decades and really well for short periods in that time. He is usually loyal too, its one of his best traits and a trait our club has shown for decades.

As I keep saying, a rebuild is when you start making substantial changes to your best 22. We’ve lost 2x best 22 (Treloar & Steno) and a guy who was being squeezed out. Neither of the best 22 players have been consistently available and imho both were expendable. Our 22 will largely be the same. We’ve refreshed our fringe-developing cohort. Happy for you to call it anything you like, but I’ll stick with refresh.

You can have your opinion and me mine but Collingwood FC rated our "best 22" differently to what you have. The proof is the contracts they made and remade.

We haven't substantially changed our footy management, contract or recruitment staff (or our meddling president) so the current group bears responsibility for the list situation as it has developed, especially since 2018.

In terms of the core group, Treloar and Beams had contracts in our top 6 (with Grundy Pendles Sidey and maybe Howe). Stevo and Flipper were (once again according to the contracts we apparently offered them) top 12. We can argue the toss about what Dunne etc were on, I would err on the side of generosity so those aren't utensil-ups, they are rewards for past service and don't reflect badly on the club like say the Beams 4 years or Treloar's insane backloading.

We gambled hugely on Beams and lost: add in COVID and we have lost a third of our expected engine room. Every club got caught out by COVID, only we had a fire sale so whatever you want to call this thing its unplanned and we were the worst prepared club in the league.

 

[TradeDraft]

McGuire opening his gob yet again.

Is he President (in perpetuity) of the Collingwood football club, or laying the ground to be next CEO of the AFL?

He love to be Both

 

[HeadInTheSand]

1 flag in over 20 year is better than half the AFL.

The Collingwood football club is not half the AFL. It has - or should - a natural competitive advantage over almost every other club. Comparing the CFC to other clubs is just another way of accepting failure.

North Melbourne have won four flags since 1975. Should Collingwood be compared to them? They have no money, no members, are always spoken about as the most likely team to move interstate or merge, only exist due to the largesse of the AFL, and yet they are twice as successful as the 'Pies.

Collingwood should be compared to its peer clubs - Richmond, Essendon and Carlton. Combined, they have 23 premierships since the mid-sixties. That those teams have largely failed the last 25 years is because they were doing exactly the same things the CFC are now - lack of process, board members who think they are more important than the club, arrogance, employing favourite sons, lack of standards, failing to adapt to changing times.

Richmond changed their ways a decade ago, employed decent people, set a plan and stuck to it. The results are there for all to see.

Carlton have done something similar the past few years. Maybe they lack the pure competency in management of Richmond. We may know in a couple of years. Essendon are where they are because they are a morass of vested interest groups and powerbrokers all clamoring to be heard.

Collingwood are the perfect example of how to do everything wrong.

No standards.
Employing ex-players en masse.
Board predominantly comprised of people who have been there 10-20 years - and people who were apparently chosen because they could do more for the homeless.
Interference from management instead of setting standards and holding people to account.
A - dare I say it - head in the sand mentality where money is the answer to everything.

 

[HeadInTheSand]

He love to be Both

He'd also love to be President of the IOC and FIFA at the same time as AFL CEO and Collingwood football club Dear Leader.

 

[Matt_352]

Have the club said yet how the forum will be streamed?

 

[Markfs]

There are a lot of things to bitch about.... there are a lot of things that people want changed...

This usually results in nothing happening because of the loss of focus.

Rather than focussing on eddie being replaced immediately, lets try to get some alternative NEW views on the board. The review of 3 years ago recommended that the board positions be changed regularly. It hasnt been done.

We still have eddie mates on the board in alex waislitz, mark korda who have been there for 20 years. At least they should go... We need elections for board positions, rather than have the positions filled by Eddie.

 

[jackcass]

Ed's a successful President and has done more good than harm. 1 flag in over 20 year is better than half the AFL. Gave us a very sound financial footing. He tends to be too loyal, the Malthouse "final contract" deal was, on paper, overly loyal to guy well past his prime and bingo flag. Lucky? Yes, but if our point of difference is we are loyal to our own thats a fault I can support.

Eddie has been too loyal to Bucks too. 2017 review he kept Bucks on, bingo into the Granny. Yes lucky, but once again erring on the side of loyalty. Also he stayed in his lane (just for the one year) and it helped. Even when he meddles we make finals, and our downtime has been short compared to most clubs (2-3 years out of finals then back in again) so Eddie is not a disaster area. he has kept out before and hopefully he learns his lesson this time. He's not stupid, just arrogant.

What stinks about the current fire sale is the framing of it as much as anything. Previously we have been loyal to a fault, suddenly we're being "smart" and (worst of all) blaming player's partners as a smokescreen for our contract problems. Its not smart, we gambled big and lost big. Overall Eddie has been good but this has been his worst blunder and he's not putting his hand up, he tried to throw a netballer under the bus when the bas eo0f the problem is his love affair with Beams and his desire (well intentioned) to be involved in the heartbeat of the club.

I mean I want to be involved, I'm full of stupid ideas about what we should do, and no way could I do better than Eddie. He is still probably the best man for the job, he has done it well for decades and really well for short periods in that time. He is usually loyal too, its one of his best traits and a trait our club has shown for decades.



You can have your opinion and me mine but Collingwood FC rated our "best 22" differently to what you have. The proof is the contracts they made and remade.

We haven't substantially changed our footy management, contract or recruitment staff (or our meddling president) so the current group bears responsibility for the list situation as it has developed, especially since 2018.

In terms of the core group, Treloar and Beams had contracts in our top 6 (with Grundy Pendles Sidey and maybe Howe). Stevo and Flipper were (once again according to the contracts we apparently offered them) top 12. We can argue the toss about what Dunne etc were on, I would err on the side of generosity so those aren't utensil-ups, they are rewards for past service and don't reflect badly on the club like say the Beams 4 years or Treloar's insane backloading.

We gambled hugely on Beams and lost: add in COVID and we have lost a third of our expected engine room. Every club got caught out by COVID, only we had a fire sale so whatever you want to call this thing its unplanned and we were the worst prepared club in the league.

I’m not really sure what you’re try to say. I actually said Treloar and Stevo were best 22. Phillips was but the squeeze was on, he’d lost his spot on a wing and wasn’t doing enough away from that position.

Beams apparent signed on for something less than $500k, not even scraping into the top 100 earners league wide.

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

 

[Markfs]

The Collingwood football club is not half the AFL. It has - or should - a natural competitive advantage over almost every other club. Comparing the CFC to other clubs is just another way of accepting failure.

North Melbourne have won four flags since 1975. Should Collingwood be compared to them? They have no money, no members, are always spoken about as the most likely team to move interstate or merge, only exist due to the largesse of the AFL, and yet they are twice as successful as the 'Pies.

Collingwood should be compared to its peer clubs - Richmond, Essendon and Carlton. Combined, they have 23 premierships since the mid-sixties. That those teams have largely failed the last 25 years is because they were doing exactly the same things the CFC are now - lack of process, board members who think they are more important than the club, arrogance, employing favourite sons, lack of standards, failing to adapt to changing times.

Richmond changed their ways a decade ago, employed decent people, set a plan and stuck to it. The results are there for all to see.

Carlton have done something similar the past few years. Maybe they lack the pure competency in management of Richmond. We may know in a couple of years. Essendon are where they are because they are a morass of vested interest groups and powerbrokers all clamoring to be heard.

Collingwood are the perfect example of how to do everything wrong.

No standards.
Employing ex-players en masse.
Board predominantly comprised of people who have been there 10-20 years - and people who were apparently chosen because they could do more for the homeless.
Interference from management instead of setting standards and holding people to account.
A - dare I say it - head in the sand mentality where money is the answer to everything.

I agree that we have had similar problems with the more financially secure clubs from Melbourne. The ones like North and Footscray and to some extent, Hawthorn, had to update themselves in the 1990s or fall over.

We need to make changes to the board. This is what should be asked of Eddie. If we ask Eddie to go, he will fob it off.

 

[Albert Parker]

I’m not really sure what you’re try to say. I actually said Treloar and Stevo were best 22. Phillips was but the squeeze was on, he’d lost his spot on a wing and wasn’t doing enough away from that position.

Beams apparent signed on for something less than $500k, not even scraping into the top 100 earners league wide.

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

To concur with your view on Beams, I gather he was on about $1.3m over 4 years which was well below what you'd expect a player of his calibre to have been getting paid.
But I also gather Langdon was on decent wedge post his 2018 finals series when he signed and Freo was chasing him.
Also a best 22 player, albeit he wasn't featuring.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Rather than focussing on eddie being replaced immediately, lets try to get some alternative NEW views on the board. The review of 3 years ago recommended that the board positions be changed regularly. It hasnt been done.

It has been done ... we’ve had 3 new board members (of 7) come on in only the 3 years since the review.

We still have eddie mates on the board in alex waislitz, mark korda who have been there for 20 years.

Nah, Korda has been there for around 13 years.

So our board looks like this

Ed: 22 years
Waislitz: 22 years
Korda: 13 years
Holgate: 5 years
Sizer: 3 years
Licuria: 3 years
Murphy: 2 years

 

[Cyclops]

I’m not really sure what you’re try to say. I actually said Treloar and Stevo were best 22. Phillips was but the squeeze was on, he’d lost his spot on a wing and wasn’t doing enough away from that position.

Beams apparent signed on for something less than $500k, not even scraping into the top 100 earners league wide.

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

You say: losing 2 of our best 22= refresh not rebuild. I say the club does not agree those players were best 22, there were 4 in our top 12 (at the very least).

Beams was on a 4 year deal and cost 2 first rounders. Please don't suggest he was fringe. Beams has cost us a very great deal indeed, in cap space (when we were apparently maxed), contract mess, draft picks and reputation. I can't comment on the debt rumours but the little we know absolutely stinks. If Ed really bought Beam's auctioned medal that is borderline cap cheating, or close enough not to matter.

We wrote a bunch of long contracts for players no longer there. Treloar and Beams, despite questions of durability and character respectively, were given the longest contracts apart from Grundy (another massive punt that we will be years wondering if it was worth it).

Beams price, whatever it was, was more than what we had: in fact Treloar's contract (and maybe others) had to be rewritten to fit Beams in. We kicked the problem into the future, and the contract logjam was definitely made worse, not better.

In 2017-2019 we wrote a series of long expensive contracts and several of the chief beneficiaries are gone for either nothing or ridiculously low return. While every contract is a gamble to have so many go wrong is inept and its been scandal, followed by a FUBAR, resulting in a fire sale underlined by some repulsive spin to deflect blame from the club officials onto a young mother (among others).

 

[Markfs]

It has been done ... we’ve had 3 new board members (of 7) come on in only the 3 years since the review.



Nah, Korda has been there for around 13 years.

So our board looks like this

Ed: 22 years
Waislitz: 22 years
Korda: 13 years
Holgate: 5 years
Sizer: 3 years
Licuria: 3 years
Murphy: 2 years

ok, korda is still past his use-by date. It would still break "eddie's club" up a bit but I acknowledge that some window dressing has been done in recent years.

The problem is that the newbies are basically lame-ducks. The other issue is that they are eddie nominations. The board needs to be voted in.

What do you want to be done with the board?

 

[No SPIN]

As I keep saying, a rebuild is when you start making substantial changes to your best 22. We’ve lost 2x best 22 (Treloar & Steno) and a guy who was being squeezed out. Neither of the best 22 players have been consistently available and imho both were expendable. Our 22 will largely be the same. We’ve refreshed our fringe-developing cohort. Happy for you to call it anything you like, but I’ll stick with refresh.

Agree - most here were predicting the massive list turnover of older and injury prone players, well before the trade period, without mentioning “rebuild”.

 

[jackcass]

You say: losing 2 of our best 22= refresh not rebuild. I say the club does not agree those players were best 22, there were 4 in our top 12 (at the very least).

Beams was on a 4 year deal and cost 2 first rounders. Please don't suggest he was fringe. Beams has cost us a very great deal indeed, in cap space (when we were apparently maxed), contract mess, draft picks and reputation. I can't comment on the debt rumours but the little we know absolutely stinks. If Ed really bought Beam's auctioned medal that is borderline cap cheating, or close enough not to matter.

We wrote a bunch of long contracts for players no longer there. Treloar and Beams, despite questions of durability and character respectively, were given the longest contracts apart from Grundy (another massive punt that we will be years wondering if it was worth it).

Beams price, whatever it was, was more than what we had: in fact Treloar's contract (and maybe others) had to be rewritten to fit Beams in. We kicked the problem into the future, and the contract logjam was definitely made worse, not better.

In 2017-2019 we wrote a series of long expensive contracts and several of the chief beneficiaries are gone for either nothing or ridiculously low return. While every contract is a gamble to have so many go wrong is inept and its been scandal, followed by a FUBAR, resulting in a fire sale underlined by some repulsive spin to deflect blame from the club officials onto a young mother (among others).

Sorry, I didn’t realize you spoke for the club.

 

[Cyclops]

Sorry, I didn’t realize you spoke for the club.

Well pretty sure neither of us do, but hasn't stopped yo from making list assessments either. Sarcasm aside and in the spirit of a good faith argument are you conceding the point or sticking with your position that the club paid 2 first round picks (about the same as they did for Treloar) and FUBAR'd our contract set up for years ahead for a guy they considered a fringe player?

 

[jackcass]

Well pretty sure neither of us do, but hasn't stopped yo from making list assessments either. Sarcasm aside and in the spirit of a good faith argument are you conceding the point or sticking with your position that the club paid 2 first round picks (about the same as they did for Treloar) and FUBAR'd our contract set up for years ahead for a guy they considered a fringe player?

No, I think you’re conflating or confusing a lot of disparate issues. What is your point and how does it relate to the initial post of mine you cited.

 

[Cyclops]

No, I think you’re conflating or confusing a lot of disparate issues.

The thread is about McGuire's leadership.

"Its a refresh because most of the players we lost in this one narrow time range are in jackass' opinion fringe" is a simplistic argument: our list management is a debacle for more reasons than the events of the 2020 trade period. The club gave our contracts to guys who proved to be poor gambles beyond the traded/delisted group.

In the last few years Wells, Mayne, Beams all got remarkably long contracts as older players, only one worked out (Mayne may be a whipping boy but he;s been very effective IMHO).

The period 2017-2020 is dominated by the Beams deal for a number of reasons. Treloar's contract seems to have been complicated by Beam's contract.

Stevo and Flipper were not fringe when their contracts were made. Nor were Treloar and Beams. If we got burned on one or even two of those deals you'd say it was bad luck but we have been getting regularly burned. We are so tight to the cap getting Beams in has resulted in three good players exiting for no return.

Thats not a refresh its throwing people overboard.

What is your point and how does it relate to the initial post of mine you cited.

I cannot have been clearer. The Beams deal is central to the ongoing contract management debacle. Suggesting a fire sale is better described as a refresh is optimistic but I think unrealistic.

 

[76woodenspooners]

What do you want to be done with the board?

Either:

(1) Ed to stand down gracefully (preferred)

Or

(2) A strong challenge to the board. IMO a successful takeover would create a lot of short term pain for long term gain ... the problem with this option is that I’m not convinced the members have the appetite for that level of change ATM. We’ve played in finals the last 3 seasons, and whilst the trade period was ham-fisted, we did make tough decisions that probably needed to be made for the best interests of the club.

 

[TKiL]

ok, korda is still past his use-by date. It would still break "eddie's club" up a bit but I acknowledge that some window dressing has been done in recent years. The problem is that the newbies are basically lame-ducks. The other issue is that they are eddie nominations. The board needs to be voted in. What do you want to be done with the board?

Simple really - get a Board that can plan for / employ the right people / provide the governance-oversight needed for success - BTW success for Cwood is flags - not hanging around the finals
Who should comprise the Board?

President - chairperson / KPI - must be able to manage debate / discussion / resolutions at Board level = high level critical thinker (high profile not necessary.. Cwood already a high profile club - albeit recently for wrong reasons)

Finance - do the sums / make projections / take a proposal to pieces / scenario analysis etc

Legal - review stuff - esp dicey contracts - this person will be busy!

Marketing / PR / Comms - this stuff........ - not central but useful contribution

Football - knows what makes an AFL team achieve and sustain success - knows way around AFL machinations

HR - whatever it is they do.. has a nose for the "culture" of an organisation - can diagnose and help fix when an organisation is off course

CEO - attends meetings ex officio

Board's job:

1. long term planning / ensure financial health esp given AFL frea^in rules etc

2. grill those who report to Board - CEO, Head of Football, Coach (as required) - ask hard questions / make accountable / ensure message is - we're here to achieve and sustain success

3. stay out of the way of those they employ

Cheers

 

[jackcass]

The thread is about McGuire's leadership.

"Its a refresh because most of the players we lost in this one narrow time range are in jackass' opinion fringe" is a simplistic argument: our list management is a debacle for more reasons than the events of the 2020 trade period. The club gave our contracts to guys who proved to be poor gambles beyond the traded/delisted group.

In the last few years Wells, Mayne, Beams all got remarkably long contracts as older players, only one worked out (Mayne may be a whipping boy but he;s been very effective IMHO).

The period 2017-2020 is dominated by the Beams deal for a number of reasons. Treloar's contract seems to have been complicated by Beam's contract.

Stevo and Flipper were not fringe when their contracts were made. Nor were Treloar and Beams. If we got burned on one or even two of those deals you'd say it was bad luck but we have been getting regularly burned. We are so tight to the cap getting Beams in has resulted in three good players exiting for no return.

Thats not a refresh its throwing people overboard.



I cannot have been clearer. The Beams deal is central to the ongoing contract management debacle. Suggesting a fire sale is better described as a refresh is optimistic but I think unrealistic.

I’ve been, pretty clear on Beams, didn’t want him before the trade, happy to see him gone. He apparently signed a 4 year $1.4-1.6M deal so his salary in and of itself wasn’t the issue. The issue was the “keep the list together” decision and the flow on effects of Beams signing on other existing contracts like Treloars because of that.

You say it falls on Ned Guy, I say he made the best of the situation he inherited and the likely directions he was given.

You say the players delisted weren’t fringe, I quoted their contributions in 2020 which showed that most actually were. I mean zero games for the year hardly screams best 22. So I’ll back the stats rather than your opinion.

I’ll leave it there.

 

[Markfs]

Simple really - get a Board that can plan for / employ the right people / provide the governance-oversight needed for success - BTW success for Cwood is flags - not hanging around the finals
Who should comprise the Board?

President - chairperson / KPI - must be able to manage debate / discussion / resolutions at Board level = high level critical thinker (high profile not necessary.. Cwood already a high profile club - albeit recently for wrong reasons)

Finance - do the sums / make projections / take a proposal to pieces / scenario analysis etc

Legal - review stuff - esp dicey contracts - this person will be busy!

Marketing / PR / Comms - this stuff........ - not central but useful contribution

Football - knows what makes an AFL team achieve and sustain success - knows way around AFL machinations

HR - whatever it is they do.. has a nose for the "culture" of an organisation - can diagnose and help fix when an organisation is off course

CEO - attends meetings ex officio

Board's job:

1. long term planning / ensure financial health esp given AFL frea^in rules etc

2. grill those who report to Board - CEO, Head of Football, Coach (as required) - ask hard questions / make accountable / ensure message is - we're here to achieve and sustain success

3. stay out of the way of those they employ

Cheers

i think most people want what you're saying. Ed would say the board already does it.

The problem is the mechanics of turning board positions over, of having elections, allowing a democratic debate within the board environment without having disunity....and the ability for different voices to be aired without sparking instability.....and for a broader leadership of the club. Even the way the recent galbally opinions were aired. The fact that the media ran the agenda. Why cant we provide opportunities for galbally amd others to run for positions on the board and make policy statements to the members? The problem is that you end up sounding like an idealist with unrealistic dreams. In the end, the fact is eddie seems to be the only viable option at the moment, with his method of annointing his own people. I dont like. I've never liked it, although I understand why it was acceptable to collingwood members in the early 2000s because everyone was sick of the in fighting. I dont want to go back to that. I'm sure we all feel that way. The best way forward would be if eddie embraced change but its not going to happen

 

[Markfs]

Either:

(1) Ed to stand down gracefully (preferred)

Or

(2) A strong challenge to the board. IMO a successful takeover would create a lot of short term pain for long term gain ... the problem with this option is that I’m not convinced the members have the appetite for that level of change ATM. We’ve played in finals the last 3 seasons, and whilst the trade period was ham-fisted, we did make tough decisions that probably needed to be made for the best interests of the club.

the problem is ....and we all know it.... is that eddie has knobbled any alternative points of view in the last 20 years. I think the collingwood community has forgotten how to express any dissent other than to call for eddie's head...

the fact that we have meekly accepted board positions to be appointed without a vote, clearly shows we have lost our balls.....all we do now is complain to eddie. Thats why I believe that the next board vacancy needs to be voted on. It may seem like a longer term solution but its organic in that it will foster alternative leadership, and its achievable without bringing down the whole club. And eddie would have to deal with someone on the board who has their own powerbase. At the moment, the board is subservient to the emperor.

 

[Cyclops]

I’ve been, pretty clear on Beams, didn’t want him before the trade, happy to see him gone. He apparently signed a 4 year $1.4-1.6M deal so his salary in and of itself wasn’t the issue. The issue was the “keep the list together” decision and the flow on effects of Beams signing on other existing contracts like Treloars because of that.

You say it falls on Ned Guy, I say he made the best of the situation he inherited and the likely directions he was given.

You say the players delisted weren’t fringe, I quoted their contributions in 2020 which showed that most actually were. I mean zero games for the year hardly screams best 22. So I’ll back the stats rather than your opinion.

I’ll leave it there.

I agree. I actually thought the Beams deal was worth the risk given the upside, but boy was I wrong.

Not sure about who blame falls on, (and as you say I don't talk for the club) but rumour has it Eddie decided we were 1 man short of victory in 2018 and he knew who it was.

I agree those players weren't best 22 in hindsight but their contracts say we bet hard they were. My issue is with the decision making when the contracts were signed, once that's in place the fire sale is almost inevitable down the track.

Damage is done and hopefully we move forward.

I got all angry about it at the time (especially about blaming Treloars missus that was filthy) but I've finished with my little hissy fit now.

 

[Scribe26]

I agree. I actually thought the Beams deal was worth the risk given the upside, but boy was I wrong.

Not sure about who blame falls on, (and as you say I don't talk for the club) but rumour has it Eddie decided we were 1 man short of victory in 2018 and he knew who it was.

I agree those players weren't best 22 in hindsight but their contracts say we bet hard they were. My issue is with the decision making when the contracts were signed, once that's in place the fire sale is almost inevitable down the track.

Damage is done and hopefully we move forward.

I got all angry about it at the time (especially about blaming Treloars missus that was filthy) but I've finished with my little hissy fit now.

Do you really, honestly, believe that is how it worked?

 

[Markfs]

It amazes me that people insist on going over old ground. I remember the endless threads about malthouse and the "bring back malthouse" were only silenced when he ended up being a total failure at carlton. I understand that people love talking this stuff, but I cant see it serving any purpose.

Beams is gone, thank god. Was it a mistake? Yes, but I can understand why he was brought back. Too many times in the last 50 years the club hasn't done enough to bring in good players when we were contending. The famous one is tony lockett

Tony Lockett

Age

58

Ht

191cm

Wt

108kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.2

3star

K

8.4

3star

HB

1.8

2star

M

6.3

5star

T

0.5

3star

G

4.8

5star

No current season stats available

D

8.2

2star

K

5.6

3star

HB

2.6

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

0.0

1star

G

1.4

5star

but there has been others. I understand the desire to do everything possible to get the best team together.... but it failed....oh well, we've finally paid off the bill and we're ready to move forward.