Elite players - how do we get them?

[Ozzie]

We are not getting them with our present MO. Time to try something different. Those that think VB,Vince, Mackay, Maric and Porplyzia will grow into a truly elite group are mistaken. I am tired of making the finals year after year and getting knocked out either early or just short of the GF.

All this does is ensure yet more rounds of futile draft position, coupled with an unwillingness to even try to make a blockbuster trade of a YOUNG star. This MO has failed and will continue to do so.

 

[Mego Red]

We are not getting them with our present MO. Time to try something different. Those that think VB,Vince, Mackay, Maric and Porplyzia will grow into a truly elite group are mistaken.

Why? What is your evidence to support this? This is just opinion, as it is for anyone who says definitively they will. You don't know.

I am tired of making the finals year after year and getting knocked out either early or just short of the GF.

Then you're going to love the next couple of years.

All this does is ensure yet more rounds of futile draft position, coupled with an unwillingness to even try to make a blockbuster trade of a YOUNG star. This MO has failed and will continue to do so.

A trade FOR a young star? Or a trade OF one of our young stars?

Why is someone making this trade?

 

[Ozzie]

Why? What is your evidence to support this? This is just opinion, as it is for anyone who says definitively they will. You don't know.


Then you're going to love the next couple of years.



A trade FOR a young star? Or a trade OF one of our young stars?

Why is someone making this trade?

Simple my own eyes tell me this. Their skill level is simply not elite. Good players, yes, elite no. Take the coloured off this year and really watch these kids.

Sure, we will make the 8 and go out again quickly. Why should anything change?

When I went to school that was the way we wrote it, I suppose nowadays it has changed. Anyway(note the singular), to answer your question a possible scenario is as follows. The Crows decide that the team needs say a midfielder to really make a push to collect a flag, what is wrong with trying to get a G.Ablett type? To say it cannot be done is silly. We have topped up our list for the last 2 years with young kids and for the next 2 years we are likely to only take the mandatory 3 players. What is wrong with offering in a trade the entire 3 picks plus a player or two or a combination that gets their interest?

That is why they would make a trade.

 

[Mego Red]

When I went to school that was the way we wrote it, I suppose nowadays it has changed. Anyway(note the singular), to answer your question a possible scenario is as follows. The Crows decide that the team needs say a midfielder to really make a push to collect a flag, what is wrong with trying to get a G.Ablett type? To say it cannot be done is silly. We have topped up our list for the last 2 years with young kids and for the next 2 years we are likely to only take the mandatory 3 players. What is wrong with offering in a trade the entire 3 picks plus a player or two or a combination that gets their interest?

That is why they would make a trade.

Sorry - I wasn't correcting your grammar, I just wanted to check that I understood what you're saying.

This, I guess, is the Chris Judd idea. The challenge for us will be finding an impact player who wants to come to Adelaide - and timing it so we do that trade when we have other pieces in place (like Carlton having three no. 1 draft picks maturing).

I suppose that I am just very pessimistic about whether this is realistic - but it is the kind of thing that MUST be explored, even if the club goes in a different direction.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

The real question should be what percentage of us actually read all of crowmos/Kristofs posts in this thread? Wow too much spare time.

 

[Southerntakeover]

We are not getting them with our present MO. Time to try something different. Those that think VB,Vince, Mackay, Maric and Porplyzia will grow into a truly elite group are mistaken. I am tired of making the finals year after year and getting knocked out either early or just short of the GF.

Your rating of players is subjective. Not everyone will agree.

All this does is ensure yet more rounds of futile draft position, coupled with an unwillingness to even try to make a blockbuster trade of a YOUNG star. This MO has failed and will continue to do so.

When was the last time a YOUNG star was on the market that we actually had a decent shot at? Judd doesnt count, was never coming here. Seriously... these trades happen very very very very rarely in the league in general. Give some examples of players traded (or on the market) recently that meet your criteria that we could have had a run at?

Meanwhile, how do you know what we've even tried? Not everything is done in the public eye.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

HOW DO WE GET AN ADVANTAGE OVER THE OTHER TEAMS? Every side is asking this, don't kid yourself. We need to be ruthless in exploiting whatever advantages we have. And maybe we are - maybe that is what has kept us so successful over the last decade.

Really, the only true competitive advantage we would have is real free agency. But that is twenty years away, realistically.

The competiveness we showed over the last decade had little to do with anything magic the club did. It was more to do with having one of the best midfields the competition has ever seen. If anything, alot of what the club did over the last decade was the reason we couldn't take that extra step.

 

[Crow-mo]

Hey - some of that was quite funny.

don't want to encourage you

Did someone suggest sacking Williams after 2003?

You can't sack fifteen coaches. All clubs work towards winning a flag, but sometimes you just have to take winning games as a positive, not a negative thing.

you also have to remember this thread is a splinter, off from an interesting discussion on the crows/eagles thread.

no one is saying sack craig - i'm not. I am however sick of this, he doesn't have the list thing. coaches don't get 10 years - and it's about time to start see the signs that we might be heading the right way. there is a richmond like quality creeping in here.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

don't want to encourage you



you also have to remember this thread is a splinter, off from an interesting discussion on the crows/eagles thread.

no one is saying sack craig - i'm not. I am however sick of this, he doesn't have the list thing. coaches don't get 10 years - and it's about time to start see the signs that we might be heading the right way. there is a richmond like quality creeping in here.

How so?

 

[Crow-mo]

...

Trying to win a premiership? Of course we are trying to win a premiership. For Blight's sake - if we wanted to not be last, the best thing we could do would be to trade picks for players and top up our list. We have culled mid-list players to create spots for developing youth and we have drafted semi-aggressively (defined by number of spots turned over in our list).

most of this reply wasn't worth replying to.

however, you're thinking here is deeply flawed. we are not in the same bucket as everyone else - with our money, scouting networks and facilities etc. we are unlikely to ever spend any significant time at the bottom.

secondly, our top 10 B&F was still dominated by the old guard. were we punching above our weight, or was the expectation of weight flawed?

lastly, we are amongst the most passive of clubs in talent acquisition. what our plan is, is to draft better than anyone else, from mid level picks. aside from the near impossibility of that (something you refuse to acknowledge), this is precisely a mid table ploy.

we have been stacking our list with young players since 2004, how many years ago was that? and our senior guard had the rare ability to keep us bouyant in between. as we were never taking the cream, we can expect a bunch of acceptable results.

I'm happy with getting to the finals and being in a position to do something. I am not happy with what we've done when we've gotten there, but that is a different discussion.

actually its not a different discussion its an inconvenience to this one.

Carl Spackler, raised a genuinely interesting point last year. and I think he's right. that our premierships were based on getting into the finals, and having lightning strike. and as a result, we no longer strive to be the best, but we are hoping for the rub of the green when we get there.

and of course, being in a position to do something is not the same as getting to the finals. although, agreed our postion seems to be the same as yours.

I completely understand what you're saying here and can see why it feels logical to you - but it is the same as my missus buying a pair of shoes she doesn't need because they were 75% off. Picks WERE highly valued, but that is because they bring the assets that we (and other clubs) currently need.

that's a bit trite and cliched isn't it? anything that makes you better is worth doing, anything.

 

[Crow-mo]

Why? What is your evidence to support this? This is just opinion, as it is for anyone who says definitively they will. You don't know.

this isn't a random point he makes. despite your wishing it were.

you make it sound like his opinion is that the next roll of the dice is going to be a 4.

there is experience and judgement involved here. I think Vince, in particular might turn out to be top shelf. time will tell.

but its too convenient for you, to claim such judgements are entirely random. this comes back to your insistance on driving the wrong way, and until foolproof validation arrives. the world does not work on perfect information, never has, and never will.

its futile to try and hold up the progression of debate based on such a tenuous assertion.

 

[The Crows Truth]

no one is saying sack craig - i'm not. I am however sick of this, he doesn't have the list thing. coaches don't get 10 years - and it's about time to start see the signs that we might be heading the right way. there is a richmond like quality creeping in here.

absolutely laughable. you love to crap on about malthouse - in his 10th year at the biggest powerhouse club in the league including numerous top 5 draft picks and highly rated father sons and wait for it.....he hasnt won a flag. furthermore he wasnt won a bloody flag for 15 years despite having quite possibly the greatest squad (due to massive draft concessions) seen in the afl in the last 20 years. iirc he has the record for most years of continous coaching without winning a flag...

your inconsistency/flip-floppedness on certain issues is astounding

 

[Mego Red]

most of this reply wasn't worth replying to.

hey - some of my best material was in there.

our top 10 B&F was still dominated by the old guard. were we punching above our weight, or was the expectation of weight flawed?

Wait - wasn't that point disproved? You can't just argue it again like that didn't happen. More than 70% of the best and fairest were Craig-era stock.

lastly, we are amongst the most passive of clubs in talent acquisition. what our plan is, is to draft better than anyone else, from mid level picks. aside from the near impossibility of that (something you refuse to acknowledge), this is precisely a mid table ploy.

No, I agree with that. I argued for aggressively acquiring late first and second round picks last year.

we have been stacking our list with young players since 2004,

sorry, I can't let that pass. We took our picks in 2004, and traded for Thompson. We took our picks in 2005, and traded Fergus. That's not "stacking with young players". that is the normal number of draft picks. And for a club with one of the oldest lists, if anything we needed to do more.

and of course, being in a position to do something is not the same as getting to the finals. although, agreed our postion seems to be the same as yours.

EVERY club says that they try to get to the finals and see where things go from there. It is one of footy's great cliches. You cannot predict injuries and momentum.

You have this abstract theory about us playing to be in the finals but not wanting to win them, and it is completely unprovable, right or wrong. There is no tangible evidence to support it.

that's a bit trite and cliched isn't it? anything that makes you better is worth doing, anything.

This is something you seem unwilling to comprehend. Trading our picks last year to acquire Ryan O'Keefe DOES NOT make us better. Adding a 26 year old doesn't help us get to a premiership. It just keeps us stuck in the middle longer, which is what meets with your distaste.

The draft picks ARE a better asset for us than the traded player they would allow us to acquire, because the actual picks give us a CHANCE of an elite player, instead of the devil we know.

The pick is much riskier and has a much wider range of what it could bring (anything from a champion to a dud), and the traded player is reliable. you know exactly what you get. But that vanilla reliability isn't what our list needs now.

 

[Crow-mo]

absolutely laughable. you love to crap on about malthouse - in his 10th year at the biggest powerhouse club in the league including numerous top 5 draft picks and highly rated father sons and wait for it.....he hasnt won a flag. furthermore he wasnt won a bloody flag for 15 years despite having quite possibly the greatest squad (due to massive draft concessions) seen in the afl in the last 20 years. iirc he has the record for most years of continous coaching without winning a flag...

you just keep staring at your craigy posters, there's a good lad.

your inconsistency/flip-floppedness on certain issues is astounding

nice to know, you're keeping track of my collected works. not well, but at least you're trying.

 

[Crow-mo]

wait - wasn't that point disproved? You can't just argue it again like that didn't happen. More than 70% of the best and fairest were Craig-era stock.

excuse me? please explain:

2008:
1: Nathan Bock
2: Simon Goodwin
3: Scott Thompson
4: Tyson Edwards
5: Michael Doughty
6: Nathan van Berlo
7: Robert Shirley
8: Scott Stevens
9: Jason Porplyzia
10: Andrew McLeod

firstly, not all positions are equal. for example no.1 matters more than no.10. and secondly 70% craig era? WTF?

what are you defining as craig era stock????

 

[Crow-mo]

sorry, I can't let that pass. We took our picks in 2004, and traded for Thompson. We took our picks in 2005, and traded Fergus. That's not "stacking with young players". that is the normal number of draft picks. And for a club with one of the oldest lists, if anything we needed to do more.

so we need to do more?

moving on, we took our picks and swapped stenglein for thompson - not at our behest.
2004 was when, we made a conscious and public decision to start focussing on the draft. you could argue 2003, and I thought about that - but we were in contending mode, and the club hadn't started making noises about getting more young players in at that stage, like they did in 2004.

again, whilst you say we "traded" fergus, that is technically correct but doesn't really fall into any substantive definition that we might commonly use. when a player walks out, that's not what I call trading in terms of list building/renovation.

the only question then is, when Pfeiffer sucked arse - did we blow the 2003 1st round, the 2005, or both??

EVERY club says that they try to get to the finals and see where things go from there. It is one of footy's great cliches. You cannot predict injuries and momentum.

the point wasn't made on public statements, but on the clubs actions and lack of rabid ambition.

say what you want about hawthorn under Kennet & co. they displayed the same ruthless ambition, as VFL teams did pre-afl. Carlton is doing the same. they didn't get Judd to make 5th and cross their fingers.

You have this abstract theory about us playing to be in the finals but not wanting to win them, and it is completely unprovable, right or wrong. There is no tangible evidence to support it.

of course there is no evidence to support that, not least because that is not even my theory.

my point is that we are happy to compete, and participate in the competition in general. i've never said we don't want to win them, and you've never read it.

I see our mentality as approximating many NBA teams, happy to do well but not necessarily stretching the extra inch to the goal line.

This is something you seem unwilling to comprehend. Trading our picks last year to acquire Ryan O'Keefe DOES NOT make us better. Adding a 26 year old doesn't help us get to a premiership. It just keeps us stuck in the middle longer, which is what meets with your distaste.

i've never said I wanted Ryan O'Keefe though he is a fantastic player. nor have I limited myself to last year. He is merely an example, of what was on offer. Hell I would have taken McIntosh in a heartbeat though. and frankly, there aren't many of our 1st round picks I'd rather have that O'Keefe if it comes to it.

but again, you're not reading me correctly. I'm not against being stuck in the middle, I'm against not taking the risks to try and go one step further. you can't always win, but you can always try. I'm happy to finish mid table every year, if we were doing everything we could to better. and I mean everything - hell, when was the last time we innovated anything?????

that's a serious question by the way. in 2005 all the rage was how our game plan was unique, how we introduced all these technologies etc. and of course, as can only reasonably be expected these advances were copied and integrated by other teams, and we lost an edge. fair enough. but we don't seem to have had too many new ideas, or new strategies for how we are going to move forward.

I can't see our plan. and neither can anyone else, that's why we have all this - trust the club stuff. I don't care if we finish bottom 4 this year, I want to see the roadmap forward. where we are trying to go, and how we intend to do it.

we don't have to get there tomorrow, but I would like something I can fall in behind. and we have had enough time under the one coach that at the end of this year, that the plan takes shape. that we see some encouragement we are on the right path.

The draft picks ARE a better asset for us than the traded player they would allow us to acquire, because the actual picks give us a CHANCE of an elite player, instead of the devil we know.

probability disagrees with you. value = probability x outcome.

gotta say, there aren't traditionally too many elite players in the 10 -15 bracket. hopefully, we'll buck that trend.

The pick is much riskier and has a much wider range of what it could bring (anything from a champion to a dud), and the traded player is reliable. you know exactly what you get. But that vanilla reliability isn't what our list needs now.

again, you just jumped 3 steps in one. you made the assumption that only vanilla, reliable players are available. neither O'Keefe or McIntosh - just taking last year as an example, are vanilla players.

incidentally, I wonder what we might have made of Farren Ray, and his puny asking price?

 

[Mego Red]

Look - as much as we've bickered back and forth, I actually agree with about 95% of what you're saying, especially in this last post.

There was a time when you would have rated the Crows as one of the superclubs, willing to do whatever it takes with how ever many brown paper bags it takes.

Frankly - I agree with you those days have passed. Now we've gone from being the little guy who is envious and angry and wants to show everybody, to the meek little brother who will play by the rules. We've lost our swag.

 

[Mego Red]

excuse me? please explain:

2008:
1: Nathan Bock
2: Simon Goodwin
3: Scott Thompson
4: Tyson Edwards
5: Michael Doughty
6: Nathan van Berlo
7: Robert Shirley
8: Scott Stevens
9: Jason Porplyzia
10: Andrew McLeod

firstly, not all positions are equal. for example no.1 matters more than no.10. and secondly 70% craig era? WTF?

what are you defining as craig era stock????

Ah, maybe that was in the Ayres thread and was discussing his drafting/influence over our top ten players.

Not sure what your point is with this - if it's that we're old and need new blood, you're pretty late to that party.

I would credit Craig for any player that he drafted or who did the majority of development under his watch. Of that list, Goodwin, McLeod and Edwards are obvious pre-Craig. Doughty and Shirley straddle eras. The others I think are clearly Craig.

 

[Vader]

There are two clubs which have traded more than any other during the last decade - Sydney and Fremantle.

In Sydney's case, they're not attempting to do the "sell high buy low" theory put forward by Crow-Mo. Roos' philosophy is more along the lines of "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". He trades away their high draft picks as a risk mitigation strategy, reasoning that he'd rather have a known (albeit average) quantity than draft a teenager who is no better than a 50-50 proposition of making it as an AFL player.

Whilst Sydney have been busy in the trade market, it's been a long time since they traded for a true game breaking player. Probably the last of those would have been Barry Hall, back in 2001. Even then, his recruitment was as much about marketing (the need to replace Plugger as the face of the Swans in Sydney) as it was about football.

Sydney won a flag through an innovative (though tediously dull) gameplan, combined with a remarkable ability to match up on the best team of the 2005-06 era (West Coast) and an extremely fortunate finals run which saw them avoid playing their nemesis (Adelaide) in both finals series.

Today, they find themselves on the brink of a precipice, with 2010 likely to see a monumental fall. Their trading has seen them with a remarkably stable and consistent line-up, with few genuine stars (Adam Goodes being their only elite player in 2009).

I'm not sure how they fit in with your proposed model of trading away high draft picks for a young "elite" superstar.

Freo are an even worse example. They HAVE sold their souls on multiple occasions and have less than nothing to show for it. Examples would include the Chris Tarrant and Josh Carr trades.

Most of us here don't have any problem with trading, but it's not a panacea for all that ails us. Most trades these days are of the type we saw in 2007 - mid-range picks traded for mid-range players. Trades for elite players (eg Judd) require multiple first round picks and the desire for the player to play for the Crows. While we might be able to arrange the multiple first round picks, by trading a tier-1 (non-elite) player to obtain the second pick, I struggle to see how we're going to convince the player to come home to Adelaide if they're just not interested in coming home.

 

[subaru]

=Crow-mo;13797552]

what matters is who, not the aging or experience profile. as the maturity of the right players is a function of time; the transformation of the wrong players into the right players is a function of fantasy.

Absolutely.

Why is it that we keep sending players we have recruited as forwards into defence?

Rutten, Bock, Stevens, all recruited as forwards. Johncock, McLeod now playing in the backlines. Looks like Goodwin is set to take up Bassett's role. Moran is now being talked about as being developed into a defender.
Burton was great on the wing.

Trying to turn attacking players into defenders has taken the flair from our game over the past few years. I'm not happy with losing Welsh - a 50 goal forward that generally took the oppositions best defender. Porps will always struggle with injury and he is about it at he moment in terms of class in our forward line.

Craig's defensive mindset has caused this. Now we are left with first/second year players to kick winning scores. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not knocking them, but they need older harder bodies around them to give them the oppositions 3rd and 4th defenders.

 

[marvin]

So, let's sum up some of the discussion so far:

HOW DO WE GET ELITE PLAYERS? Looking at the All Australian squads of the last couple of years (and someone may want to do a more thorough analysis of this), roughly ten percent of the players have been traded in their career, about the same number acquired through the rookie draft. About five percent were father son selections. Another five to ten percent were late picks (after pick 40). Therefore, roughly seventy percent were selected in the first two rounds.

Actual figures are (from last 5 AA teams, i.e. 120 players)

Number of players that weren't really eligible to all clubs (father son, zone, or pre-draft compensatory) - 30 (25%)
Number of 1st round draft picks - 36 (30%)
Number of players acquired by trade - 16 (12.5%)
Number of players taken above pick 40 (or pre-season, or rookie) - 24 (20%).

Some of those are double-counts on multiple All-Australians (like Barry Hall, for example).

SO, WILL MY EARLY PICK BE AN ELITE PLAYER. No. Probably not. The chance are low, but higher than any other way of acquiring them.

Sounds right to me.

WILL TRADING MY FIRST ROUND PICK BE BETTER THAN USING IT? Perhaps. In the last five years, players traded for first round picks include: Chris Tarrant, Chris Judd (multiple picks and player), Brad Otten (multiple picks), Scott Thompson, Jonathon Hay - I don't have my AFL guide by me, so I'd love to know what the facts are about what a first round pick actually got you. My suspicion is that it is good, solid footballers, but rarely elite talent - less of a gamble, but less of a return. But I'd enjoy knowing more.

If you look at the AA players from the last 5 years that were acquired in a trade, most involved at least a 1st round pick. Judd, (3, 20 and Kennedy) Clement (for 8 and 39), Croad (10), Gehrig (Sierakowski +18), Jeff White (2 and 18), Barry Hall (13, 17 and 45), Everitt (6 and 22). Some are harder to pick apart (McPhee), some I couldn't find (M Lappin). The last AA players acquired in a trade for very little would have to be one N. Bassett (for Matthew Collins and Brent Williams), and Paul Medhurst (traded with a 1st round pick for Tarrant).

Now, some of those players were clearly AA level elite talent at the time of the trade - Judd and Everitt had been AA players at their old clubs. I doubt too many would have thought of some of the others as more than good solid footballers at the time they moved, though.

Really, the only true competitive advantage we would have is real free agency. But that is twenty years away, realistically.

We should have an advantage over most other teams in resources, that can help us in having a wider network of scouts for talent identification (i.e. we should do better from the rookie list, NSW selections etc. than others).

 

[Mego Red]

We should have an advantage over most other teams in resources, that can help us in having a wider network of scouts for talent identification (i.e. we should do better from the rookie list, NSW selections etc. than others).

I wonder if that is still true. It certainly feel like the strongest Voctorian clubs (Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, etc) have it a long way ahead of us at the moment.

 

[Zvim]

True, Hay didn't work out. but Hay was also traded in the 2005 draft, and those picks weren't too exciting. Birchall and Max Bailey. and Birchall was a particularly good selection in amongst a bit of flotsam. very easy to see how that deal could've been a wash with an ounce of luck the wrong way. weren't hawthorn linked with Pfeiffer at the Birchall pick?

I think Birchall is a decent player, Bailey probably wont make it because he is injury prone. The reason we traded was we were severely deficient in key defenders and the recruiters evaluated the picks around what we had were pretty much hit or miss, they didn't think there was a huge difference in quality from late first round to second or third round.

In hindsight, the club should have done a lot more research on Hay, problem is the player was overseas and you have a small window to assess a possible trade. I doubt clubs will take such risks in the future, if a player wants to move then he will have to stay to get evaluated. This was Laidley's last hurrah in terms of recruitment, he should have been neuted a long time ago.

Its widely thought North Melbourne did bite - they offered McIntosh, or at least briefed every journo going they were interested in that pick. and anything similar someone might offer.

According to Archer (his manager), McIntosh was never going to be traded. He was contracted, didn't want to change clubs and wanted to be a career player for the club. Laidley came close to being dismissed at the end of that year following the trade period. He didn't have the authority to put McIntosh on the table, there is a committee that overseas recruitment/drafting and he didn't have the authority to make that call and had done a number of things during the year that irritated the administration.

I think the sooner we get rid of him the better tbh. I'd rather a more sane coach. I think he would make a great assistant, have always had serious doubts as a head or match day coach.

 

[Hondo]

Absolutely.

Why is it that we keep sending players we have recruited as forwards into defence?

Rutten, Bock, Stevens, all recruited as forwards. Johncock, McLeod now playing in the backlines. Looks like Goodwin is set to take up Bassett's role. Moran is now being talked about as being developed into a defender.
Burton was great on the wing.

All those guys you mentioned are great in defence, well done NC for finding their best spot. Most have made SOO or AA as defenders.

Moran was being groomed as a defender at NM.

Stevens is, in fact, now being used a forward to further derail your criticism.

Rutten is a FB and won't ever be a key forward. You know that as well as I do. Goodwin started as a defender/tagging midfielder and I think it's his best spot. Johncock, Macca and Bock have been tried up forward many times and proven defence is their best area. Geez, Bock publicly stated he prefers defence and thinks he plays his best footy there.

Macca is the general back there.

I bet you won't find Porps, Birdman, Gill, Tippett, Hentschell, Walker in defence much.

If you are going to criticise then be fair don't just copy some throw-away line you read in a BF post.

 

[Hondo]

There are two clubs which have traded more than any other during the last decade - Sydney and Fremantle.

I won't quote the rest but suffice to say it's spot on IMO

I have debated all this with Crow-Mo several times and he's never convinced me that anyone has benefited from trading (since 2000ish) to the extent he claims.

As I said before, he should spend trade week with Matt Rendell and see the reality of what goes on rather than assuming the worst as he tends to do. Having said that, I agree with a lot of what Crow-Mo has said in this thread except for the claim that the Club is not desperate to do whatever it can to go top. I think that's an insult to a lot of good people down there.