lol so you are basically agreeing with most of what i say but arguing the point sheesh. a man who wants his cake and eat it to. your a funny man bandit.
lets see what actually do we disagree on here. the time frame.
firstly of course everyone agrees we have been crap since 82 but in particular the age of the nd 86 onwards. just my opinion.
so the article is about millers time at the club. so you say 02 to 08 and you would be correct but the fact is miller and wallace came to the club under the casey tenure they were intrinsically linked without casey there would be no miller. you may think it not relevant to go back to 2000 but i certainly do. the state of the list the state of the clubs finances are all relevant for the entire casy tenure. its the reason why they appointed miller in the first place. so yeah i have gone back a couple of extra yrs. shoot me.
hmm another thing we have disagreed on is weather the club was in position to increase spending in critical areas.
the answer to that is yes. daphne was filthy he was forced out under the lack of funding for the footy dept pretext.
if daphne had stayed i have no doubt the footy dept would have got more spending. it would have been the start.not the be all but a start. the club was out of debt it was in a position to start spending more in the critical areas. daphne had actually done the hard yards and gone thru the pain only to have the rug pulled out from under him.
you are right casey and miller blew thousands sheesh miller went over budget 800k one season and we had nothing to show for it.
hmm what else oh yeah. poor form. lets just say if miller has said it as he sees it, it does not necesarily make it right now does it. hence the replies on this entire thread.
you may disagree but it is a bit rich when the principle player and main man responsible for on field performance and the footy dept, blames the lack of loyalty and lack of money for his poor performance .well i will set the record straight. this bloke recieved more loylaty than probably any other administrator in our history from not only his own board but the supporters as well. he along with casey wasted that much money in the early days it was not funny. it was primarily because of casey / miller that later on we had no money yet he uses this as an excuse.
hmm what else oh yeh i think most agree you do indeed kid yourself. 
anyway i think with every thing else we have said exactly the same thing but you have your knickers in a knot for some reason.
i think once again you need to read a little more closely what has been said.
finally for me 2000 to 2008 casey miller and wallace are the ones MOSTLY responsible for the debacle of a decade i dont believe anyone has said they were soley responsible yet your on your high horse arguing it.
for me what its worth the article paints a picture of dissent in the ranks a lack of loyalty and no money and i disagree. there was money when he first came and the board certainly stuck fat as a whole despite the the atrocious performance both on and of the field.
of course these three have to shoulder most of the blame they were the key players.
had to lol at miller still trying to live of the back of his recruiting carey. he seems to still think hes some sort of guru when it comes to spotting talent. its because he was so poor in this area that we are stuffed onfield today. sheesh he over spent 800k yet none went to recruiting.
The only thing we agree on is that Miller and Wallace failed.
Now as to reading a little more closely what was said. I posted originally that in my opinion the article was an honest appraisal by Miller of things as he saw them, nothing more. Then, I had all the Miller and Wallace bashers argue the point with me that he wasn't honest, just trying to shift blame, protect Wallace, cover his tracks, cause global warming etc. So, in defence of my point I asked a simple question and I will re-ask it now for those who have trouble with reading and remembering posts - point out one error in fact in Miller's interview, just one. So far the silence has been deafening on that.
As for your point about the money being available - nope, wrong again. After 12 straight years of showing a profit (most of them very small in the first few of these), the Casey board showed a net loss over his first 2 years - well before Miller came on the scene. We weren't in a great position financially when Casey took over and to immediately start spending/losing was financial disaster as hindsight tells only too well. I actually laughed at how you resorted to blaming Miller for the losses after he came on board. What, Miller had the final say on all football department expenditure, the board or CEO had no say in this at all? 
And as for your point about loyalty? The knives were out for Miller and Wallace from within the club and some supporters a long long time before they were eventually removed so from Miller's perspective there can be no doubt the loyalty was not there - he says that when he compares it to other clubs, how the "big 4" have each others back regardless. It's common knowledge that March didn't have Miller or Wallace's back for at least a couple of years prior to their departure so no loyalty there I'm afraid.
Me arguing the point? Nope, just waiting for someone to point out one factual error in Miller's article.
I liked the article and want to believe everthing is true, heartfelt and fact. I believe it is to my knowledge.
Unfortunatly with the history of spin, handballing the blame and constant band aiding who knows whats fact and what is spin.
