Sack Francis Hackson and Hartley

[RedanTiger]

I think some people are a bit confused!
Mentioning any player just because he is from another club is not what the original conversation was about. It was about Blair Hartly and whether the people he brought to the club had been ok for us which in term means he had done his job.
Not just players from other clubs that were delisted and we picked them up. Massive, massive difference. Names like  Gordon, Petterd, Thompson and Banfield were drafted and were pick by the club but IMO picked by FJ and his crew. I'm sure others had a say too but they are not Hartly's picks.

Hartly's job is to monitor players from other sides through the year that maybe are not being used as he thinks they can and get them to the club. IMO you cannot lump them all into the same category..

Aaron Edwards was drafted at pick 1000 odd, not really anything to do with Hartly. It was a temp fix while others developed. Not sure how many games he played this year but I know it wasn't many. Griff got opportunities after a few years learning the game.. So IMO 'the club' got it right.. Who the f()k knows what we paid him and who really cares????

Hartly's men

Knights or as some call him Higgins, was a FA. Didn't cost us a pick and again who really cares what he gets paid. I think anyone with half a brain can tell he can play the game at a pretty reasonable level.. If he stays fit next year and it's a big if, he is in our best 22 IMO. It was a gamble but our chips are still on the table.. So not a loss yet.


Chaplin, had a really good year last year, started the year slowly this year but played some pretty good footy in the second half of the season. No one can deny that even if they think he is a he has flaws as long as he plays a roll. Again FA that cost us nothing in terms or players or draft picks. Free hit really. If he is getting paid to much, and no one knows really other than him and the club, big deal! As soon as others stand up and demand more with their actions than maybe he will have to take a pay cut but until then he deserves his spot on our list and in our best 22. Massive tick to Hartly for getting him across, when you take EVERYTHING into account.

Houli, didn't pay much for him and has played some pretty good footy for the club.. Like most of Hartly's guys does need upgrading but you would hope that come by way of a kid in the draft. Wouldn't be getting paid big dollars but has played a roll at his time at the club. Massive tick all things considered.

Grigg, say what you like about him and I admit I don't rate him either much but what we paid and what we gave, we have won. He needs replacing but someone has to take his place. The kids at our club coming through at the moment in his type of roll are just not ready or simply no good. Cold hard fact I'm afraid. I hope I don't see him ever again in a Tigers jumper but IMO he has been a tick over what we had.

Maric, surely nothing needs to be said?? Bloody star and cost us not much. Massive tick to Hartly here.

Hampson, I think most agreed we paid to much, but in this business you are going to get a few wrong when you have a crack. Not sure the club has to close the doors over this mistake. FJ make mistakes every single year but not much is said by some. Massive cross but IMO that's the only real cross from Hartly to date.

It would make it a lot easier if the kids at the club were any good to be able to fase these guys out. But they are not and we haven't had much come through of recent times. Miles is a jet and I hope Lennon can come through too but I really only think a couple of other will make it who are not getting games now. Dea and McBean and that's really it IMO.

  Best post and most well reasoned post on this thread to date. Well said.

I don't think any club get s100% of their decisions correct, ever and same with drafting it is always easier in hindsight. Much easier to be negative after ds and think you know it all.

Shawry, your post is a MASSIVE misrepresentation of what BT has written.
You congratulate him on the post which criticises FJ's drafting of Gordon, Petterd, Thompson, Banfield and Edwards in the first paragraph.
BT's post then goes on to list all the players that he thinks Hartley is responsible for and rates them.
He only gives Hartley a fail on the Hampson trade and his final point is that Hartley's job - to fill holes in the list - is made even more difficult by the failure to get better replacement players from the DRAFT.

"FJ make mistakes every single year but not much is said by some." 

[shawry]

I think some people are a bit confused!
Mentioning any player just because he is from another club is not what the original conversation was about. It was about Blair Hartly and whether the people he brought to the club had been ok for us which in term means he had done his job.
Not just players from other clubs that were delisted and we picked them up. Massive, massive difference. Names like  Gordon, Petterd, Thompson and Banfield were drafted and were pick by the club but IMO picked by FJ and his crew. I'm sure others had a say too but they are not Hartly's picks.

Hartly's job is to monitor players from other sides through the year that maybe are not being used as he thinks they can and get them to the club. IMO you cannot lump them all into the same category..

Aaron Edwards was drafted at pick 1000 odd, not really anything to do with Hartly. It was a temp fix while others developed. Not sure how many games he played this year but I know it wasn't many. Griff got opportunities after a few years learning the game.. So IMO 'the club' got it right.. Who the f()k knows what we paid him and who really cares????

Hartly's men

Knights or as some call him Higgins, was a FA. Didn't cost us a pick and again who really cares what he gets paid. I think anyone with half a brain can tell he can play the game at a pretty reasonable level.. If he stays fit next year and it's a big if, he is in our best 22 IMO. It was a gamble but our chips are still on the table.. So not a loss yet.


Chaplin, had a really good year last year, started the year slowly this year but played some pretty good footy in the second half of the season. No one can deny that even if they think he is a he has flaws as long as he plays a roll. Again FA that cost us nothing in terms or players or draft picks. Free hit really. If he is getting paid to much, and no one knows really other than him and the club, big deal! As soon as others stand up and demand more with their actions than maybe he will have to take a pay cut but until then he deserves his spot on our list and in our best 22. Massive tick to Hartly for getting him across, when you take EVERYTHING into account.

Houli, didn't pay much for him and has played some pretty good footy for the club.. Like most of Hartly's guys does need upgrading but you would hope that come by way of a kid in the draft. Wouldn't be getting paid big dollars but has played a roll at his time at the club. Massive tick all things considered.

Grigg, say what you like about him and I admit I don't rate him either much but what we paid and what we gave, we have won. He needs replacing but someone has to take his place. The kids at our club coming through at the moment in his type of roll are just not ready or simply no good. Cold hard fact I'm afraid. I hope I don't see him ever again in a Tigers jumper but IMO he has been a tick over what we had.

Maric, surely nothing needs to be said?? Bloody star and cost us not much. Massive tick to Hartly here.

Hampson, I think most agreed we paid to much, but in this business you are going to get a few wrong when you have a crack. Not sure the club has to close the doors over this mistake. FJ make mistakes every single year but not much is said by some. Massive cross but IMO that's the only real cross from Hartly to date.

It would make it a lot easier if the kids at the club were any good to be able to fase these guys out. But they are not and we haven't had much come through of recent times. Miles is a jet and I hope Lennon can come through too but I really only think a couple of other will make it who are not getting games now. Dea and McBean and that's really it IMO.

  Best post and most well reasoned post on this thread to date. Well said.

I don't think any club get s100% of their decisions correct, ever and same with drafting it is always easier in hindsight. Much easier to be negative after ds and think you know it all.

Shawry, your post is a MASSIVE misrepresentation of what BT has written.
You congratulate him on the post which criticises FJ's drafting of Gordon, Petterd, Thompson, Banfield and Edwards in the first paragraph.
BT's post then goes on to list all the players that he thinks Hartley is responsible for and rates them.
He only gives Hartley a fail on the Hampson trade and his final point is that Hartley's job - to fill holes in the list - is made even more difficult by the failure to get better replacement players from the DRAFT.

"FJ make mistakes every single year but not much is said by some."

Fair call Redan. Cannot argue with that. Definitely don't agree with him re Jackson and his choices and agree with your call on my post. Apologies and I do definitely take it back for that aspect. Just get sick of all the negative nellies who are draft experts in hindsight. Much easier behind a keyboard not being in the position to make the decisions with the pressure that goes with that and having the benefit of hindsight to make them feel bravado about having another crack at the club to make them feel better.

[the claw]

let me get this right. jackson is charged with looking at juniors thats his primary function. common sense would say he would have some input to all players who come to our club though though limited input with mature players.

hartley is in charge of looking at other teams lists and finding players who are not getting a go are f/as or disgruntled. this means he is the one who has the handle on all mature players even those who are delisted.

we may argue over who each man has got to the club but one thing id be pretty sure of is that BOTH WOULD HAVE INPUT TO ANY DECISION MADE.
People arent seriously saying oh gee we picked up petterd as a rookie thats fjs area what bunkum.its even bigger bunkum if people are saying their roles are mutually exclusive that is hilarious.

50 mature recruits since 05 and so few winners. i dont care which one is attributed with who we took both are responsible they are both the most important cogs in our recruiting team.
their records speak for themselves and we must at the very least be looking to substantially beef up our recruiting and list managemenbt departments. simply put we just havent been good enough.

i shake my head in bewilderment at the stubborn refusal of people to at least acknowledge we need to do better and must beef up these areas. they defend the inexcusable.

[Francois Jackson]

let me get this right. jackson is charged with looking at juniors thats his primary function. common sense would say he would have some input to all players who come to our club though though limited input with mature players.

hartley is in charge of looking at other teams lists and finding players who are not getting a go are f/as or disgruntled. this means he is the one who has the handle on all mature players even those who are delisted.

we may argue over who each man has got to the club but one thing id be pretty sure of is that BOTH WOULD HAVE INPUT TO ANY DECISION MADE.
People arent seriously saying oh gee we picked up petterd as a rookie thats fjs area what bunkum.its even bigger bunkum if people are saying their roles are mutually exclusive that is hilarious.

50 mature recruits since 05 and so few winners. i dont care which one is attributed with who we took both are responsible they are both the most important cogs in our recruiting team.
their records speak for themselves and we must at the very least be looking to substantially beef up our recruiting and list managemenbt departments. simply put we just havent been good enough.

i shake my head in bewilderment at the stubborn refusal of people to at least acknowledge we need to do better and must beef up these areas. they defend the inexcusable.

 

spot on again. 

[RedanTiger]

let me get this right. jackson is charged with looking at juniors thats his primary function. common sense would say he would have some input to all players who come to our club though though limited input with mature players.

hartley is in charge of looking at other teams lists and finding players who are not getting a go are f/as or disgruntled. this means he is the one who has the handle on all mature players even those who are delisted.

we may argue over who each man has got to the club but one thing id be pretty sure of is that BOTH WOULD HAVE INPUT TO ANY DECISION MADE.
People arent seriously saying oh gee we picked up petterd as a rookie thats fjs area what bunkum.its even bigger bunkum if people are saying their roles are mutually exclusive that is hilarious.

50 mature recruits since 05 and so few winners. i dont care which one is attributed with who we took both are responsible they are both the most important cogs in our recruiting team.
their records speak for themselves and we must at the very least be looking to substantially beef up our recruiting and list managemenbt departments. simply put we just havent been good enough.

i shake my head in bewilderment at the stubborn refusal of people to at least acknowledge we need to do better and must beef up these areas. they defend the inexcusable.

Hope you remember our mutual fight over the 2009 draft on another site, Claw.
I have been critical of Jackson's drafting from 2005 onwards. long before Hartley came on board.
I have been having to find old posts on that other site to rebut the catch-all excuse of hindsight so this is current for me here as well.
I have to agree that Hartley, whom I originally thought was doing a good job, seems to have lost the plot since he has been given a lot more clout.

I agree with you Claw in that a properly functioning recruiting department should have input from all members to reach decisions and they are mutually responsible.
I also agree they must do better and the results so far are inexcusable.

The intriguing one is Luke Williams (who I personally believe will replace Jackson after this draft) who by all reports resigned from Carlton because he was over-ruled in a drafting decision.
It's the sort of strength and integrity I'd like all our recruiters to have. If your bosses can't convince you their way is better then you should go.
If you're hired to recruit the best players and get over-ruled then you should resign as your superiors are stopping you from doing your job.

[tony_montana]

Just to clear things up

For all those who went to the fan forum night several yrs back they will be able to verify this too.

The footy department as a whole (so the coaches, Blair and FJ) rate all players out of 1000 both internally and externally. How sound/accurate this rating system is no-one knows, but it is what it is and this is what they use.

 Blair's focus is players already on afl lists and he rates them out of 1000 himself, FJ and his team rate all the perspective juniors out of 1000 themselves, then they have meetings and share their information -  show footage, look at stats and come to a majority agreement on ratings. From there, they then make the decision on whether to draft a noob or go with a Houli/Grigg/Petterd type based on which player they as a group believe will be better for the club.

Its a good system - however like all things - its only as good as the people's judgement/ability to accurately identify talent.

[WilliamPowell]

Just to clear things up

For all those who went to the fan forum night several yrs back they will be able to verify this too.

The footy department as a whole (so the coaches, Blair and FJ) rate all players out of 1000 both internally and externally. How sound/accurate this rating system is no-one knows, but it is what it is and this is what they use.

 Blair's focus is players already on afl lists and he rates them out of 1000 himself, FJ and his team rate all the perspective juniors out of 1000 themselves, then they have meetings and share their information -  show footage, look at stats and come to a majority agreement on ratings. From there, they then make the decision on whether to draft a noob or go with a Houli/Grigg/Petterd type based on which player they as a group believe will be better for the club.

Its a good system - however like all things - its only as good as the people's judgement/ability to accurately identify talent.

tony_m,  I was at that forum and heard all of that, you are correct but as you said it was a few years back now.

Things have changed in the footy department, Hartley has been promoted (just look at his title) and now has more clout than he did back then. That's what Dan Richardson said when he spoke at a pre-match function I was at earlier in the season

[tony_montana]

Just to clear things up

For all those who went to the fan forum night several yrs back they will be able to verify this too.

The footy department as a whole (so the coaches, Blair and FJ) rate all players out of 1000 both internally and externally. How sound/accurate this rating system is no-one knows, but it is what it is and this is what they use.

 Blair's focus is players already on afl lists and he rates them out of 1000 himself, FJ and his team rate all the perspective juniors out of 1000 themselves, then they have meetings and share their information -  show footage, look at stats and come to a majority agreement on ratings. From there, they then make the decision on whether to draft a noob or go with a Houli/Grigg/Petterd type based on which player they as a group believe will be better for the club.

Its a good system - however like all things - its only as good as the people's judgement/ability to accurately identify talent.

tony_m,  I was at that forum and heard all of that, you are correct but as you said it was a few years back now.

Things have changed in the footy department, Hartley has been promoted (just look at his title) and now has more clout than he did back then. That's what Dan Richardson said when he spoke at a pre-match function I was at earlier in the season

No doubt his responsibilities have grown, but it still comes down to a collaborative decision, i doubt very much they'd just roll over and say "ok Blair, what will it be?"

[WilliamPowell]

No doubt his responsibilities have grown, but it still comes down to a collaborative decision, i doubt very much they'd just roll over and say "ok Blair, what will it be?"

Not suggesting that but I believe that his views carry more influence when it comes to trades, our uncontracted players and free agency. Dan Richardson said as much at the previously mentioned pre-match.

[tony_montana]

No doubt his responsibilities have grown, but it still comes down to a collaborative decision, i doubt very much they'd just roll over and say "ok Blair, what will it be?"

Not suggesting that but I believe that his views carry more influence when it comes to trades, our uncontracted players and free agency. Dan Richardson said as much at the previously mentioned pre-match.

Hopefully not too much now after the hammer trade 

[Chuck17]

No doubt his responsibilities have grown, but it still comes down to a collaborative decision, i doubt very much they'd just roll over and say "ok Blair, what will it be?"

Not suggesting that but I believe that his views carry more influence when it comes to trades, our uncontracted players and free agency. Dan Richardson said as much at the previously mentioned pre-match.

Hopefully not too much now after the hammer trade 

Should half half of his pay retracted for that

[the claw]

let me get this right. jackson is charged with looking at juniors thats his primary function. common sense would say he would have some input to all players who come to our club though though limited input with mature players.

hartley is in charge of looking at other teams lists and finding players who are not getting a go are f/as or disgruntled. this means he is the one who has the handle on all mature players even those who are delisted.

we may argue over who each man has got to the club but one thing id be pretty sure of is that BOTH WOULD HAVE INPUT TO ANY DECISION MADE.
People arent seriously saying oh gee we picked up petterd as a rookie thats fjs area what bunkum.its even bigger bunkum if people are saying their roles are mutually exclusive that is hilarious.

50 mature recruits since 05 and so few winners. i dont care which one is attributed with who we took both are responsible they are both the most important cogs in our recruiting team.
their records speak for themselves and we must at the very least be looking to substantially beef up our recruiting and list managemenbt departments. simply put we just havent been good enough.

i shake my head in bewilderment at the stubborn refusal of people to at least acknowledge we need to do better and must beef up these areas. they defend the inexcusable.

Hope you remember our mutual fight over the 2009 draft on another site, Claw.
I have been critical of Jackson's drafting from 2005 onwards. long before Hartley came on board.
I have been having to find old posts on that other site to rebut the catch-all excuse of hindsight so this is current for me here as well.
I have to agree that Hartley, whom I originally thought was doing a good job, seems to have lost the plot since he has been given a lot more clout.

I agree with you Claw in that a properly functioning recruiting department should have input from all members to reach decisions and they are mutually responsible.
I also agree they must do better and the results so far are inexcusable.

The intriguing one is Luke Williams (who I personally believe will replace Jackson after this draft) who by all reports resigned from Carlton because he was over-ruled in a drafting decision.
It's the sort of strength and integrity I'd like all our recruiters to have. If your bosses can't convince you their way is better then you should go.
If you're hired to recruit the best players and get over-ruled then you should resign as your superiors are stopping you from doing your job.

fight redan.  lets say we had a strenuous debate. one of hundreds of debates ive had on this issue and unfortunatly i cant say i remember our encounter.
as for hindsight and it being applied to what i say i too find people coming up with gee claw all good in hindsight.this did bug me not anymore,  i know i put it out there most of the time way before things come to pass. the only person i have to satisfy in this is myself so it doesnt bother me anymore people can think what they like.

me i have long had some pretty simple criteria that i stick to when assesing any player young or old, sml or big, short or tall,, i religiously apply those criteria and in the main they have served me very well. i do hope the club has a similar way to assess players,
strengths, weaknesses, type, athletic ability, size, height,  performance, nous are the main things i look at. they are all linked together.

list management well i get tired of having to constantly criticise em in this area but until they actually address the list properly and compile it with enough structure, quality, experience, and pright player types im forced to continue to criticise em. WE ARE FOREVER HEDGING OUR BETS WITH TYPES.
I will again say we draft a kid whith pick 20 say whos a flanker and we hope in time we can turn him into a mid. why not just draft the proven mid that is also  available.

imo the club have got lost with things like actual numbers ie if they are say tall they are lumped into one or two basic categories, and not enough attention is paid to type of player and actual role.
example being
kpfs/tall fwds  - riewoldt, vickery, griffiths, mcbean, elton,  look at that and you say yeah its okay maybe one short. the reality is theres just one proven kpf in riewoldt. elton id call a genuine kpf, that is a bloke whos sole role is to hold down a key fwd post. the rest well they play fwd badly imo but they are asked to play elsewhere in fact they are ruck/fwds and we have too many of em.

it hits you in the face what types of tall fwds  is needed.
heres a hypothetical, imagine we had numerous picks and  added to our list.
 pat mccartin 194cm/95kg  kid who will play as a stay at home kpf and be very good in the role, none of this can ruck a bit and play fwd a bit, but  not great at either rubbish, an actual fwd who we can project fwd with confidence to become a very good genuine kpf.  and tom lamb a 192 85 junior who could play in the midfield but he has pace super athletic and is versatile. a sort of gunston size and type. another who could play this role is tyler kietel 194/86 thing is i recken kietel will become a kpf in time. imagine we bolstered over say a two three  yr period our fwd list structure with these three.

it would in time go
ff/ #### - mccartin 195/100 - griffiths 100/102 2nd ruck.
hf/ lamb 192/90  - riewoldt 195/95- #####.

remember its a hypothetical to show the sort of depth and type we need to show depth the magoos would go

FF/ #### - kietel 194/94 - mcbean 200/100
hf/ #### - elton 197/100 - third  tall athletic type to be drafted.

elton 197/100 -  kietel 194/94 - rookie list a genuine tall fwd as well who ???? another in the lamb mold.. now this sort of scenario has all types of GENUINE PERMANENT tall fwds on our list. it has quality and it is genuine depth. this is the sort of thing as far as list structure in the fwd half goes is what id like to see us attempt.

6 tall fwds covering all types,
2 ruck/fwds
3/4 ruckmen

on  mcbean and vickery.
well mcbean to be developed as a ruckman and vickery becomes a very tradeable commodity.

so our ruck stocks would go
1st ruck - maric, mcbean junior development, hampson needs to be delisted, need another junior and replace hampson with a 22 24 yo development type.
2nd ruck or ruck/fwd -  griffiths WILL NEED TO CONTINUE TO IMPROVE.  mcbean can do this role as well while developing AS A RUCKMAN  could be he never becomes a 1st ruckman.

anyway way off tangent here got carried away again.  but that gives an idea on what id like to see us do as far as just one area of the list goes.

[bojangles17]

Just to clear things up

For all those who went to the fan forum night several yrs back they will be able to verify this too.

The footy department as a whole (so the coaches, Blair and FJ) rate all players out of 1000 both internally and externally. How sound/accurate this rating system is no-one knows, but it is what it is and this is what they use.

 Blair's focus is players already on afl lists and he rates them out of 1000 himself, FJ and his team rate all the perspective juniors out of 1000 themselves, then they have meetings and share their information -  show footage, look at stats and come to a majority agreement on ratings. From there, they then make the decision on whether to draft a noob or go with a Houli/Grigg/Petterd type based on which player they as a group believe will be better for the club.

Its a good system - however like all things - its only as good as the people's judgement/ability to accurately identify talent.

Yeah that's pretty well how I understand it to work TM, TW talks of a similar method, as u rightly put it though, tis subjective in the eyes of those who set the ratings

[tigs2011]

let me get this right. jackson is charged with looking at juniors thats his primary function. common sense would say he would have some input to all players who come to our club though though limited input with mature players.

hartley is in charge of looking at other teams lists and finding players who are not getting a go are f/as or disgruntled. this means he is the one who has the handle on all mature players even those who are delisted.

we may argue over who each man has got to the club but one thing id be pretty sure of is that BOTH WOULD HAVE INPUT TO ANY DECISION MADE.
People arent seriously saying oh gee we picked up petterd as a rookie thats fjs area what bunkum.its even bigger bunkum if people are saying their roles are mutually exclusive that is hilarious.

50 mature recruits since 05 and so few winners. i dont care which one is attributed with who we took both are responsible they are both the most important cogs in our recruiting team.
their records speak for themselves and we must at the very least be looking to substantially beef up our recruiting and list managemenbt departments. simply put we just havent been good enough.

i shake my head in bewilderment at the stubborn refusal of people to at least acknowledge we need to do better and must beef up these areas. they defend the inexcusable.

I'm not sure exactly how it works outside of the fact we have a numbers based rating system. What concerns me is that Hampson's score was similar to the juniors available around that pick. That to me suggests something is wrong with the system.

Is it Hartley overrating established players? Is it Jackson underrating juniors? Is there not enough emphasis on scope for improvement? I don't know, but something is broken as the system is designed to avoid howler trades like the McMahon one. But it clearly is flawed.

[the claw]

let me get this right. jackson is charged with looking at juniors thats his primary function. common sense would say he would have some input to all players who come to our club though though limited input with mature players.

hartley is in charge of looking at other teams lists and finding players who are not getting a go are f/as or disgruntled. this means he is the one who has the handle on all mature players even those who are delisted.

we may argue over who each man has got to the club but one thing id be pretty sure of is that BOTH WOULD HAVE INPUT TO ANY DECISION MADE.
People arent seriously saying oh gee we picked up petterd as a rookie thats fjs area what bunkum.its even bigger bunkum if people are saying their roles are mutually exclusive that is hilarious.

50 mature recruits since 05 and so few winners. i dont care which one is attributed with who we took both are responsible they are both the most important cogs in our recruiting team.
their records speak for themselves and we must at the very least be looking to substantially beef up our recruiting and list managemenbt departments. simply put we just havent been good enough.

i shake my head in bewilderment at the stubborn refusal of people to at least acknowledge we need to do better and must beef up these areas. they defend the inexcusable.

I'm not sure exactly how it works outside of the fact we have a numbers based rating system. What concerns me is that Hampson's score was similar to the juniors available around that pick. That to me suggests something is wrong with the system.

Is it Hartley overrating established players? Is it Jackson underrating juniors? Is there not enough emphasis on scope for improvement? I don't know, but something is broken as the system is designed to avoid howler trades like the McMahon one. But it clearly is flawed.

quite clearly with hampson they just didnt watch enough of him or pay enough attention to both his performance records and assess his weaknesses. ffs we had a 7 yr sample and still got it wrong.
stuff the numbers system its the blokes on the ground actually watching them play who they need to listen to.

wtf was jackson doing it was pick 28 and if my boss was trying to take it off me to use on such an obvious deficient player id be howlingman id give my right arm to have a pick 28 in any draft and id back myself in to pick a pretty decent player most yrs.
the silly thing about hampson was we had many other options and paths to go down if we werent in such a god damned huryy to get the deal done.

me i think last yr will be  bust i dont rate lennon we wasted our second pick and used our last two picks on nothing but top up players with little ceiling left. of course i argued pretty hard about this last yr and i see nothing to say i still should not be going crook.