Last years recruiting

[Quixote]

Lets look at last years recruiting.

Lovett Gone
Winmar 5 games and injured most of the year
Smith Gone
Johnson Worse than the previous year at Sandy

Rookies
Hutchins Gone
Walsh A chance
Archer In trouble

Was never going to have an effect on this year but will have a huge effect in 2-3 years time. Would be our worst year of recruiting for 15 years.

Agree to a point. A lot rests on Winmar and Walsh. Who, incidentally, are two mould of player that we severely lack. Medium quick strong forward and fast skillful wingman.

[St Ick]

To clear two things up from reading this thread.

1) Ball went for pick 30 or whatever because he comprimised the draft, refused to speak to Melbourne and other teams who were interested. I still believe he would have gone in the teens with Melbourne's 3rd or 4th pick had he met with them and chosen to go. So it wasn't really proven that he was only worth that low pick. Old news now though there's already too much that has been said about this scummy little private school boy sook already.

2) Max went to the filth, and they would have gotten just as much info from Max as they did Ball.

[To the top]

"Koschitzke (with a fixed ankle)".

Now confirmed.

[Bono]

[quote="goods"][quote="barks4eva"]Thomas selecting Ball when Butterss wanted and urged him to take Judd has cost us probably three premierships already!

Then putting Ball on $600,000 a year, FAIR DINKUM, didn't that eventually cause problems!

So I'd rate that as the biggest recruiting stuff up of all time!

Thomas helped set us up for a decade of sustained failure!

Then we have Jack Riewoldt there for the taking and we took Armitage!

I was praying we would select Jack and .........oh dear, now apparently we need a Full Forward!

How many times can this club continue to shoot itself in the foot?

Now we are off to Seaford, FFS, will bite us big time!

When players don't nominate us as their preferred destination, you'll know why![/quote]

I don't see Seaford as an issue at all! Live in Brighton etc and train in Seaford why is that an issue??? I would prefer to train by the sea than on punt road with all the fumes!

1) Huge growth belt down the south east should see our supporter base grow and grow.
2) Fresh air, have you been to morrabin?? its so refreshing down there
3) Removed from the CBD and nightclubs (brighton people tend to stay in brighton)

Seaford = non issue

Players will come to us when we are a powerhouse club and we are winning flags[/quote]

You may not see Seaford as an issue but a couple of assistant coaches, the list manager, staff in the marketing and membership departments, along with a few top 10 senior StK players DO have an issue with the move to Seaford.

[barks4eva]

You may not see Seaford as an issue but a couple of assistant coaches, the list manager, staff in the marketing and membership departments, along with a few top 10 senior StK players DO have an issue with the move to Seaford.

EXACTLY!

The club is literally heading further south and our premiership window has possibly only a couple of more seasons to run!

When we are trying to compete with the likes of Collingwood who have the Westpac Centre, the board have signed off on a white elephant sold to them by a CEO who left only months later!

This will bite us big time!

The only positive I can see about Seaford is that it does not cost much, so when the inevitable happens and it turns into an absolute disaster, we will look for a new home closer to St Kilda, in about 10 years time!

It will eventually make it increasingly more difficult to attract quality players to our club, when competing with the likes of Collingwood with an inner city location!

St Kilda is the most marketable suburb in Victoria and one of the most marketable suburbs in Australia and it is just plain stupid, to even further dilute and distance the football club from the place that gives this club it's name!

When Rod Butterss was voted out, he was actively seeking to establish the club as close to St Kilda as possible!

Even Ross Lyon made the comment " the challenges that Seaford presents" when asked about the departure of Leigh Tudor!

If there is one tradition the club is continuing, it's the capacity to once again shoot itself in the foot!

[Moods]

You may not see Seaford as an issue but a couple of assistant coaches, the list manager, staff in the marketing and membership departments, along with a few top 10 senior StK players DO have an issue with the move to Seaford.

EXACTLY!

The club is literally heading further south and our premiership window has possibly only a couple of more seasons to run!

When we are trying to compete with the likes of Collingwood who have the Westpac Centre, the board have signed off on a white elephant sold to them by a CEO who left only months later!

This will bite us big time!

The only positive I can see about Seaford is that it does not cost much, so when the inevitable happens and it turns into an absolute disaster, we will look for a new home closer to St Kilda, in about 10 years time!

It will eventually make it increasingly more difficult to attract quality players to our club, when competing with the likes of Collingwood with an inner city location!

St Kilda is the most marketable suburb in Victoria and one of the most marketable suburbs in Australia and it is just plain stupid, to even further dilute and distance the football club from the place that gives this club it's name!

When Rod Butterss was voted out, he was actively seeking to establish the club as close to St Kilda as possible!

Even Ross Lyon made the comment " the challenges that Seaford presents" when asked about the departure of Leigh Tudor!

If there is one tradition the club is continuing, it's the capacity to once again shoot itself in the foot!

Barks I don't buy your logic that b/c Seaford is 'in the middle of nowhere' that players won't want to come and play. Plenty of affluent suburbs in the surrounding areas. Mt Eliza is only 15-20 minutes away for instance. Mentone 15 minutes away in the other direction. Whilst we are paying these players upwards of 1/2 a million dollars, I reckon they can just suck it up. Would they prefer to continue training in 1970's type conditions at Moorabbin?

[Dr Spaceman]

You may not see Seaford as an issue but a couple of assistant coaches, the list manager, staff in the marketing and membership departments, along with a few top 10 senior StK players DO have an issue with the move to Seaford.

EXACTLY!

The club is literally heading further south and our premiership window has possibly only a couple of more seasons to run!

When we are trying to compete with the likes of Collingwood who have the Westpac Centre, the board have signed off on a white elephant sold to them by a CEO who left only months later!

This will bite us big time!

The only positive I can see about Seaford is that it does not cost much, so when the inevitable happens and it turns into an absolute disaster, we will look for a new home closer to St Kilda, in about 10 years time!

It will eventually make it increasingly more difficult to attract quality players to our club, when competing with the likes of Collingwood with an inner city location!

St Kilda is the most marketable suburb in Victoria and one of the most marketable suburbs in Australia and it is just plain stupid, to even further dilute and distance the football club from the place that gives this club it's name!

When Rod Butterss was voted out, he was actively seeking to establish the club as close to St Kilda as possible!

Even Ross Lyon made the comment " the challenges that Seaford presents" when asked about the departure of Leigh Tudor!

If there is one tradition the club is continuing, it's the capacity to once again shoot itself in the foot!

Barks I don't buy your logic that b/c Seaford is 'in the middle of nowhere' that players won't want to come and play. Plenty of affluent suburbs in the surrounding areas. Mt Eliza is only 15-20 minutes away for instance. Mentone 15 minutes away in the other direction. Whilst we are paying these players upwards of 1/2 a million dollars, I reckon they can just suck it up. Would they prefer to continue training in 1970's type conditions at Moorabbin?

Hawthorn seems to have no problems retaining players and staff and indeed appear to have little trouble attracting new ones.

And VFL Park is hardly at the end of Chapel Street.

And it is hardly surrounded by trendy bars and cafes

And it is surrounded by a vast suburban sprawl, not all of it "affluent".

I doubt a trip to Waverley is any easier, or any more attractive, than a trip to Seaford!

[Winmar]

The original plan though was to play in new facilities at Moorabbin. I'll be eternally disappointed that that didn't eventuate.

From a selfish point of view, I can't see myself getting down to Seaford more than once every couple of years, for it's just too far away.

[Moods]

The original plan though was to play in new facilities at Moorabbin. I'll be eternally disappointed that that didn't eventuate.

From a selfish point of view, I can't see myself getting down to Seaford more than once every couple of years, for it's just too far away.

I still love the saints - and if I got down there more than once a year to watch them train at Moorabbin it's a rarity. AS supporters do we really care where they train?

The analogy Dr Spaceman makes re the hawks is spot on I reckon.

Personally I would have preferred the saints to remain at Moorabbin as well - but at the end of the day, I just want them to have the best possible facilities.

[Legendary]

I'm sorry, but if you don't like it then leave.

Plenty of Geelong players live in Melbourne, plenty of Hawthorn players live around the Hawthorn/Ivanhoe/Kew/South Yarra/South Melbourne area. They are travelling 45mins+ to get to training etc.

Seaford is 25 minutes from Brighton.

Takes me 30 minutes to get to my work every day in traffic.


Have NFI what the big deal is. Most lame excuse I have ever heard for not wanting to work for an organisation.


We have 5% unemployment in this country. If you don't like your job, someone else will.

[St Ick]

The original plan though was to play in new facilities at Moorabbin. I'll be eternally disappointed that that didn't eventuate.

From a selfish point of view, I can't see myself getting down to Seaford more than once every couple of years, for it's just too far away.

U serious? Its not like you need to make an overnight stay or anything.... its only Seaford after all! The ground, the facilities, everything about Moorabin was either outdated or dangerous... and didn't Kingston stuff us around? State of the art training facilities, cheaper facilities, only an extra 20 minutes drive down the road... we have a huge supporter base down here in the South East and I am not upset by the move at all.

If you guys are so jealous of the filth, go join em...

[saintspremiers]

The original plan though was to play in new facilities at Moorabbin. I'll be eternally disappointed that that didn't eventuate.

From a selfish point of view, I can't see myself getting down to Seaford more than once every couple of years, for it's just too far away.

U serious? Its not like you need to make an overnight stay or anything.... its only Seaford after all! The ground, the facilities, everything about Moorabin was either outdated or dangerous... and didn't Kingston stuff us around? State of the art training facilities, cheaper facilities, only an extra 20 minutes drive down the road... we have a huge supporter base down here in the South East and I am not upset by the move at all.

If you guys are so jealous of the filth, go join em...

Winmar is right.

The original plan (with drawings) was for a new training facility at Moorabin.

But a fruit-loop called Topsy scuppered that plan forever.

[Dr Spaceman]

The original plan though was to play in new facilities at Moorabbin. I'll be eternally disappointed that that didn't eventuate.

From a selfish point of view, I can't see myself getting down to Seaford more than once every couple of years, for it's just too far away.

U serious? Its not like you need to make an overnight stay or anything.... its only Seaford after all! The ground, the facilities, everything about Moorabin was either outdated or dangerous... and didn't Kingston stuff us around? State of the art training facilities, cheaper facilities, only an extra 20 minutes drive down the road... we have a huge supporter base down here in the South East and I am not upset by the move at all.

If you guys are so jealous of the filth, go join em...

Winmar is right.

The original plan (with drawings) was for a new training facility at Moorabin.

But a fruit-loop called Topsy scuppered that plan forever.

Yep they were the plans but for whatever reason they ain't gonna happen.

Just like we're not going to win the flag this year.

No point complaining about either.

The fact that a Moorabbin upgrade would have been favoured by the majority doesn't mean Seaford will be anything less than a success.

[St Ick]

The original plan though was to play in new facilities at Moorabbin. I'll be eternally disappointed that that didn't eventuate.

From a selfish point of view, I can't see myself getting down to Seaford more than once every couple of years, for it's just too far away.

U serious? Its not like you need to make an overnight stay or anything.... its only Seaford after all! The ground, the facilities, everything about Moorabin was either outdated or dangerous... and didn't Kingston stuff us around? State of the art training facilities, cheaper facilities, only an extra 20 minutes drive down the road... we have a huge supporter base down here in the South East and I am not upset by the move at all.

If you guys are so jealous of the filth, go join em...

Winmar is right.

The original plan (with drawings) was for a new training facility at Moorabin.

But a fruit-loop called Topsy scuppered that plan forever.

Yep they were the plans but for whatever reason they ain't gonna happen.

Just like we're not going to win the flag this year.

No point complaining about either.

The fact that a Moorabbin upgrade would have been favoured by the majority doesn't mean Seaford will be anything less than a success.

Sorry, the u serious comment was regarding the Seaford is just too far away comment, its really not the far!!

[spert]

Should gone back to the Junction Oval and redeveloped! Anyway, we need top class training facilities to compete with the Collingwoods of the world, and if Seaford offers that, then it's good for the club, though it could have been done at Moorabbin if both sides hadn't been so pig-headed and basically stupid.

[Life Long Saint]

Thomas selecting Ball when Butterss wanted and urged him to take Judd has cost us probably three premierships already!

Two things on this statement.

1. If I was a senior coach and the president came to me and urged me to select a player, I'd tell him to piss off! I would then remind the President that I am the senior coach and responsible for the on-field performance of the football club. I would also be prepared to live and die by my decisions.

2. Subsequent interviews with John Beveridge have revealed that they were confident of getting both Ball and Judd with picks 2 and 5 that year. It was thought that with Judd's suspect shoulders and being a Victorian that neither the Eagles nor Dockers would take Judd with their early picks. They knew that Ball would never last that long given his rating. So the decision was made to take Ball at 2 and get Judd at 5.

Hindsight drafting is the easiest game in town and it is no surprise how many "Monday Experts" appear after the race is run.

[saintsRrising]

2. Subsequent interviews with John Beveridge have revealed that they were confident of getting both Ball and Judd with picks 2 and 5 that year. It was thought that with Judd's suspect shoulders and being a Victorian that neither the Eagles nor Dockers would take Judd with their early picks. They knew that Ball would never last that long given his rating. So the decision was made to take Ball at 2 and get Judd at 5.
.

Though , and yes I already knew the story, that is what pissed me off.

That we stuffed up not because of how we rated a player....but that after rating him highly we went in a draft with the dumb belief that another club would not have similar ratings.

It was and and is a national draft...and at the very pointy end of the draft you just go with whom you belief is the very best player. Later picks are for addressing list balance etc.

Beveridge's admission, is an admission of a huge stuff up. Make no mistake. Picking players by second guessing whom another club might take is the height of stupidity.


Armitage and the like I have no real issue with as they do seem to have been reasoned draft picks., taken on where they rated the talent to be.


However with Ball and Howard it is WTF were they thinking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Con Gorozidis]

You may not see Seaford as an issue but a couple of assistant coaches, the list manager, staff in the marketing and membership departments, along with a few top 10 senior StK players DO have an issue with the move to Seaford.

EXACTLY!

The club is literally heading further south and our premiership window has possibly only a couple of more seasons to run!

When we are trying to compete with the likes of Collingwood who have the Westpac Centre, the board have signed off on a white elephant sold to them by a CEO who left only months later!

This will bite us big time!

The only positive I can see about Seaford is that it does not cost much, so when the inevitable happens and it turns into an absolute disaster, we will look for a new home closer to St Kilda, in about 10 years time!

It will eventually make it increasingly more difficult to attract quality players to our club, when competing with the likes of Collingwood with an inner city location!

St Kilda is the most marketable suburb in Victoria and one of the most marketable suburbs in Australia and it is just plain stupid, to even further dilute and distance the football club from the place that gives this club it's name!

When Rod Butterss was voted out, he was actively seeking to establish the club as close to St Kilda as possible!

Even Ross Lyon made the comment " the challenges that Seaford presents" when asked about the departure of Leigh Tudor!

If there is one tradition the club is continuing, it's the capacity to once again shoot itself in the foot!

agree. if we had bigger balls wed just take over the junction. would be an awesome training base. or better do some kind of deal at MSAC. How many ovals are there i albert park near msac. surely we could have taken of them over?

wed be the envy of the afl and every player would want to live/play/train for us if we were based in st kilda/albert park.

[Con Gorozidis]

I have been critical of Ross Lyon saying he was a bad development coach.

However after seeing a recent presentation (courtesy of the pies) - i think its not lyons fault but an organisational issue at the saints:

Saints recruiting/List development expenses in 2009 was $480,000 (13th in AFL)
Pies was $1.2 m (2nd in AFL)

[meher baba]

2. Subsequent interviews with John Beveridge have revealed that they were confident of getting both Ball and Judd with picks 2 and 5 that year. It was thought that with Judd's suspect shoulders and being a Victorian that neither the Eagles nor Dockers would take Judd with their early picks. They knew that Ball would never last that long given his rating. So the decision was made to take Ball at 2 and get Judd at 5.
.

Though , and yes I already knew the story, that is what pissed me off.

That we stuffed up not because of how we rated a player....but that after rating him highly we went in a draft with the dumb belief that another club would not have similar ratings.

It was and and is a national draft...and at the very pointy end of the draft you just go with whom you belief is the very best player. Later picks are for addressing list balance etc.

Beveridge's admission, is an admission of a huge stuff up. Make no mistake. Picking players by second guessing whom another club might take is the height of stupidity.


Armitage and the like I have no real issue with as they do seem to have been reasoned draft picks., taken on where they rated the talent to be.


However with Ball and Howard it is WTF were they thinking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hang on, though, sRr: was there anything in what Bevo said that suggested that the club actually preferred Judd to Ball?

I had always taken what he said as meaning that the club marginally preferred Ball, so they would pick him first, but were also hopeful that things would turn out so that they get Judd as well.

It's easy with the benefit of hindsight to say that Judd was clearly a better choice. However, at the time, there didn't seem to be a lot between them.

We are talking about a choice made 9 years ago between two top quality juniors, one of whom developed into a superstar and the other who has battled with injury but has still given good service to two clubs. Both currently have the same number of premiership medallions.

My continuing view on all of this is that, if B4E's story about GT's view prevailing over RB's is actually true (and people who have connections to the club than me have told me that it is rubbish), then I'm glad that the coach's view - even though in some ways it turned out to be the wrong view - prevailed over that of the Club President.

But, then, I don't suffer from an obsessive hatred of GT and everything that he ever did.

[barks4eva]

My continuing view on all of this is that, if B4E's story about GT's view prevailing over RB's is actually true (and people who have connections to the club than me have told me that it is rubbish), then I'm glad that the coach's view - even though in some ways it turned out to be the wrong view - prevailed over that of the Club President.

Butterss coached Judd in the under 14's at Sandringham

He urged Thomas to consider taking Judd with our first selection, but of course did not have the final say on recruiting matters!

Is that any clearer for you?

[saintspremiers]

2. Subsequent interviews with John Beveridge have revealed that they were confident of getting both Ball and Judd with picks 2 and 5 that year. It was thought that with Judd's suspect shoulders and being a Victorian that neither the Eagles nor Dockers would take Judd with their early picks. They knew that Ball would never last that long given his rating. So the decision was made to take Ball at 2 and get Judd at 5.
.

Though , and yes I already knew the story, that is what pissed me off.

That we stuffed up not because of how we rated a player....but that after rating him highly we went in a draft with the dumb belief that another club would not have similar ratings.

It was and and is a national draft...and at the very pointy end of the draft you just go with whom you belief is the very best player. Later picks are for addressing list balance etc.

Beveridge's admission, is an admission of a huge stuff up. Make no mistake. Picking players by second guessing whom another club might take is the height of stupidity.


Armitage and the like I have no real issue with as they do seem to have been reasoned draft picks., taken on where they rated the talent to be.


However with Ball and Howard it is WTF were they thinking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We stuffed up also in 1990 with this theory when we wanted get Phil Krakeour to St Kilda - the club bypassed in the November draft and promised to take him in the pre-season March draft because he had a injury.

But Footscray drafted him instead in March, much to his disgust, as he wanted to be a Saint and play again with his brother.

So there you go - we could've had both Krakeour's at our club in the early 90's, and who knows what would've happend???

This is from an impeccable source by the way.....

[Life Long Saint]

My continuing view on all of this is that, if B4E's story about GT's view prevailing over RB's is actually true (and people who have connections to the club than me have told me that it is rubbish), then I'm glad that the coach's view - even though in some ways it turned out to be the wrong view - prevailed over that of the Club President.

Butterss coached Judd in the under 14's at Sandringham

He urged Thomas to consider taking Judd with our first selection, but of course did not have the final say on recruiting matters!

Is that any clearer for you?

Substitute the names Buterss and Thomas with Kennett and Clarkson (or McGuire and Malthouse) and retell the story and then decide whether the President should be giving the coach suggestions at the draft table.

Didn't you ever watch the club? Graeme Kennedy bursting into the coaching box to berate Jack Thompson for not playing a player...The minute the administration dictate the playing list to the football department, you are gone!

[plugger66]

My continuing view on all of this is that, if B4E's story about GT's view prevailing over RB's is actually true (and people who have connections to the club than me have told me that it is rubbish), then I'm glad that the coach's view - even though in some ways it turned out to be the wrong view - prevailed over that of the Club President.

Butterss coached Judd in the under 14's at Sandringham

He urged Thomas to consider taking Judd with our first selection, but of course did not have the final say on recruiting matters!

Is that any clearer for you?

That is 100% untrue which IMO makes it a lie.

[saintspremiers]

My continuing view on all of this is that, if B4E's story about GT's view prevailing over RB's is actually true (and people who have connections to the club than me have told me that it is rubbish), then I'm glad that the coach's view - even though in some ways it turned out to be the wrong view - prevailed over that of the Club President.

Butterss coached Judd in the under 14's at Sandringham

He urged Thomas to consider taking Judd with our first selection, but of course did not have the final say on recruiting matters!

Is that any clearer for you?

That is 100% untrue which IMO makes it a lie.

so who did RB coach then Andy, sorry plugger66?