So why keep him on as a rookie if he's no chance of being elevated? And in another post you bemoaned our lack of centre square clearance players. Valenti is probably our 3rd best clearance player after McLean and McDonald.

As a back up for if other preferred players get injured like McLean, Moloney and Mc Donald and if he can exhibit improvement in the areas where the coaches clearly have question marks. On Saturday we only had McLean in the midfield (no Moloney or McDonald) hence my comment.

One thing that I would like to see is a definitive answer from MFC, or the AFL, as regards the veterans on our list. As I understand it, a club can declare eligable players as veterans and get up to half their salary put outside the cap; this only needs to be done if the club has to do it to remain under its salary cap. If you have no veterans you can nominate two rookies as eligable to play seniors without needing a long term injury; with one veteran, you can nominate one. If you recall, this is what we did with Davey.

The lack of information in this area when it should be readily available and transparent is very frustrating.

One thing that I would like to see is a definitive answer from MFC, or the AFL, as regards the veterans on our list. As I understand it, a club can declare eligable players as veterans and get up to half their salary put outside the cap; this only needs to be done if the club has to do it to remain under its salary cap. If you have no veterans you can nominate two rookies as eligable to play seniors without needing a long term injury; with one veteran, you can nominate one. If you recall, this is what we did with Davey.

The lack of information in this area when it should be readily available and transparent is very frustrating.

Robbo and Jnr are on the veterans list

Newton...GONE.

Robbo and Jnr are on the veterans list

That dates back to October and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. As I see it, this was an intention, but, why would we need to have veterans? I simply do not believe we are in any danger of breaching our 92.5% of the salary cap, so why do something that we did not have to do when we knew we had Valenti and Spencer as rookies that we would like to play seniors?

That dates back to October and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. As I see it, this was an intention, but, why would we need to have veterans? I simply do not believe we are in any danger of breaching our 92.5% of the salary cap, so why do something that we did not have to do when we knew we had Valenti and Spencer as rookies that we would like to play seniors?

Very good question to ask.

Surely there is a logical explaination but I keep coming up with blanks. I could understand the decision taken not to premote valenti but to keep 2 on the veterans list I just can't see the logic. I sure somebody can explain

That dates back to October and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. As I see it, this was an intention, but, why would we need to have veterans? I simply do not believe we are in any danger of breaching our 92.5% of the salary cap, so why do something that we did not have to do when we knew we had Valenti and Spencer as rookies that we would like to play seniors?

At that point it was not clear where we positioned with Carroll's final year. And were all contracts finalised at that point. Chris Johnsons wasnt. It gave assurance and flexibility to MFC that having Robbo and Junior on the vets list.

If we wanted Valenti on the senior list we would have taken on the list period. The coaching panel didn't think that and chose and drafted others before him.

At the end of last year, Spencer was promising but green and expected to be one year or so away from playing. If he continues his development like we saw on Saturday he could easily take the No 1 ruck mantle and still be a rookie!.

How far is Robbo away? Can he be put on the LT injury list? I would think all going well Spencer would be first in line for an elevation should there be an injury and the retirement during the year.

How far is Robbo away? Can he be put on the LT injury list? I would think all going well Spencer would be first in line for an elevation should there be an injury and the retirement during the year.

I read in the Age Robbo was about 6 weeks away, so putting him on the LTI wouldn't really be an option as he would be ready to go by round 2 or 3

I read in the Age Robbo was about 6 weeks away, so putting him on the LTI wouldn't really be an option as he would be ready to go by round 2 or 3

6 weeks away??

He is barely doing lap work at the moment according to those who have attended training.

He has done no substantive pre season and has participated in little of the group drills.

He has had a bad tear of his achilles and is around 30.

Well I know he bleeds red and blue but he is going to have to train the proverbial house down to be back in such a short time. I had understood some time ago that he would be AFL ready by the half way point of the year.

6 weeks away??

He is barely doing lap work at the moment according to those who have attended training.

He has done no substantive pre season and has participated in little of the group drills.

He has had a bad tear of his achilles and is around 30.

Well I know he bleeds red and blue but he is going to have to train the proverbial house down to be back in such a short time. I had understood some time ago that he would be AFL ready by the half way point of the year.

There is a small mention of it here

towards the bottom.

My understanding is, if he is on the LTI list he can't play for Casey either, so he may be 6 or so weeks away from real running, but we can't put him on there so we can play him at Casey..I could be wrong though

6 weeks away??

He is barely doing lap work at the moment according to those who have attended training.

He has done no substantive pre season and has participated in little of the group drills.

He has had a bad tear of his achilles and is around 30.

Well I know he bleeds red and blue but he is going to have to train the proverbial house down to be back in such a short time. I had understood some time ago that he would be AFL ready by the half way point of the year.

I wonder then if we can put robbo on the LTI now and if he is fit mid year use the mid year elivation to keep spencer on the list. Interesting....

Also spencer may not be up to a full season so if he was to play rd 1 he may be due for a break mid season any way. I wonder if his form continues if he will be elevated for rd 1?

There is a small mention of it here

towards the bottom.

My understanding is, if he is on the LTI list he can't play for Casey either, so he may be 6 or so weeks away from real running, but we can't put him on there so we can play him at Casey..I could be wrong though

I know Robbo is keen but my understanding is that given the factors outlined he is probably up to 12 weeks off Casey. There may be a window in that time. I agree you cant play him at Casey if he is on the LTI list

I have been high on Newton for a few years now.

Never really thought much of Juice but I've had enough watching him. No more Juice pls.

http://melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle...31/default.aspx

Bate to spend more time at FF. The red Pav.

No it isnt. Jamar is filling a spot and is No 1 ruck by default. Spencer showed why PJ is a 200cm rover. PJ cant mark over his head and cant kick goals when he indeed is given the opportunity. We recruited Grimes, Bennell, Jetta, Bail, Maric and Blease

and they are well ahead of where Valenti is.

Nick Sautner did not block Zomer. Zomer struggled at VFL 2nds and did not push for inclusion. Given Neitz retired mid season and we gave Newton some free runs in the AFL, there was stacks of opportunity.

If Zomer has anything, he is a good chance to for future years. Its a big hope and he may not even make it.

And its not common for side to call up a rookie on the main due to LTI. If MFC does have this, Spencer is a real chance. The others are not even in cooee.

tbh Zomer has more chance of making it as a ruckman than a forward. Has a decent set of hands but not many tricks and isn't a great kick.

Now he's at Casey I'll probably be able to watch him a bit more (hopefully he plays the praccy match against Box Hill) and make a better judgement but he has a fair few ? hanging over him. Kicked 7 in one 2s game but otherwise the reports given sounded like typical him - thinks he's much better than what he is

tbh Zomer has more chance of making it as a ruckman than a forward. Has a decent set of hands but not many tricks and isn't a great kick.

Now he's at Casey I'll probably be able to watch him a bit more (hopefully he plays the praccy match against Box Hill) and make a better judgement but he has a fair few ? hanging over him. Kicked 7 in one 2s game but otherwise the reports given sounded like typical him - thinks he's much better than what he is

He has few tricks and isnt a great kick he wont make it as a ruckman either.

Not enough tricks though imo.

And even if you don't think he'll make it as a ruckman I still reckon that's his best shot

As a back up (Valenti) for if other preferred players get injured like McLean, Moloney and Mc Donald and if he can exhibit improvement in the areas where the coaches clearly have question marks. On Saturday we only had McLean in the midfield (no Moloney or McDonald) hence my comment.

Don't forget Jones now.

If your puting Valenti ahead of Jones, I'm with you.

Don't forget Jones now.

If your puting Valenti ahead of Jones, I'm with you.

I'm not.

i rate valenti heaps. But jones atm would be a notch above shane.

I'm not. (Puting Jones above Valenti.)

Yes you are. You said as much when you said the MFC only had McLean on Sat vs Hawks, in the mid-field.

You just can't admit it.

i rate valenti heaps. But jones atm would be a notch above shane.

Why is Jones ahead? I love his attack and intent, but:

1. he doesn't get the ball when he really needs to

2. he has one pace - did you watch him 'pace' (chase) Young down the wing in the 3rd term on Sat vs hawks? Could not run out of sight on a dark night.

3. his delivery is errhhh..... ordinary

Jones==NO!

Never really thought much of Juice but I've had enough watching him. No more Juice pls.

http://melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle...31/default.aspx

Bate to spend more time at FF. The red Pav.

I've always thought FF was where Bate would be most value.

He's tall enough, strong enough, and quick enough over short distances to be a good, lead-up target.

He also has some smarts about him (knowing where to lead, double-leading etc.), hopefully he gets an extended run as FF.

I've always thought FF was where Bate would be most value.

He's tall enough, strong enough, and quick enough over short distances to be a good, lead-up target.

He also has some smarts about him (knowing where to lead, double-leading etc.), hopefully he gets an extended run as FF.

The one thing I was struck with when he first played for us was how sticky his hands were over head. Didn't see a lot of it last year but the whole team (apart from Green and Wona in patches) seemed to struggle with the simplest things. If Bate can get the sticky fingers back there is no reason he couldn't be a 3 goal a game forward for us.

Yes you are. You said as much when you said the MFC only had McLean on Sat vs Hawks, in the mid-field.

You just can't admit it.

I dont rate Valenti and Jones played poorly.

Why is Jones ahead? I love his attack and intent, but:

1. he doesn't get the ball when he really needs to

2. he has one pace - did you watch him 'pace' (chase) Young down the wing in the 3rd term on Sat vs hawks? Could not run out of sight on a dark night.

3. his delivery is errhhh..... ordinary

Jones==NO!

And you rate Valenti?

Ask yourself why the MFC Footy Dept after looking closely at Valenti over a number of years have him as a rookie and have Jones on the main list. No better still, dont ask.

Why is Jones ahead? I love his attack and intent, but:

1. he doesn't get the ball when he really needs to

2. he has one pace - did you watch him 'pace' (chase) Young down the wing in the 3rd term on Sat vs hawks? Could not run out of sight on a dark night.

3. his delivery is errhhh..... ordinary

Jones==NO!

the main problem with jones is he needs to give off the first option, not get into trouble. Should be easily able to be worked on