Read. My. Signature.

You better make it Size 72, and bold.

I realise they'll probably get the same concessions as GC; but will the 2010 draft also be "shallow" i.e. chosen from a reduced time frame? 12 months (January92 - December92, giving WS the 12 picks from January93 - April93) or 16 months (January92 - April93, coming back to normal)?

Every draft except 2009 has a full year block.

That is just common sense.

And the dates won't be changed back.

And 2010 will just be another normal draft except the best 12 from a four month block have been taken by GC17.

And can we put up a sticky.

Because I am getting frustrated...

An element for consideration ( for mine ) is the differing positions in the football team life cycle that the various teams find themselves at. This will vary according to ladder psition and more importantly the vision and backbone ( fortitude) of the teams with regard to rebuilding. We , MFC are well on our way to a successful rebuilding of our team. To some degree we can ease off selecting en mass and be more picky. Other teams just need to get masses of new bods into their fold and get restructuring. Those teams will be needing more draft picks... even if its 50, 60 or 70. We dont, not really. we will have 1 and 2 together with presently 18 and 34. I suspect wed be better off orchestrating some sort of trade for any of our peripheral players providing we can better 50..or even the 34 pick ( unlikley but possible )

If we can retain the 18 and have two others under 40 then we are doing well in my opinion. Id be happy enough to end up with 1, 2, 18, and say 28-30..a player swapped out...or 1, 2, and a quality player in trade whilst retaining something around 24-28

We will still have PSD1 and a rookie as options up the sleeve.

What are we trying to achieve with our picks ? Obviously Scully and Co for 1 and 2. Pick 18 or there abouts...will get us a decent mid-tall utilitarian type who may have some KPP potential. Id like to see us find a young Green type. Fourth pick as well as the rookie are projects.. probably talls. PSD ..well..either a lucky gem or its leverage.

Well there are some fantastic decisions. People get stuck into Wallace and Richmond for contracting Schulz and Oakley-Nicholls and Hughes and all the rest of their deadwood. Look at our list. We'll have Bell, Newton, Dunn and Johnson on it next year. None of whom should be in our Round 1 team, none of whom have bright futures, none of whom really deserve a spot on our list.

So, still looking for another three spots. Miller, Bartram, maybe Buckley?

Thanks for the dollop of hindsight.

Dunn will be competing for a spot in Round 1. Newtons resigning has been covered ad nauseam on this site. Cutting Johnson would be foolish given our limited ruck stocks. Bell is surplus. But its called list management and you need to manage the contracts and its difficult to line up the contract expries to match the perceptions of supporters.

I sure in twelve months time you can say that we should have got rid of them a year ago.

Miller Bartram, Buckley, Cheney and McNamara are in the gun as far as I am concerned.

Miller Bartram, Buckley, Cheney and McNamara are in the gun as far as I am concerned.

bit early on Cheney and Tommy I would have thought.. Not really been here long enough to call yet. Would tend to agree with the first 3 though.

bit early on Cheney and Tommy I would have thought.. Not really been here long enough to call yet. Would tend to agree with the first 3 though.

Dont know on that one....I am not sure Cheney has enough pace to go with the endeavour.

They could delist McNamara and rookie him...

I think the other three are at risk though.

Dont know on that one....I am not sure Cheney has enough pace to go with the endeavour.

They could delist McNamara and rookie him...

I think the other three are at risk though.

Problem is GC17 could/would be wise to that and pinch our young gun (remembering they do have the first 5 picks in the PSD.)

McNamara has shown enough so far I think in his 2 games to look a likely type

Roboo, Whealtey, Whelan... Bartram.. Miller... ... ?

You sure Johnson is contracted? If not, its him.

Problem is GC17 could/would be wise to that and pinch our young gun (remembering they do have the first 5 picks in the PSD.)

McNamara has shown enough so far I think in his 2 games to look a likely type

Roboo, Whealtey, Whelan... Bartram.. Miller... ... ?

You sure Johnson is contracted? If not, its him.

PJ has a furher year.. and as was pointed out to me its the Rookie draft GC have the first five. We still have PSD1 ( I think..lol ) .It does however mean as you highlight there is danger if attempting to delist and rookie someone.

Logic dictates if X amount are coming on board..then X must also go. We already know 3. There will be collateral damage but you have to prune in order to grow

PJ has a furher year.. and as was pointed out to me its the Rookie draft GC have the first five. We still have PSD1 ( I think..lol ) .It does however mean as you highlight there is danger if attempting to delist and rookie someone.

Logic dictates if X amount are coming on board..then X must also go. We already know 3. There will be collateral damage but you have to prune in order to grow

Oops. Yeah, I meant the rookie draft.

And its unfortunate the ones who look to have stopped growing are now contracted and the ones with an indefinite amount of growing left are incontracted... but they are the perils of list management due to its speculative nature.

Edited August 31, 200916 yr by Enforcer25

Jon Anderson (so take this with a grain of drunken salt) said on AW this morning that McNamara wants to go home and that we are keen to elevate McKenzie.

My view is McNamara is gone if this is true and McKenzie should stay on the RL as he has another year to go.

Jon Anderson (so take this with a grain of drunken salt) said on AW this morning that McNamara wants to go home and that we are keen to elevate McKenzie.

My view is McNamara is gone if this is true and McKenzie should stay on the RL as he has another year to go.

Then this would fall into play with any possible discussion with Port you would think. That or he'll just free up a possie. I would have thought we would still be entitled to something though.

Then this would fall into play with any possible discussion with Port you would think. That or he'll just free up a possie. I would have thought we would still be entitled to something though.

McNamara, Bell and pick 18

for

Boak, Salopek and pick 5,497

McNamara, Bell and pick 18

for

Boak, Salopek and pick 5,497

hell..id take Bell, McNamara and 18 for Boak OR Salopek !! ( oh...plus a pantek of Coopers Pale !! )

is win win for us ...lol

now where's Chocco's email.........