Disagree. I for one was livid when we gave him 2 years this time last year.

Why would Sydney part with pick 6 to get a hack and a slow, stock midfielder and a worse pick? Newton is unproven and very likely to be a failure at AFL. Plus they've already got Jesse White, who'se a far brighter prospect than Newton is or ever was. Plus Sydney doesn't need another hard-nosed midfielder. And they lose pick 6, when they are crying out for quality youth.

i agree, but apparantley Jones is quality according to some on this website. he would suit their gameplan/style though

i agree, but apparantley Jones is quality according to some on this website. he would suit their gameplan/style though

Yes but that trade you proposed gives Sydney Jones and pick 18 (I'm ignoring Newton because he has no currency) and gives us pick 6 and another pick. Sydney loses on all fronts. They'd never do that.

we wont ask for another pick then

Disagree. I for one was livid when we gave him 2 years this time last year.

It's standard practice to commit to a younger player for two years at a time. I challenge you to find anyone under about 26 who has been given less than two years in recent times. I bet that unless you're dealing with a player who has a chronic injury, you're not going to find anyone at any club of that age who has had their club hedge their bets on a one year deal.

It was either zero years or two at the time. Obviously there was a compelling case for zero at the time, but I don't begrudge the club for giving him the two in a final chance to have him deliver.

Brock didn't say anything anyone didn't know already, not least Newton. He's quite complimentary really. Don't think the criticism of brocks comments is justified really. Yeah, in the modern day football media world we seem to expect nothing more from players than buzz phrases like 'one week at a time', but really we should be praising honesty. its refreshing.

i agree, but apparantley Jones is quality according to some on this website. he would suit their gameplan/style though

Why do people think anyone who is an in and under player will go to the Swans? They have a heap of them all ready why would they want any more?

we wont ask for another pick then

So, in effect you are paying WAY over the odds to get a high draft pick and move on a dud who could easily see out his contract in the VFL at little consequence.

The swans may as well give us the extra pick as they wouldn't be able to use it - every team has only so much space on their list.

Trades don't work when you trade something that takes up one spot on a list for what effectively takes up 3 spots.

Your plan falls flat on its face.

Disagree. I for one was livid when we gave him 2 years this time last year.

Fair enough...

Would you be willing to back your judgement on all 40+ players on the list? Will you go 40 for 40, year-in-year-out?

Personally I had all but written Sylvia off, and really wanted to see him moved on. There's every chance now that sticking fat with him will pay dividends. His problem was, in part, mental too.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you consider the REASON they retained him, it makes perfect sense, and is well within reason. Maybe you don't agree. Let's just say if the players they back to repay faith, even the long shots, end up delisted... and it happens a LOT then perhaps it's time to have a closer look.

Another thing to look at, and this is the job of more clever internet freaks, is the prospective draftees when Juice was last signed. Did the club think there wasn't anything coming up in the late picks? We've stocked up the last few seasons like crazy, and off the top of my head, none of our delistings have caused me any distress. From memory I think they just went with the "keep the kids, offload the oldies" rule. Didn't work too well with some of them, but then, the odds of late picks making it are always slim.

It's standard practice to commit to a younger player for two years at a time. I challenge you to find anyone under about 26 who has been given less than two years in recent times. I bet that unless you're dealing with a player who has a chronic injury, you're not going to find anyone at any club of that age who has had their club hedge their bets on a one year deal.

It was either zero years or two at the time. Obviously there was a compelling case for zero at the time, but I don't begrudge the club for giving him the two in a final chance to have him deliver.

Spot-on Nash. Your common sense is a welcome addition to this discussion

I agree we should try to trade him, but there's only one good reason why you'd pay out his contract and four very good reasons why he'll stay.

Pro's to paying out Newton:

1. He is no longer on the list.

Cons to paying out Newton:

1. It's dead money - or more to the point a complete waste of money.

2. It's either added on to the TPP for this year or next which may mean one less senior vacancy while we pay out his contract.

3. The AFL and wider Footy Community ask serious questions about why we should receive funding when we can't even manage something as simple as player contracts (once again appearing to be the biggest amateurs in a professional competition).

4. Players and their managers become concerned that a contract with Melbourne is not really worth anything. (You want these people to be confident in how you approach business not rolling their eyes and taking a deep breath)

I agree this is a top post. However, could Melbourne go to Newton and try and get his agreement to delist him on the basis

Melbourne are trying to do what's best for the player!

If we delist him he

A/ Gets to nominate for the draft

and if he doesn't get picked up ... most lightly scenario because I'm sure Dees will shop him around and even do a "King - St Kilda" type deal

B/ He gets to move to say another VFL club, SANFL club or a WAFL club where he would get more opportunities than what he will get at the Scorpions.

Personally if I was Michael Newton ... I would want B rather than stay at a club where I'm going to be "limited" for opportunities.

Or he could back himself and try to improve his game and keep his spot.

Or he could back himself and try to improve his game and keep his spot.

Another good outcome for us ... then I agree with gazzman and we are forced to keep him if we cant get him to go of his own accord.

Disagree. I for one was livid when we gave him 2 years this time last year.

I agree with your disagree. Livid?? You're sweating the small stuff aren't you? We recontracted no 38 on our list for 2 years and your livid?

Why would Sydney part with pick 6 to get a hack and a slow, stock midfielder and a worse pick? Newton is unproven and very likely to be a failure at AFL. Plus they've already got Jesse White, who'se a far brighter prospect than Newton is or ever was. Plus Sydney doesn't need another hard-nosed midfielder. And they lose pick 6, when they are crying out for quality youth.

Agree.

It's standard practice to commit to a younger player for two years at a time. I challenge you to find anyone under about 26 who has been given less than two years in recent times. I bet that unless you're dealing with a player who has a chronic injury, you're not going to find anyone at any club of that age who has had their club hedge their bets on a one year deal.

It was either zero years or two at the time. Obviously there was a compelling case for zero at the time, but I don't begrudge the club for giving him the two in a final chance to have him deliver.

This is all true. What I meant was, at the time, I didn't think he was worthy of a new contract (no mention of length).

Fair enough...

Would you be willing to back your judgement on all 40+ players on the list? Will you go 40 for 40, year-in-year-out?

Of course not, I was just saying that not everyone was happy to see him get his new contract.

FWIW, if I was to back my judgement, I'd be no better than 50-50. I too thought Sylvia was gone.

I agree with your disagree. Livid?? You're sweating the small stuff aren't you? We recontracted no 38 on our list for 2 years and your livid?

OK then, livid might have been a bit of an exaggeration...

The point remains, I wasn't (and still am not) happy with Newton getting a new contract. He did nothing this year to make me think otherwise, and I don't expect him to do anything next year.

This is all true. What I meant was, at the time, I didn't think he was worthy of a new contract (no mention of length).

Of course not, I was just saying that not everyone was happy to see him get his new contract.

FWIW, if I was to back my judgement, I'd be no better than 50-50. I too thought Sylvia was gone.

OK then, livid might have been a bit of an exaggeration...

The point remains, I wasn't (and still am not) happy with Newton getting a new contract. He did nothing this year to make me think otherwise, and I don't expect him to do anything next year.

There's every chance that a club like the Bulldogs who need a key forward might be interested in him. He would probably go better as a forward with some of their silky skilled midfielders passing the ball to him than at Melbourne.

There's every chance that a club like the Bulldogs who need a key forward might be interested in him. He would probably go better as a forward with some of their silky skilled midfielders passing the ball to him than at Melbourne.

Agree 100%. Trade him for something like pick 79 from the Dogs and he clears a spot on Melbourne's list and he'd be out of contract at the Dogs in a year if he didn't work out and would have cost them nothing. A win for both clubs.