Both players, as mature-aged rookie, have only the one year on their new contracts? Is that right?

They still have the same contract, expiring in 2010. In terms of list management, they are demoted to the rookie list, freeing up their position on the main list for new draft selections ... that is the biggest advantage to the club.

If they show any 'resurrected ability' in 2010, they could theoretically be upgraded back to the main list in 2011. They can also become nominated rookies and play where there is a long-term injury (although Meesen is himself a 'long-term' injury problem).

Neither player loses out financially in 2010 by being rookied.

Is this a smart way of tackling our gap in reaching the salary floor? More ND recruits means more salaries whilst also paying Meesen and Newton (I'm assuming despite going onto the rookie list they are still in our cap or am I wrong).

Edited November 10, 200915 yr by 1858

Are they both better off financially? As I understand it they get paid out for this year as senior listed players and then get a new rookie contract with us if not picked by someone else.

They are not being paid out this year. They are remaining on their contract with us for next year, until they are selected by another club.

If they are not selected, we rookie them, they remain on the contract they had previously, and do not get a rookie contract on top of that.

They are not being paid out this year. They are remaining on their contract with us for next year, until they are selected by another club.

Yeah, no worries. I edited that after reading the post above mine. Mine took ages to post as I was checking other stuff.

cheers.

Is this a smart way of tackling our gap in reaching the salary floor? More ND recruits means more salaries whilst also paying out Meesen and Newton.

It's another $100k.

$400k to go.

We could give Scully and Trengove another year and a pay rise, or we could put MacDonald or Thorp on a frontloaded contract.

Pretty sure you are right.

As is, removed from the primary senior list are: Robbo, Wheatley, Whelan, Newton, Meesen, Buckley. And Bruce elevated to veteran.

Therefore 7 picks. 1, 2, 11, 18, 34, 50, PSD1

Correct me if Im wrong.

I reckon it's 8 spots as McLean has obviously freed up a spot also.

Ok, so can someone explain this to me.

Both players, as mature-aged rookie, have only the one year on their new contracts? Is that right?

This would require a ruckman and KP forward to be badly injured for them to be able to play ANY football next year, LET ALONE enough to be able to retain a spot for 2011.

This is tantamount to the both of them being delisted at the end of next season. Essentially we have gotten both players as close to being delisted as we could given theri current contract situations...

Or did I miss something?

On the evidence of the last few years,we'll have more than enough injuries to keep all our rookies pretty active.

I reckon it's 8 spots as McLean has obviously freed up a spot also.

Buece's elevation allows you an additional rookie not a primary list player.

I reckon it's 8 spots as McLean has obviously freed up a spot also.

No, only 7. Bruce's nomination as a veteran ( in Robbo's place) does not create an extra spot on the list

What incentive do Newton and Meesen have to accept this? Surely they would both take the lump sum payout (if threatened that way by the club) and take their chances of getting re-drafted or rookied with another club.

What incentive do Newton and Meesen have to accept this? Surely they would both take the lump sum payout (if threatened that way by the club) and take their chances of getting re-drafted or rookied with another club.

They can still take their chance in the ND but as a rookie they have at least some chance to be elevated in 2010 on the back of good performance and injuries to competing players.

Realistically you would have to think they are finished in the AFL.

And this allow MFC to retain two of Bartram, TMac and Cheney.

They can still take their chance in the ND but as a rookie they have at least some chance to be elevated in 2010 on the back of good performance and injuries to competing players.

Realistically you would have to think they are finished in the AFL.

And this allow MFC to retain two of Bartram, TMac and Cheney.

Or all of them, as the case may be!

Bartram, McNamara, Cheney re-sign

Edited November 10, 200915 yr by MikeyJ

They can still take their chance in the ND but as a rookie they have at least some chance to be elevated in 2010 on the back of good performance and injuries to competing players.

Realistically you would have to think they are finished in the AFL.

Fair enough, and I agree that they are both finished. So if they are finished and they know it then why not take the payout now (makes sense financially) then nominate themselves for the draft?

Comparison:

Accept the 'demotion':

-No money up front

-Chance in ND

-Definite rookie list with MFC

Refuse the demotion and force a payout (or stay on list):

-1 year's salary up front

-Chance in ND

-Chance in rookie draft with any other club

Interestng choice that would be greatly affected by how 'realistic' the players are about their chances in the AFL.

Refuse the demotion and force a payout (or stay on list):

-1 year's salary up front

-Chance in ND

-Chance in rookie draft with any other club

I thought they could still be rookied with another club? If so, in essence they are recieving same money, getting a chance in ND and RD with security of Melbourne list if it comes to that.

Thanks to both.

personally I don't like this... I think Newton hasn't been given the opportunities he's deserved... Daniel Bell should count himself extremely lucky to still be on the senior list...

Fair enough, and I agree that they are both finished. So if they are finished and they know it then why not take the payout now (makes sense financially) then nominate themselves for the draft?

Comparison:

...

I think both players share our view that no club will go within a bull's roar of them.

personally I don't like this... I think Newton hasn't been given the opportunities he's deserved... Daniel Bell should count himself extremely lucky to still be on the senior list...

Although i m not a Newton supporter, given the lack of tall forwards on our list i must say i agree with you.

personally I don't like this... I think Newton hasn't been given the opportunities he's deserved... Daniel Bell should count himself extremely lucky to still be on the senior list...

I don't see much in the way of deserving application from Newton.

He's still connected to the club, and that's, arguably, more than he deserves.

I don't see much in the way of deserving application from Newton.

He's still connected to the club, and that's, arguably, more than he deserves.

Agree with that.

Good list management we are witnessing.

Or making the best of bad list management.

How did Newton get 2 years in the first place? Meesen getting 3 was generous but I'm prob less critical then Juice getting 2 and Bell getting an extra term when delist or one year deal were more in line.

Good result from the situation we found ourselves and looking forward to 1,2,1,18,34,50, PSD1.

Edited November 10, 200915 yr by jacey

Although i m not a Newton supporter, given the lack of tall forwards on our list i must say i agree with you.

keep in mind the FD have some idea as to whos about to come on board. They obviously feel now Newton is expendable ( welcome to the camp FD !! ) and now have the vehicle to facilitate either his exit or sever kick up the rear ( and into action )

Meesen is possibly a tad unlucky as I would have put Bell in his place. Meesen was starting to show something before injured , not a lot...but an improvement. Would have been keen to see that continue. maybe it will via magoos...probably wont.

Newton is on his 10th life

Could this move (esp as far as Newton is concerned) have anything to do with Mitch Thorp training with us? The idea being that it makes it safer to take Thorp in the PSD, because we're not left high-&-dry if he gets injured (etc.) with Newton as a fallback option.

And could the Meesen move mean that we'll see Martin more in the ruck this year? Otherwise, our ruck stocks are really fragile with Jamar who was fit for only a handful of games in 2009, & PJ who's only for 'back-up' at best, then a 'true' rookie in Spencer and a 'pseudo-rookie' in Meesen who may now be on his way out. Especially because all 4 of their contracts will finsh at end 2010.

Really rates where these guys are at currently if they thought MFC was a free and easy ride

they now know just how hard they're going to have to work to get a shot.

Hoping they can both lift and show some of their potential in consitent game time.

who ever we really really want we get via the PSD..if a recycled. All else must now be from teh ND for us and we need to be clever about our picks 18, 34 and 50.

It would now suggest Martin has his future cut out in the ruck, if only pinch hitting. Keep in mind there will be more coming on board next year...and a few more to go. The list isnt complete or 'quite right' yet...still a work in progress ( as it will always be ) just a hell of a lot closer to a very decent team than before