We pick them up with a relevant picks or we reneg on our promise, pay them out (or at least one of them), and get the 6th best player left.

The question I have is whether we did or did not make a commitment in the first place? It was suggested in the media that we did but I would like someone to point out where a club official is quoted saying we would definitely take the player in the rookie draft. Under the rules it's not an obligation if we pay out the player concerned.

The question I have is whether we did or did not make a commitment in the first place? It was suggested in the media that we did but I would like someone to point out where a club official is quoted saying we would definitely take the player in the rookie draft. Under the rules it's not an obligation if we pay out the player concerned.

As I have said elsewhere, unless we get the consent of the player I don't think we will reneg. It depends on exactly what we have agreed with the players. Again if we were to suggest that they would be paid out in full and that they were free to play for anyone in any league and earn extra money they may be prepared to give their consent. I would certainly try to free up at least one more spot. I would also try the same approach with Hughes. He has been on our rookie lists for a few years in total.

Tim Harrington has said we intend to pick up Newton and Meesen if they aint picked up by another club in the ND and PSD.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsart...74/default.aspx

But after the ND. Have our intentions changed?

The inclusion of Gawn and Fitzpatrick on our list could possibly have made us rethink.

I think it would be in the clubs best interest to try young talent with both rookie selections. We should at least have an open mind and see who slips through after the Gold Coast first 5 selections. A Grimes, Panos, Joe Dare, Patrick or Daw etc would be very tempting.

THE MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB IS BIGGER THAN THE INDIVIDUAL AND DECISIONS SHOULD BE BASED ON WHATS BEST FOR THE CLUB!!!!

THE MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB IS BIGGER THAN THE INDIVIDUAL AND DECISIONS SHOULD BE BASED ON WHATS BEST FOR THE CLUB!!!!

I agree, but I don't think pulling the rug out from under two players we have made a commitment to is in the best interests of the club either. Not drafting them invites a world of pain that extends beyond the financial aspect.

I agree, but I don't think pulling the rug out from under two players we have made a commitment to is in the best interests of the club either. Not drafting them invites a world of pain that extends beyond the financial aspect.

Or point is valid and the club has put itself in a catch 22 I believe!

The club or Tim Harrington should have closed there mouth and told Newton and Meesen nothing is guaranteed. Contracted or not!

This is the last compromised draft before the Gold Coast and West Sydney come to play!

Or point is valid and the club has put itself in a catch 22 I believe!

The club or Tim Harrington should have closed there mouth and told Newton and Meesen nothing is guaranteed. Contracted or not!

The club went down this path as a PR exercise - delisting two contracted players but paying them their full contract on the RL is much more appealing to everyone then a straight-out payment of the contract and deletion.

It doesn't look good when you don't honour contracts to solid AFL citizens, and their apparent troubles with development, form, or injuries are beside the point. That's football; players don't come on for various reasons but unless a breach of the contract has been made (Carroll) then it is difficult to pay-out players without displeasing AFL heavies (for wasted $$), player managers (for burning players), and the players themselves (who would lose faith in a contract from the MFC).

You can delist them though.

But there will be repercussions...

We need to meet our commitment to re-draft Meesen and Newton in the rookie draft if they are available. It's important that they have their agreed opportunity on an AFL list. They get paid in full whether they are picked up or not. We've had our advantage from this tactic - we've got 2 of Gawn, Fitzpatrick and MacDonald that we wouldn't have otherwise had.

I'm assuming Richmond and Essendon wont take either in the PSD, there may be some further delists but I'd be amazed if they were to accommodate Meesen and Newton in the PSD. GC may draft one or other - they need mature bodies, particularly in the ruck, to compete at VFL level. Hawthorn and Port are also in the market for mature rucks so may take Meesen. I'm unconvinced by WC and Freos ruck depth too. There's a number of scenarios where one or both may be selected.

I'm assuming Richmond and Essendon wont take either in the PSD, there may be some further delists but I'd be amazed if they were to accommodate Meesen and Newton in the PSD. GC may draft one or other - they need mature bodies, particularly in the ruck, to compete at VFL level. Hawthorn and Port are also in the market for mature rucks so may take Meesen. I'm unconvinced by WC and Freos ruck depth too. There's a number of scenarios where one or both may be selected.

There is a chance GC could draft one, they do need mature bodies. They have the first five picks of the rookie draft, with Melbourne at pick 6.

We need to meet our commitment to re-draft Meesen and Newton in the rookie draft if they are available. It's important that they have their agreed opportunity on an AFL list. They get paid in full whether they are picked up or not. We've had our advantage from this tactic - we've got 2 of Gawn, Fitzpatrick and MacDonald that we wouldn't have otherwise had.

Agreed. Unless either or both agree to be delisted and paid out, I dont think its in MFC long term interests to do so unilaterally.

There is a chance GC could draft one, they do need mature bodies. They have the first five picks of the rookie draft, with Melbourne at pick 6.

Meesen cant get his body right for AFL so its not much of a mature body. And Newton lacks the maturity above the shoulders particularly for such a young group of players. Surely there must be better options then two "cast offs" from a bottom dwelling club.

Agreed. Unless either or both agree to be delisted and paid out, I dont think its in MFC long term interests to do so unilaterally.

Meesen cant get his body right for AFL so its not much of a mature body. And Newton lacks the maturity above the shoulders particularly for such a young group of players. Surely there must be better options then two "cast offs" from a bottom dwelling club.

Do not Agree- re last chance this coming year-great strategic move by the club to recruit and place these two as rookies.They will be able to keep them as rookies for the next two years if necessary or the club wants them. As human beings, we are all different Rhino, all mature differently - so get off your soap box and give them a go.Don't be negative.

Edited November 30, 200915 yr by jayceebee31

As human beings, we are all different Rhino, all mature differently - so get off your soap box and give them a go.

Just dealing with the reality of the situation JCB but dont you fall off your pillar.

They both should have been delisted!

Looks like we will just have to deal with picking them both up again. A total waste or will it be a big wake up call for both players to pull there finger out. They wont be on our list next if they cant play senior football.

I would really consider cutting them loose now if we can without too much difficulty!

I cant see either of them in our best 22.

They both should have been delisted!

They were.

Looks like we will just have to deal with picking them both up again. A total waste or will it be a big wake up call for both players to pull there finger out. They wont be on our list next if they cant play senior football.

I would really consider cutting them loose now if we can without too much difficulty!

Their willing removal from the list allowed us to get Gawn and Fitzpatrick. Incredibly selfless when you consider those two are competitors for the positions that Meesen and Newton, respectively, play.

And they were cut loose, which is how we got Gawn and Fitzpatrick.

I cant see either of them in our best 22.

I can't see the two rookies we would get instead of them in the 22 either...

Edited November 30, 200915 yr by rpfc

I can't see the two rookies we would get instead of them in the 22 either...

With Newton and Meesen we know what we are getting. CRAP!!!!!

2 new rookies could be a Dean Cox and dare I say it Liam Jurrah or Aaron Davey.

I know what I would prefer...

With Newton and Meesen we know what we are getting. CRAP!!!!!

2 new rookies could be a Dean Cox and dare I say it Liam Jurrah or Aaron Davey.

I know what I would prefer...

And when one of our really good players gets offered a contract by another team and his manager who is also manager of Newton or Meesen says to him "well you know the Demons don't honour their contracts and agreements ..."

I know what I would prefer ...

Edited November 30, 200915 yr by old55

The question I have is whether we did or did not make a commitment in the first place? It was suggested in the media that we did but I would like someone to point out where a club official is quoted saying we would definitely take the player in the rookie draft. Under the rules it's not an obligation if we pay out the player concerned.

I realise that this is late, but......

Committed to drafting back the 2 lads which means we have a full rookie list.

Tweeted in reply to a question about rookieing Grimes Jr. (Not to me.)

There is a chance GC could draft one.

More like NO CHANCE. This is just one of many stuff ups by Bailey he was far too soft when he came to the club.

I dont understand why everyone is going on about having to honoring the contract and keep them on rookie list.

The contract is x amount of money over x amount of years. There is no promise of playing games. As long as we pay them the money they are owed then we have upheld the contract. We have no restricted their chances to further their career, in fact quite the opposite we have opened them up to 3 drafts, ND, PSD and Rookie Draft giving them plenty of chances to continue their career. If they are not picked up its coz they are not good enough. As long as we pay them i feel like we have not done anything wrong by delisting them fully.

I hope they go.

More like NO CHANCE. This is just one of many stuff ups by Bailey he was far too soft when he came to the club.

Oh, yeah.

He hasn't made the hard decisions in getting rid of players...

I wonder if the posters on this site know that most of us remember the inane things you post.

I still remember WattsHappening? stating that Petterd should be delisted mid way through last season.

Just...think before you post.

I dont understand why everyone is going on about having to honoring the contract and keep them on rookie list.

The contract is x amount of money over x amount of years. There is no promise of playing games. As long as we pay them the money they are owed then we have upheld the contract. We have no restricted their chances to further their career, in fact quite the opposite we have opened them up to 3 drafts, ND, PSD and Rookie Draft giving them plenty of chances to continue their career. If they are not picked up its coz they are not good enough. As long as we pay them i feel like we have not done anything wrong by delisting them fully.

I hope they go.

Yeah, contracts are made to be 'paid out'.

We are 'going on' because it is not good business practice to show your stakeholders that a contract from the MFC isn't worth the toilet paper it is written on.

We made our bed, with Newton and Meesen helping us get the sheets out of the closet by agreeing to go on the RL, and we should sleep in it soundly, knowing that Gawn and Fitzpatrick are on the list because of the club and those two clubmen.

Yeah, contracts are made to be 'paid out'.

We are 'going on' because it is not good business practice to show your stakeholders that a contract from the MFC isn't worth the toilet paper it is written on.

We made our bed, with Newton and Meesen helping us get the sheets out of the closet by agreeing to go on the RL, and we should sleep in it soundly, knowing that Gawn and Fitzpatrick are on the list because of the club and those two clubmen.

Here here. This kind of greediness, get our own way at any cost sounds like Filth tactics to me.

And when one of our really good players gets offered a contract by another team and his manager who is also manager of Newton or Meesen says to him "well you know the Demons don't honour their contracts and agreements ..."

I know what I would prefer ...

This is the core point that many are failing to grasp.

Surely there must be better options then two "cast offs" from a bottom dwelling club.

I pretty much agree, but of the other names I've seen wanting to be picked up as a rookie (in terms of KPF or Ruck like Newton and Meesen), no other particular name(s) really jump out at me - and GC might be in need. They can take 2 mature age rookies and 3 players under 23. To use a expression from Mike Sheahan...what do you think ?

Edited December 1, 200915 yr by High Tower

I got the impression from reading the article in the age this morning that GC are intending to use their rookie picks to take experienced players to supplement their kids... that may include guys like Juice and Mees... maybe not, we'll know soon enough.

It might seem like a missed opportunity to redraft Meesen and Newton when there are more appealing types left for the Rookie Draft... but as HT said, none of them are the type that we really need.

Whats the point in picking up a couple of extra list cloggers that have minimal chance of being in our best 22?

Yes, you can find gold like Davey or Aussie, but its a big risk and I'd not take it if it costs MFC their reputation for seeing out contracts and for fair & reliable business dealings.

These things mean a lot to players and their managers, and I'm already sick of the whingeing by posters that no big names spurning trades/PSD to MFC even though we are the wooden spooner.

Burning Meesen and Newton will ensure this continues to happen even if we become a top 4 side.