Getting back to Peanuts' incongrous argument about choosing a small profit at the expense of list management - the club has a list manager.

And a recruiting bloke.

Recruiting and list management used to be undertaken by the same person and now we pay two people to do the work.

That in itself should tell you that the club is spending money in the right areas to deliver the desired outcome - an effing flag.

I'm going to play Darth Vader on the decision to take Newton and Meesen in the RL - "Two Rookies do not concern me, Admiral. I want a flag."

So say we all, Darth.

So say we all.

If we desperately wanted another pick we would've delisted someone else anyway.

The club may have decided to get rid of Bartram in order to pick up someone like Panos or Grimes in the ND.

I dont think the Club is crowing over the profit. They know to well that the bottom line is favoured by things like the debt reduction moneys being taken as revenue in accordance with accounting standards. The reduction in debt results in the reduction of the interest bill going forward and that is a good thing.They know that the the Club has no where near turned the corner. Supporters should not get carried away with this. And the maintaining of Meesen and Newton on the list for 2010 was all about honouring contracts and not fudging a profit.

MFC have yet to develop a sustainable and viable business model and the current board knows that. They are working hard on it just like the previous Board did. However they have yet to formulate and deliver on this.

I would not be popping corks at this stage.

Summed up the situation well I think.

I always feel a little uncomfortable when people use results like this to credit the current administration and slam the previous one: I can't help but feel some people are convinced by the romance of who is in charge and not the hard facts. These results are okay, but they're actually not greatly different to the results seen in the previous administration, and I don't think they have yet delivered on their promises. The club's administration still has a lot of work to do; I think calls that the "ship has turned" are extremely premature.

Can we just abandon the ship metaphor please?

Abandon ship.

The ship hasn't turned 180 degrees yet, but it's not on the same course as a couple of years ago.

The previous administration wasn't the worst, and the current one isn't necessarily the best, but the club's future looks promising.

We were driving south, but we managed to turn off and now we're heading east.

Hopefully there's enough in the tank to get us to the next intersection and we can head north... and find somewhere to fill the tank...

Edited December 22, 200915 yr by Keyser Söze

Can we just abandon the ship metaphor please?

Abandon ship.

What... there's an iceberg ahead ?

Nasher, if you're replying to any of my posts, I've just been throwing in some blood & bone (ie. ship has turned) into the water to attract a certain species for a giggle (amusement); and it has worked... Of course I know that there is much unfinished work with the current administration, and I have acknowledged in previous threads the good work undertaken by the previous administrations. At the very least the current administration has managed to keep afloat a sinking ship when they boarded the vessel.

Er ... we've found the right path but we're not out of the woods yet???

Each cliched metaphor more laboured than the last ...

Sure, we haven't reached Nirvana yet. But speaking for myself, I'd have to say that this result is well beyond what I'd expected. They've done well, they need to keep it up.

You're missing my point so I'll try another way.

Do you think Meesen or Newton would be on the list now if they weren't contracted for 2010? If NO then we would have had two extra spots to fill at years end. If YES, then no issue.

The "honouring the contract" issue aside, would you be willing to pay out a contract and record a loss to achieve the same end?

The fact we have Prendergast and Harrington doing the job of Cameron is totally irrelevant to the issue although it demonstrates a greater commitment AND a greater understanding of what we need to do to win a flag.

In that case your point is irrelevant.

You're missing my point so I'll try another way.

Do you think Meesen or Newton would be on the list now if they weren't contracted for 2010? If NO then we would have had two extra spots to fill at years end. If YES, then no issue.

The "honouring the contract" issue aside, would you be willing to pay out a contract and record a loss to achieve the same end?

The fact we have Prendergast and Harrington doing the job of Cameron is totally irrelevant to the issue although it demonstrates a greater commitment AND a greater understanding of what we need to do to win a flag.

They may not be still on the list if uncontracted.

However, the recruitment staff obviously decided that Meesen & Newton's potential + cash > unknown draftee.

New players always seem to be really good and almost certain 100 game players, but the fact is, that a lot of the players drafted only play a handful of games and are then never seen again.

Peanuts, look at it from the list management point of view not the financial view. It's also about what needs to be done next year in terms of list management as well as managing any unforeseen LTI's for 2010 season.

If they weren't contracted for 2010 they may well be gone. But they are contracted. The rule change enabled TH to list manage them onto the rookie list and utilise picks 34 & 50.

As Gooner alluded to ....

Meesen (lti) + Newton (KFP) + 1 year contract to run + reputation intact with Footy Industry > 2 unknown draftees and embarrassment

ie. god forbid if Miller, Watts, Bate or Jurrah went down with LTI, but it gives say Newton a chance if he has put in hard work over Summer and wishes to make the most of an AFL career. He is a KPF that could fill an LTI of a KPF - if it happened. Touch wood it doesn't. We're light on in KPP depth wise; an unknown draftee wouldn't be as advanced one would think.

This is all just one aspect the FD may be looking at in terms of List management for season 2010.

Edited December 23, 200915 yr by High Tower

The issue really was Dylan Grimes vs Joel MacDonald.

If you'd prefer Grimey Jnr to Macca Jnr then that's your opinion, but it's as relevant as those who would've preferred Lucas or Talia to Gybletts.

Meesen & Juice could be paid out would've meant that we could've got another rookie with pick 6. Panos obviously wasn't rated that highly as he was a late 2nd round pick anyway, so unless you rate Panos highly, which almost every club out there doesn't, the best option was to rookie Meesen and Juice.

Look, I think I give up.

What you say is correct but it's not the question I'm raising which is either lost somewhere deep in translation or being ignored.

I think most people understand what you're saying, and I agree that there's a high probability that the profit was massaged (remember an audit doesn't mean that everything is 100% correct, just that it's not massively wrong, and there's got to be some serious concerns for the auditor to qualify [ie. report is unreliable] the financial report).

However, I think that there are several aspects that you haven't looked at, which people have mentioned several times.

Whilst I agree that we had the option to pay them out, it simply wasn't worth it in terms of the financial aspect, the risk of an unknown player and possibly most importantly, the reputation of the club.