Young Demon duo sign for three years

[jayceebee31 761]

In this case Yes.

And I was not inferring what you thought I had by your question.

My original post was clear and straightforward asking why were they offered three years contracts to those players (and not others) who at this point are unproven at AFL level. And beyond the symbolism of the action, what advantages does a three year contract provide MFC over offering them a two year contract.

RR.-Agree with your summation. the answer is NONE. I think signing these two young players FOR 3 YEARS is just down right wrong. It would be very diffeent if we signed Jurrah for three.These two young footballers ,whilst show undoubted ability still have to prove themselves.

[Footynut 302]

RR.-Agree with your summation. the answer is NONE. I think signing these two young players FOR 3 YEARS is just down right wrong. It would be very diffeent if we signed Jurrah for three.These two young footballers ,whilst show undoubted ability still have to prove themselves.

again your last sentence of your original post says it all RR. So you think that within 2 years we will know whether tapscott is a dud? In my humble opinion we still may not know. Simple as that. The club has taken a gamble knowing full well locking them both in further protects us from interstate raids or go home factor. It is a real positive and while you are along with anyone else entitled to your 'glass half empty' view. I for one don't subscribe.

Go dees!!

[Steamin Demon 392]

again your last sentence of your original post says it all RR. So you think that within 2 years we will know whether tapscott is a dud? In my humble opinion we still may not know. Simple as that. The club has taken a gamble knowing full well locking them both in further protects us from interstate raids or go home factor. It is a real positive and while you are along with anyone else entitled to your 'glass half empty' view. I for one don't subscribe.

Go dees!!

I agree with you footynut, Sign them now and take the interstate raids out of tthe media. Rhino, C'mon mate look on the bright side for a change, I'm guessing your a glass is half empty kind of guy ?? You must persist with you talent, Just look at what Sylvia is on the verge of !!! and he is only 23 !!

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

again your last sentence of your original post says it all RR. So you think that within 2 years we will know whether tapscott is a dud? In my humble opinion we still may not know. Simple as that. The club has taken a gamble knowing full well locking them both in further protects us from interstate raids or go home factor. It is a real positive and while you are along with anyone else entitled to your 'glass half empty' view. I for one don't subscribe.

Go dees!!

Once again you get it wrong!

That is exaclty my point. We dont know if Tapscott will be any good. My comment is not a criticism of the player. Just wondering why offered them three years and not the standard two years. If we were truly worried about interstate raids or go home factor, why didn't we do the same with Cale Morton who came from WA? The guy is a big talent and sure to be chased.

Surely Morton is susceptible to the go home factor or interstate raids as a quality player. And given our stockpile of quality talent where you would hope most if not all will flourish then MFC are going to be hit by other clubs raids whereever a contract expires.

I got no issue with the Club doing what it did. Its a fine gesture from the players to accept. I am just wondering why they did it for those two and not others.But I would be keener on their 2nd contractual commitment when they have shown they are or have made it and are keen to further develop with MFC. And its interesting all the posters who state this is a real positive without providing a real substantive basis as to why it is so positive. Such is life.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

RR.-Agree with your summation. the answer is NONE. I think signing these two young players FOR 3 YEARS is just down right wrong. It would be very diffeent if we signed Jurrah for three.These two young footballers ,whilst show undoubted ability still have to prove themselves.

I guess that is my issue. I dont call it wrong. I just want to know why they did it with these two. And your point on Jurrah is very valid. The guy has proven he has got something special. I would be more excited if proven talent made a commitment to MFC. At this stage they are unproven.

[Roost It 1,434]

I guess that is my issue. I dont call it wrong. I just want to know why they did it with these two. And your point on Jurrah is very valid. The guy has proven he has got something special. I would be more excited if proven talent made a commitment to MFC. At this stage they are unproven.

It's quite possible the club saw the go home factor strongest with Trengove and see him as hugely important to our future. What to do? Well sign him up for an extra year and do the same for his mate. The risk is low that he'll be anything other than a fine footballer. As for Tapscott, more risky but if it helps keep Trengove here then so be it. Not the ideal situation but my guess is the club hopes that once we're playing finals, well entrenched in our new home(s), not to mention playing in front of good crowds at the MCG, Trengove will be a Demon for life. Symbolism is still important.

[45HG 1,539]

I thought that initial 3 year contracts for interstate recruits was quite a common thing?

[H_T 3,047]

RR, the club gave its reasoning as to why they signed the two for 3 years. What more reasoning do you need ?

[John Dee 445]

I could not be more impressed with the appointment of Tim Harrington as List Manager at the club. It was a most prudent move in effectively moving Newton & Meesen to the rookie list to gain picks 34 and 50 in last year's National Draft, which enabled both Max Gawn & Jack Fitzpatrick to arrive to Melbournefc. That was all thanks to the rule change. TH and the Mfc took full advantage in what I believe was a clear indication (and fast-tracking) of strengthening the list.

I saw this at the time; and was impressed that the MFC was taking full advantage of the everchanging AFL rules. I expected that all of the other clubs would follow suit and exploit the rule change. I know a couple of them did to a small extent, but I am amazed that many more clubs did not do what we did.

[Keyser Söze 0]

I think the club is more than willing to give both Trengove and Tapscott 3 years to prove they belong on the list.

I think the reasoning for the 3 year deal is possibly not so much to prevent raids from interstate clubs, rather it is a benefit of Tim Harrington's foresight as List Manager.

When our group of highly-rated early draft picks from 2009 come out of contract it is likely all of them will be deserving of decent increases in pay, due to exposed form. Having that many players on that calibre incurring those pay increases at once may prove difficult in terms of salary cap management. There is always the chance that with too many players coming out of contract, that some will be squeezed out due to salary cap space. Not necessarily now, or in 3 years' time, but in the future.

With 2 year contracts being standard, not just for young players, it seems to me these 2 players have been put in line to take the place of a couple that will likely be delisted at the end of this year. Basically just balancing out the numbers so we don't have an inordinate amount of players out of contract at once, because that makes it harder for us with contract negotiations and easier for rival clubs to come swooping.

[Roost It 1,434]

I think the club is more than willing to give both Trengove and Tapscott 3 years to prove they belong on the list.

I think the reasoning for the 3 year deal is possibly not so much to prevent raids from interstate clubs, rather it is a benefit of Tim Harrington's foresight as List Manager.

When our group of highly-rated early draft picks from 2009 come out of contract it is likely all of them will be deserving of decent increases in pay, due to exposed form. Having that many players on that calibre incurring those pay increases at once may prove difficult in terms of salary cap management. There is always the chance that with too many players coming out of contract, that some will be squeezed out due to salary cap space. Not necessarily now, or in 3 years' time, but in the future.

With 2 year contracts being standard, not just for young players, it seems to me these 2 players have been put in line to take the place of a couple that will likely be delisted at the end of this year. Basically just balancing out the numbers so we don't have an inordinate amount of players out of contract at once, because that makes it harder for us with contract negotiations and easier for rival clubs to come swooping.

Realistically only 3 of the 2009 bunch will be in line for a considerable pay rise. Trengove, Scully and possibly Gysberts. With Trengove signed up that leaves 2 and if either don't do much then it's down to one. Your theory doesn't hold. It could however have more to do with players contracts from previous years expiring in 2 years time. So you're sort of right if you know what I mean! I am not intending to be a pain in the arse here although I may of inadvertantly achieved that.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

RR, the club gave its reasoning as to why they signed the two for 3 years. What more reasoning do you need ?

The Club gave a fuzzy press release stating because they were from interstate. So my early questions stand as to why they did not do the same with a player like Morton or Jurrah? Glad your easily convinced though.

I think the club is more than willing to give both Trengove and Tapscott 3 years to prove they belong on the list.

I think the reasoning for the 3 year deal is possibly not so much to prevent raids from interstate clubs, rather it is a benefit of Tim Harrington's foresight as List Manager.

I would havev thought JT was a walk up AFL player given the ability and leadership that he has shown.

There would be too many variables in List Management for Harrington to be plotting that far ahead with any certainty.

[Keyser Söze 0]

There would be too many variables in List Management for Harrington to be plotting that far ahead with any certainty.

I just think TH might be evening up the numbers a bit in terms of which year players come out of contract, considering we likely won't take as many players in the 2010 draft.

[deanox 9,927]

I just think TH might be evening up the numbers a bit in terms of which year players come out of contract, considering we likely won't take as many players in the 2010 draft.

they were my thoughts exactly.

[H_T 3,047]

The Club gave a fuzzy press release stating because they were from interstate. So my early questions stand as to why they did not do the same with a player like Morton or Jurrah? Glad your easily convinced though.

In your opinion.

I would havev thought JT was a walk up AFL player given the ability and leadership that he has shown.

There would be too many variables in List Management for Harrington to be plotting that far ahead with any certainty.

I wouldn't be so dismissive of the list management department headed by Harrington in the handling of the players contracts. Keyser mirrors my thoughts.

[Keyser Söze 0]

Realistically only 3 of the 2009 bunch will be in line for a considerable pay rise. Trengove, Scully and possibly Gysberts. With Trengove signed up that leaves 2 and if either don't do much then it's down to one. Your theory doesn't hold. It could however have more to do with players contracts from previous years expiring in 2 years time. So you're sort of right if you know what I mean! I am not intending to be a pain in the arse here although I may of inadvertantly achieved that.

Yeah, i don't see it as specifically and exclusively those 3 players getting a pay rise, but rather a long term view into list management.

Maybe it will have little effect in 3 years' time, but possibly in 5 or 7 years' time, in conjunction with expiring players' contracts from the past and even short-term future, it will or could make a difference.

I get what you're saying and I clumsily tried to say the same or a similar thing.

edit: spelling

Edited January 27, 2010 by Keyser Söze

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

In your opinion.

Not at all. Re-read the press release.

I wouldn't be so dismissive of the list management department headed by Harrington in the handling of the players contracts. Keyser mirrors my thoughts.

I am not dismissive at all about Harrington and his team. I probably understand the challenge more than you realise. I just think there are a number of undetermined variables which makes the exercise a complex one to accurately plot with any certainty. Typically you have your list rolling approx between 33 to 50% as there various 1,2,3 and sometimes (but rarely) 4 year contracts. Plotting 2 to 3 year out is a difficult area to judge.

We also have 5 players who may be potentially off the list when their current contract expires: James McDonald, Rohan Bail, Daniel Bell, Paul Johnson(or Jamar) and Clint Bartram. We may elevate a rookie or two but if we dont subject to form etc then there could still be 5 gaps on the list.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

To me this makes a lot of sense, even if Trengove and Tapscott aren't showing much in two years I doubt the club would be looking to delist them so why not get the interstate factor out the way for a while. They are both top 20 picks and one of them was taken at 2 so the club must have some confidence in their ability to perform.

We don't know what Scully wanted, his manager may have been happy with two giving him the option of getting a bigger contract for the third year, who knows and who cares, they will be good players for us so we should just be happy they want to sign for the 3 years.

[John Dee 445]

We also have 5 players who may be potentially off the list when their current contract expires: James McDonald, Rohan Bail, Daniel Bell, Paul Johnson(or Jamar) and Clint Bartram. We may elevate a rookie or two but if we dont subject to form etc then there could still be 5 gaps on the list.

I heard TH on SEN a while back discussing the decison to move Newton and Meeson onto the rookie list and he said that with the changes to the draft whereby elevated rookies count as draft picks meant that with the GC and GWS restrictions, it made sense to load up the rookie list with readymade players rather than real rookies. The expectation is that the club will use the system to elevate rookies rather than be forced to use a bottom-end draft pick.

We currently have Spencer, Newton, Meeson, McKenzie, Hughes and Healey as rookies. Spencer is a third-year rookie and must be elevated or released; I believe that we will elevate him. McKenzie is a real goer and the club will keep him as an elevation or third year rookie. Healey is a complete mystery to me. I wish Hughes well, bit I don't think he will last beyond this year.

The status Newton and Meeson is interesting; I would like to hear from anycody who understands the rookie list completely and can encapsulate it succintly. I don't know whether we can keep them on as rookies beyond this year, but I think not. I would love for Newton to surprise me and kick on, but I can't see it. Meeson is interesting; he surprised me by playing a couple of more than useful games before he got injured again. Whether we persist with him beyond this year will be interesting.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I heard TH on SEN a while back discussing the decison to move Newton and Meeson onto the rookie list and he said that with the changes to the draft whereby elevated rookies count as draft picks meant that with the GC and GWS restrictions, it made sense to load up the rookie list with readymade players rather than real rookies. The expectation is that the club will use the system to elevate rookies rather than be forced to use a bottom-end draft pick.

We currently have Spencer, Newton, Meeson, McKenzie, Hughes and Healey as rookies. Spencer is a third-year rookie and must be elevated or released; I believe that we will elevate him. McKenzie is a real goer and the club will keep him as an elevation or third year rookie. Healey is a complete mystery to me. I wish Hughes well, bit I don't think he will last beyond this year.

The status Newton and Meeson is interesting; I would like to hear from anycody who understands the rookie list completely and can encapsulate it succintly. I don't know whether we can keep them on as rookies beyond this year, but I think not. I would love for Newton to surprise me and kick on, but I can't see it. Meeson is interesting; he surprised me by playing a couple of more than useful games before he got injured again. Whether we persist with him beyond this year will be interesting.

I agree that at this point, Spencer and McKenzie are the likely rookies elevated for 2010 if anyone is.

I also think that if Newton and Meesen had their contracts expiring in 2009 they would be gone. I think there move to the rookie list highlights the Clubs intention that they intend to spend time on others. I think Meesen is unlikely to be around in 2011. injury prone and the nicest thing I can say is that his AFL games were not as poor as some of his VFL efforts which were really poor. With Jamar and PJ out of contract, I cant see them wasting anymore time on him. Newton would really need to surprise big time to make it beyond 2010. I am not holding my breath on that one.

Interesting to watch though.

[Carlos Danger 380]

Not to take anything away from Scully, Gysberts and co, but Tapscott and Trengove are 2 players I've been watering at the mouth over long before the draft. To get them was one thing but to find out it's a minimum of 3 years and they are committed, is something else. Can't wait to see them play for the red & blue.

[DemonDan... 77]

To me this makes a lot of sense, even if Trengove and Tapscott aren't showing much in two years I doubt the club would be looking to delist them so why not get the interstate factor out the way for a while. They are both top 20 picks and one of them was taken at 2 so the club must have some confidence in their ability to perform.

Yep, the club has had to have ALREADY seen enough to suggest that at very least, they'll be important one-club players for the MFC..and potentially AFL Champions.

(Dont think the interstate thing will be come into it, in this day-an-age to be honest - we can thank 'Skype' for that!)

Also think it works positively for everyone (including supporters) involved, in the sense that: i Really get the impression:

A: The guys are relieved to be on an AFL list..anywhere

B: They're happy to continue playing AFL together as teammates.. ..(partners?? )

C: They've noticed and really warmed to the fact that supporters see them -along with Scully and Jurrah- as the 'cult players' of the MFC..

Signing for the extra year, to me, is their way of saying, "yeah we appriciate the warm welcome/attention from everyone, ideally we want to be 'one club players'"

..Have said this, Id love to know the details of Scully and Gyssys basic '2 year contracts' and how they feel about it all..

[beelzebub 23,377]

Its all quite interesting .. I'll refrain from trying to read anything into why them and not those..etc. what i do see is a very different MFC from times of old..or even not so old. Here we are acting like a professional outfit, we're being proactive taking out of the equation all things that can be removed. we must be starting to do a few things right if the interest, respect and anticipation by some of these young recruits is anything to gauge by. Doesnt seem to far ago that many, including some of the media who ought to have known better had us as the cesspool of destinations and now we have top recruits effectively airing their own and counter views on this. The club has changed/improved. I think we'll see this reflected on the paddock as self belief is as great an influence on results as ability. again...interesting go dees