I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned but reading the Sunday Times here in the west last w/end there was an article titled 'Ricky Roulette'.

The article mentioned he has put off contract talks till the end of the season. It goes on to say Rick would like to stay with the Dee's but it would be "amazing" to play regular AFL games in front family. Elaborating he says "I won't lie. To play AFL in my home state, in front of friends and family each week would be amazing".

1 of 2 things the club and players have to do. Put Rick in a position where he doesn't want to leave or move his family.

Also mentioned in the paper was Port Adelaide saying Mark Jamar was looking at crossing over to them then changed his mind.

Hope these 2 blokes love the club too much to leave.

  On 14/04/2010 at 03:18, oldman emubitter said:

I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned but reading the Sunday Times here in the west last w/end there was an article titled 'Ricky Roulette'.

The article mentioned he has put off contract talks till the end of the season. It goes on to say Rick would like to stay with the Dee's but it would be "amazing" to play regular AFL games in front family. Elaborating he says "I won't lie. To play AFL in my home state, in front of friends and family each week would be amazing".

1 of 2 things the club and players have to do. Put Rick in a position where he doesn't want to leave or move his family.

Also mentioned in the paper was Port Adelaide saying Mark Jamar was looking at crossing over to them then changed his mind.

Hope these 2 blokes love the club too much to leave.

It has been mentioned on here, but there's not much more to say.

He may stay, he may go.

Hopefully he doesn't but speculating on it won't do any good.

If either of them left we'd get hopefully get some decent compensation for them.

You may even find the club rigging the B&F in the favour of both these players to boost their price, since it has been noted that it will be a defining factor for compensation.

(NOW there's something to talk about!)

As much as I love Jamar at the moment (gotta love the spud come good, who goes into battle on his own all day and beats more fancied opponents) I think, going by the $ on offer from GC17 & GWS, and the fact he signed a 1-year deal means he could easily go.

I know Clayton has said he doesn't like the chances if any rucks coming out of contract, but maybe that is because thy have already signed one?

If they are to be competitive from day dot then they will want a capable ruckman and we all know they take longer, usually hitting their peak around 26-27.

I doubt any of their kids are ready to carry that dept just yet.

Now here's a conspiracy theory for you - what if a player has signed with GC17 or even GWS ahead of time and their club finds out, or is even informed by the player..?

I know a few coaches have taken a tough stance on this, but that is hardly in the club's best interests.

With the knowledge of the player going and how the compensation system will work, wouldn't it be better to play the player in question & do whatever it takes to boost their performance?

Letting them rot in the VFL could ensure the club gets as little compensation as possible.

Of course, a year out of decent footy will damage the stock of the player ready to leave also.

I think it's wise to make he best of a bad situation and make the system work FOR you instead of against you.

Just my 2 cents.

Any thoughts..?

Is there a limit to the number of players taken from one team?

cheers in advance

Edit: thanks Enforcer25

  On 14/04/2010 at 03:34, Enforcer25 said:

Now here's a conspiracy theory for you - what if a player has signed with GC17 or even GWS ahead of time and their club finds out, or is even informed by the player..?

I know a few coaches have taken a tough stance on this, but that is hardly in the club's best interests.

With the knowledge of the player going and how the compensation system will work, wouldn't it be better to play the player in question & do whatever it takes to boost their performance?

Letting them rot in the VFL could ensure the club gets as little compensation as possible.

Of course, a year out of decent footy will damage the stock of the player ready to leave also.

I think it's wise to make he best of a bad situation and make the system work FOR you instead of against you.

Just my 2 cents.

Any thoughts..?

E25, excuse my ignorance, bu what is this compensation system that you keep talking about? I didn't think there was one - GC17 had access to 1 uncontracted from each Club, providing they stay under the salary cap. I thought it was Geelong wanting some form of compensation for when G Ablett leaves.

I think we will be pretty safe - I'd think we would have Jamar and Petterd signed up toward the end of the season. Why can I be so confident? The amount of money GC17 will be paying Ablett will mean they will only be able to chase no more than 6 players from other clubs. I'd think there will be better player on their radar.

  On 14/04/2010 at 03:41, melbman said:

Is there a limit to the number of players taken from one team?

cheers in advance

As far as I understand they have access to one out-of-contract player from each club.

Any more than that must be traded for or taken through the draft.

Not sure when the free-agency system is kicking off, but that may apply also.

I dont think the club would "Rig the B&F" for the sake of boosting market price.

very weird comment!

He needs to find a good Melbourne girl to shack up with to sway his choice of home state in our favour.

  On 14/04/2010 at 03:46, billy2803 said:

E25, excuse my ignorance, bu what is this compensation system that you keep talking about? I didn't think there was one - GC17 had access to 1 uncontracted from each Club, providing they stay under the salary cap. I thought it was Geelong wanting some form of compensation for when G Ablett leaves.

I think we will be pretty safe - I'd think we would have Jamar and Petterd signed up toward the end of the season. Why can I be so confident? The amount of money GC17 will be paying Ablett will mean they will only be able to chase no more than 6 players from other clubs. I'd think there will be better player on their radar.

Out-of-contract players may be taken at no expense to the new teams, but the team losing a player still receives compensation on sliding scale.

Ken Wood will make a judgement on the value of the player in question and based on that value compensation will be given in the form of a single draft pick. The judgement will be based on games played, B&F finishes and where they were selected in the draft. There might be other factors, but these are the ones I remember.

The issue with Geelong is that they feel Ablett would be worth more than one pick.

Now the club receiving the draft pick has the choice of which year they use that pick, as long as it is in the next 5 years.

They must nominate BEFORE the season commences that they will use this draft pick, they cannot just wait until they have an unexpectedly bad year, then stick their hand up.

I believe the picks will be rated as:

- before the 1st Round

- after the 1st Round

- before the 2nd Round (which puzzles me because it's effectivley the same thing)

- after the 2nd Round

- and so on

Now I believe a lot of the hype around Ablett was that the Cats could get pick 26 for him as compensation at best, but that is only if he goes to GC17 and he Cats foolishly insist on using their pick in the year that GWS pillages the draft. In that scenario they must use their best compo pick after the 1st Round because otherwise it would push all the GWS 1st Round picks back a place and the AFL says that is not on.

  On 14/04/2010 at 03:58, Enforcer25 said:

- after the 1st Round

- before the 2nd Round (which puzzles me because it's effectivley the same thing)

Perhaps it's a bit of an "A-sharp vs B-flat" thing?

It might also just add a bit of extra granularity. E.g. if one player gets an "after the first" value and another "after the second", the former will get their draft pick before the latter.

All just guesses though.

  On 14/04/2010 at 03:51, Demon3 said:

I dont think the club would "Rig the B&F" for the sake of boosting market price.

very weird comment!

I doubt it too, but in this day and age of "tanking" who knows..?

Wallet virtually admitted to doing it at the tiges. I'm sure he's not the only one.

And many people would have you believe the dees tanked last year - this would be a lot easier.

I must stress that I am only using Jamar and the Dees as an example of what could occur.

I have total faith in our football dept and in Jamar himself.

It is actually my belief that the one year contract was not his idea, but that of Tim Harrington so that we can squeeze in a fat front-loaded contract for him next year, as he deserves.

We have the following young players on our list.

Jack Watts

Tom Scully

Jack Trengove

Cale Morton

James Frawley

Jack Grimes

Liam Jurrah

Colin Garland

Sam Blease

James Strauss

Addam Maric

Austin Wonaeamirri

Jordan Gysberts

Luke Tapscott

Jamie Bennell

Jake Spencer

Nathan Jones

Jordie McKenzie

Stefan Martin

Neville Jetta

Ricky Petterd

If Ricky Petterd is the player that ends up on the Gold Coast then it's probably a good result for us. It could be a lot worse. In reality he is a bit part player as a HFF - a role that could be played by a number of players.

  On 14/04/2010 at 04:53, Axis of Bob said:

If Ricky Petterd is the player that ends up on the Gold Coast then it's probably a good result for us. It could be a lot worse. In reality he is a bit part player as a HFF - a role that could be played by a number of players.

You're right in that it could be a lot worse. He may be considered a "bit part player" by some. Then again, some would consider him a bit of an X-factor after just 31 games; much like a Melbourne's version of Stevie J ?

Whilst the record is on the board with Stevie J, in hindsight had he gone to Collingwood, Geelong would have lost a very important player.

I hope Melbourne can develop a good spirit and feeling within the group and factor in many aspects which entice players to stay.

I rate Petterd, wouldn't want to see him go.

  On 14/04/2010 at 04:53, Axis of Bob said:

If Ricky Petterd is the player that ends up on the Gold Coast then it's probably a good result for us. It could be a lot worse. In reality he is a bit part player as a HFF - a role that could be played by a number of players.

I agree.

He has hit form of late, which helps our cause for compensation.

The compo picks could also be a valuable commodity. Being able to hold onto it for 5 years could help us with a timely injection of young talent.

Also being able to hold onto it until a 'strong' draft means if your recruiting guys are on point then you can maximize the value of the pick.

Could also be very handy in trade negotiations going forward, if they are deemed tradeable.

Ricky looks a likely type, but there are much much more valuable players on our list.

If it has to be someone I'd rather him than a lot of others.

Anyone feel like creating a list of players out-of-contract this year and next to see which will be targets and who would be most likely to go?

With all the talent we have, in the right age-bracket too, we would be more likely to lost a player than a few other teams.

MFC supporters...

We have a supremely gifted young player on our list. Losing him would hurt us, and if the compensation for Ablett is any indication we won't get anything like what we should. Just because we have a lot of good youngsters doesn't mean we can just let a few of them go.

Petterd must stay. He's one of our best.

Petterd is no Stevie J. Ricky is a hard worker and strong overhead for his size, but he's not exactly X-factor. Johnson had X-factor but was undisciplined and defensively poor. When they dropped him he'd dominate. Ricky doesn't have that talent, but he's a good solid player.

The problem with Ablett's compensation was that the formula doesn't cover for elite players, only the rest of them. Ablett is worth pick 1, plus 2 other first rounders. The formula will undersell that. Ricky is probably worth a second round pick on the open market. We'll probably get a second round pick for him.

If he's the one we lose then I'm OK with that. I'd prefer to lose nobody, but Petterd isn't central to our premiership push. So if we were given the choice to either lose Petterd, or have a 50/50 chance of either losing Frawley or losing nobody, I'd take losing Petterd rather than risk losing a more important player for the benefit of maybe losing nobody.

  On 14/04/2010 at 06:30, Axis of Bob said:

Petterd is no Stevie J. Ricky is a hard worker and strong overhead for his size, but he's not exactly X-factor. Johnson had X-factor but was undisciplined and defensively poor. When they dropped him he'd dominate. Ricky doesn't have that talent, but he's a good solid player.

Whilst I know that no one is Stevie J bar himself, I only likened Petterd to a young Stevie J; or a Melbourne's version. With just 31 games to Petterd who knows whether or not how far he advances. He has shown some X-factor qualities, albeit occassionally. I wouldn't rule him in or out from X-factor at this juncture.

  Quote

The problem with Ablett's compensation was that the formula doesn't cover for elite players, only the rest of them. Ablett is worth pick 1, plus 2 other first rounders. The formula will undersell that. Ricky is probably worth a second round pick on the open market. We'll probably get a second round pick for him.

If he's the one we lose then I'm OK with that. I'd prefer to lose nobody, but Petterd isn't central to our premiership push. So if we were given the choice to either lose Petterd, or have a 50/50 chance of either losing Frawley or losing nobody, I'd take losing Petterd rather than risk losing a more important player for the benefit of maybe losing nobody.

Agree with this. However cautious.

  On 14/04/2010 at 06:30, Axis of Bob said:

Petterd is no Stevie J. Ricky is a hard worker and strong overhead for his size, but he's not exactly X-factor. Johnson had X-factor but was undisciplined and defensively poor. When they dropped him he'd dominate. Ricky doesn't have that talent, but he's a good solid player.

.......

If he's the one we lose then I'm OK with that. I'd prefer to lose nobody, but Petterd isn't central to our premiership push. So if we were given the choice to either lose Petterd, or have a 50/50 chance of either losing Frawley or losing nobody, I'd take losing Petterd rather than risk losing a more important player for the benefit of maybe losing nobody.

Fair comment on both points.

All Clubs are going to lose something to these manufactured AFL Franchaises, Ricky & The Russian will make up their mind later in the year, the Better the MFC achieves this year the harder the decision will be.

Geelong are jacked off because it looks like they will get pick 26 for G Ablett Jnr. All the MFC can do is make the club as strong as possible so players really do not want to leave.

  On 14/04/2010 at 06:05, Dappa Dan said:

MFC supporters...

We have a supremely gifted young player on our list. Losing him would hurt us, and if the compensation for Ablett is any indication we won't get anything like what we should. Just because we have a lot of good youngsters doesn't mean we can just let a few of them go.

Petterd must stay. He's one of our best.

We havn't seen enough of Ricky's top form to describe him as 'one of our best' at this stage Dappa, but like a lot of others on our young playing list, he has the potential to be one of our best. I certainly have a very strong preference for him to remain at Melbourne, and hopefully the comraderie which we are seeking to build amongst the players, and the fact that our 'star is clearly on the rise', will sway him in that direction.

Excuse my ignorance of this topic, but do we have to lose a player to one of these teams? Is that the rule?? I really rate Petterd as well, but who would we give up?

  On 14/04/2010 at 09:08, Demon Den said:

Excuse my ignorance of this topic, but do we have to lose a player to one of these teams? Is that the rule?? I really rate Petterd as well, but who would we give up?

We are not required to lose a player, but any player not contracted is fair game. They can take 1 player from each other club. I believe all of our draftees from 2008 fit into that group, including Watts (unless there's been a contract signed that I didn't hear about?). So do several of our older players.

If we're talking about young players showing promise and hailing from the north, what about Bail? he's a little more mature, has shown some serious ability and is a Queenslander. Could be a chance to be nabbed.

Cheers RM, now I understand....better get em signed then!!

  On 14/04/2010 at 07:34, Deeoldfart said:

We havn't seen enough of Ricky's top form to describe him as 'one of our best' at this stage Dappa, but like a lot of others on our young playing list, he has the potential to be one of our best. I certainly have a very strong preference for him to remain at Melbourne, and hopefully the comraderie which we are seeking to build amongst the players, and the fact that our 'star is clearly on the rise', will sway him in that direction.

That's a fair point... however, take a look at the list and tell me exactly what percentage of it is retained on "potential." Likewise, tell me what percentage of the list have ever played a game like any of Petterd's corkers from the first few rounds/pre-season?

The list is small.

Describing him as a good solid player is typical know-it-all garbage from above posters and those that agree. He's among the best young players we've had wander through the place in the last 3-5 years. Maybe not Frawley/Grimes/Jurrah league... but certainly as good as Jones types, and if he keeps his work up, could be as highly thought of as Morton and Bate.

Can't believe people STILL can't see what he's capable of, despite him showing them as clear as day. Unbelievable.