Played a couple of early games as a forward and a couple at the end of the year as a second ruckman, but spent the majority of the season with Casey. Has been in the system for six years and is yet to make a real impact - Luke Holmesby melbournefc

Games MFC 2010 4 Total 25 Goals MFC 2010 1 Total 30

Games CSFC 2010 9 Goals CSFC 2010 16

Simply either delisted or retained on rookie list - playing in China which surprised me if the intention was to delist him. Therefore I think he will be retained and be one of the luckiest footballers ever.

meh

Adds nil value to us going forward.

Has failed as a forward. Has failed as a second ruckman.

To think he's only 3 years away from being a life member of the MFC (10 years gets you there right?)

He's a fair bit off that BBP. LIfe membership is 10 seasons of senior football since first senior game. Newton debuted in 2007 !

Depth only.

Retain him as a rookie for next year as we have a full list to fill; he provides KP depth, which we don't have a lot of; and the new substitute rule gives him slightly more value.

Who knows? One day it might click for him.

I'm not sure there are many better options for the rookie list this year.

IMO missing out on Hale - Newton's stock went up!

Delist .. We know what we have/don't . Time to rookie afresh

IMO missing out on Hale - Newton's stock went up!

Indeed.

The sub rule also helps IMO, since it's even less likely teams will play two bona fide rucks.

Newton is a keep for me - as he's on the rookie list, the opportunity cost is low.

Indeed.

The sub rule also helps IMO, since it's even less likely teams will play two bona fide rucks.

Newton is a keep for me - as he's on the rookie list, the opportunity cost is low.

And he has gone to China that says something!

What it says I am not sure

But why take him if he is for the high jump!

For all we know he might be playing for his future. I dont often use this term for a player but at AFL level hes a spud. Just know why we persist ( obviously the FD do ) . Keeps showing tidbits and never the full game. List clogger

For all we know he might be playing for his future. I dont often use this term for a player but at AFL level hes a spud. Just know why we persist ( obviously the FD do ) . Keeps showing tidbits and never the full game. List clogger

I thought he was playing for his future last season!!

Indeed.

The sub rule also helps IMO, since it's even less likely teams will play two bona fide rucks.

Newton is a keep for me - as he's on the rookie list, the opportunity cost is low.

Agreed. I think he'd be handy with these new rules.

When he's on his game, he's not the worst ever.

For all we know he might be playing for his future. I dont often use this term for a player but at AFL level hes a spud. Just know why we persist ( obviously the FD do ) . Keeps showing tidbits and never the full game. List clogger

Spot. On.

Get him out, if he stays on the list, he's about our 41st or 42nd most useful player. Take a punt on some bloke from country footy or something, anything but Newton!

Hope you enjoyed the car, thanks, goodbye Michael.

And he has gone to China that says something!

What it says I am not sure

But why take him if he is for the high jump!

[/quote

Maybe looking for a heart transplant!

IF he, once again, keeps someone with any potential at all off the list, and I particuarly refer to Tom McNamara, rookie or otherwise, I will be extremely peed off - he has had numerous opportunities over many years, and has alwas failed to grasp any of them.

Whatever his skills and hidden talents may be, he (at least appears to) lacks the heart and fire to make it at AFL level.

From reports, he seemed to make a modicum of progress on some aspects of his game at Casey in 2010 (defensive pressure, tackling) but he certainly needed to. Can't honestly say that he has earned a spot on our rookie list for next year, but circumstances may see him retained as a backup tall forward / ruck option. Incredibly lucky if he gets another year, but some people seem to be blessed with lots of good fortune.

I can see no logic in getting rid of Miller and keeping Newton. Miller had a go and showed a bit of aggro when needed. Newton just made up the numbers although he can kick a bit better than Miller.

I can see no logic in getting rid of Miller and keeping Newton. Miller had a go and showed a bit of aggro when needed. Newton just made up the numbers although he can kick a bit better than Miller.

I think millsy cost a lot lot more spondulaks $$$$$

I think millsy cost a lot lot more spondulaks $$$$$

Fair point but maybe Newton is paying MFC to keep him.

Fair point but maybe Newton is paying MFC to keep him.

Well I'd drop Newton. Whatever depth role that the FD had in mind for him, I'd rather take a punt on some mature age VFL/etc player. It's time to move on re Juice.