Believe me I agree with the sentiment but both GC and GWS have already locked away long term contracts for a lot of their players already and that includes the extremely homesick Harley Bennell. Only one player has expressed a desire to leave in that time, that being Josh Caddy, and he may still yet sign with the Suns.

Big difference being home sick and being wanted home, where your dad works... And used to captain.

I'm not saying this tactic will work, but it may be something we rely on. At the end of the day it's a massive risk for GWS and GC to miss out on the best talent in the land just to screw us, especially if there is a chance it'll come back to bite you on the arse!

Having said that, we've been hand stitching JV's jumper for 2 years now. He ain't going anywhere but Melbourne!

I'm just still astounded and extremely pleased we are playing hardball with this and engaging in mind games and tactics.

A new "tougher/harder" MFC on AND off the field it seems.

Big difference being home sick and being wanted home, where your dad works... And used to captain.

I'm not saying this tactic will work, but it may be something we rely on. At the end of the day it's a massive risk for GWS and GC to miss out on the best talent in the land just to screw us, especially if there is a chance it'll come back to bite you on the arse!

Having said that, we've been hand stitching JV's jumper for 2 years now. He ain't going anywhere but Melbourne!

I agree he'll be in a Melbourne jumper at the end of the year... but I don't think GC will be risking much by bidding pick 2 on the toughest inside clearance specialist that junior footy has seen.

This is foxing the club coming out and saying we will play hardball, and I LIKE IT A LOT!

Is this F/S bidding televised?

Well played Melbourne. Finally starting to play hard off field

Jesus billy, I didn't realise I was making it so hard for you to understand.

Under your proposal we'd get:

Pick 3 - we take Viney due to a team below us bidding for him

Pick 4 - we keep to use in the draft

Pick 12 - we keep to use in the draft, or possible trade to Port in the Boak deal

+

Pick 23 approx.

Under mine we'd get:

Mini-draft pick 1/2

Pick 4 - we keep to use in the draft

Pick 12 - we keep to use in the draft, or possible trade to Port in the Boak deal

Pick 23 approx used to select Viney

Now which is better for MFC?

You're essentially saying that you think Pick 23 would be better value than mini-draft pick 1 or 2.

And you want the club to spite GWS and GCS to it's own detriment.

Jose, I totally understand your deal. The issue I have with it is regarding the 17 year old player. Who are they? If there were no such things as "mini drafts", what position would those players be going in the "normal" draft? If there is a number 1 pick amongst the 17 year olds, then we consider giving up out Pick 3 for it. If there are 3 or 4 players that could go between 3-15, I don't want anything to do with the mini draft.

People put a lot of trust in the mini draft. Last year, O'Meara was obviously a standout, and was widely regarded as a potential pick 1-3 in a normal draft. That's the type of player I'd want if we are giving GWS our Pick 3, especially considering the top echelon of this draft appears to be bloody good.

Well played Melbourne. Finally starting to play hard off field

That's all I've ever asked for.

What odds anyone we can reach ayt least 100 pages BEFORE he actually becomes a D.....lol

What odds anyone we can reach ayt least 100 pages BEFORE he actually becomes a D.....lol

So low it is not worth taking the bet BB

This talk is necessary to give breathing room to GC and GWS when the rest of the clubs complain to the AFL when/if they don't nominate him.

Barrett is a patsy of the lowest calibre, but at least he is useful for something.

Barrett on the footy show - Melbourne won't use pick 3 on Viney

and why did Barrett not mention GCS who would be in the same theoretical position as GWS?

and why did Barrett not mention GCS who would be in the same theoretical position as GWS?

Maybe because GC isn't run by psychos like GWS is.

As I've posted - I think we should be proactive and try to strike a deal to get Viney in the 2nd round.

If GWS does nominate him we should declare war on their list and go out of our way to make things difficult for them in future.

Maybe because GC isn't run by psychos like GWS is.

As I've posted - I think we should be proactive and try to strike a deal to get Viney in the 2nd round.

If GWS does nominate him we should declare war on their list and go out of our way to make things difficult for them in future.

agreed. we must explore the 'deal' option. and there is no reason we shouldn't sow a bit of doubt whether we might pass on pick 3

but......we must include gcs in any dealing, even if only to ensure we don't get them offside by doing any win-win deals with gws

For all those without Foxtel, JV is playing in the Metro v Country clash today.

AFL Match Centre:

http://t.co/yam6q3q5

Watch me be incredibly unproductive all afternoon.

For all those without Foxtel, JV is playing in the Metro v Country clash today.

AFL Match Centre:

http://t.co/yam6q3q5

Watch me be incredibly unproductive all afternoon.

Thanks for the heads-up Dr.

Jose, I totally understand your deal. The issue I have with it is regarding the 17 year old player. Who are they? If there were no such things as "mini drafts", what position would those players be going in the "normal" draft? If there is a number 1 pick amongst the 17 year olds, then we consider giving up out Pick 3 for it. If there are 3 or 4 players that could go between 3-15, I don't want anything to do with the mini draft.

People put a lot of trust in the mini draft. Last year, O'Meara was obviously a standout, and was widely regarded as a potential pick 1-3 in a normal draft. That's the type of player I'd want if we are giving GWS our Pick 3, especially considering the top echelon of this draft appears to be bloody good.

So you misunderstand the mini-draft concept too?

Let me make it simple for you: the number 1 & 2 picks for NEXT year's draft can be selected this year in the mini-draft.

That should make the decision easy for you.

The strength and depth of the draft from year to year will never vary so much that the 23rd pick in one year has greater "value" than the 1st or 2nd pick the following year (of course, we cannot allow for the fact a Dane Swan can get selected at pick 50 odd and a Nat Fyfe can pop up at pick 22 - such are the anomalies of an inexact science).

Even if the selection is taken a year early - I think it is generally misunderstood how much the recruiters already know about the kids at that age.

agreed. we must explore the 'deal' option. and there is no reason we shouldn't sow a bit of doubt whether we might pass on pick 3

but......we must include gcs in any dealing, even if only to ensure we don't get them offside by doing any win-win deals with gws

Surely we could only try to bluff them, or stike a deal-

It would be hard to convince them we were likely to pass with pick 3, and at the same time try to bribe them to not nominate so we don't have to use pick 3?

So we must be going the "nominate at your own peril- we ain't doing any sweetner deals with you scum" route- ruthless and I like it!

Surely we could only try to bluff them, or stike a deal-

It would be hard to convince them we were likely to pass with pick 3, and at the same time try to bribe them to not nominate so we don't have to use pick 3?

understand your point sloonie, but you are obviously not devious enough to see how both hands can be played (which they can)

this is chicanery 101

48 pages

1183 posts

0 games

Lol

Just wait till he only gets one kick in his first game........

Surely we could only try to bluff them, or stike a deal-

It would be hard to convince them we were likely to pass with pick 3, and at the same time try to bribe them to not nominate so we don't have to use pick 3?

Surely you could say:

We want Viney. BUT if you nominate him, we'll let you have him.

We still want him, just not at that price.

And since you might be thinking of calling our bluff, which will result in us not getting him, and you ending up with him for pick 1/2, let's instead do a deal that makes everyone happy.

It'll be tough to coordinate with both GCS and GWS though.

understand your point sloonie, but you are obviously not devious enough to see how both hands can be played (which they can)

this is chicanery 101

How can we simultaneously make "sweetheart" deals and have our bluff be taken seriously? On one hand we're saying "if you nominate him, we will pass- and on the other you're saying "please don't nominate him- look at these lovely gifts..."

I am interested in this level of devious you are tlaking about. explain..

Surely you could say:

We want Viney. BUT if you nominate him, we'll let you have him.

We still want him, just not at that price.

And since you might be thinking of calling our bluff, which will result in us not getting him, and you ending up with him for pick 1/2, let's instead do a deal that makes everyone happy.

It'll be tough to coordinate with both GCS and GWS though.

I would see through that. Surely they would too? Would be better to go either the strong bluff, or just sweetner deal. No doubt they would have a little chuckle at us.

Whatever gets it done in the end I suppose.

How can we simultaneously make "sweetheart" deals and have our bluff be taken seriously? On one hand we're saying "if you nominate him, we will pass- and on the other you're saying "please don't nominate him- look at these lovely gifts..."

I am interested in this level of devious you are tlaking about. explain..

as hose says see above

its about covering all bases, damage minimisation and achieving a win/win outcome ...................(for all parties)