If Clark can be persuaded to join us and Freo are prepared to offer 16 + 20 for him we'd need to do better than just pick 12. Something like 12 + Compo for Clark + 29 (Brisbane's next earliest pick)

Disagree, Bris have already said 16 and 20 aren't good enough and Freo need to convert them into sub 12 to win.

we hold the cards at the moment and that's before we get outbid and maybe raise.

  On 13/10/2011 at 21:37, old dee said:

Yes we cannot do much more IMO.

I still find it hard to believe we will not end up in WA.

He seems hell bent on returning to WA.

Freo will increase their offer a little and give more to Brisbane and that will be the end of it.

But 10 out of 10 for effort.

Yes but even if he goes to Freo we have put a spanner in the works. Let's say he has his heart set on WA but Brisbane wants more than pick 16. In we step with pick 12 and say to the Dockers "what have you got?" we could end up with pick 16 or 20 plus a player, question is who do we want from Freo?

  On 13/10/2011 at 21:13, Redleg said:

How do you get a first round for a bloke who played VFL all year? I could understand higher 2nd round or upgrade. That said we are obviously prepared to deal so we have time to sort it out.

I read it exactly the opposite - that we really don't want to deal.

We have a disgruntled plaeyr who wants to leave, what is the best way to keep them? Put a price on their head no-one will meet.

I don't know if they will negotiate but a first rounder for Bate isn't a negotiating position - it's a delusional attempt at stealing with malicious intent.

  On 13/10/2011 at 22:19, mordja said:

Disagree, Bris have already said 16 and 20 aren't good enough and Freo need to convert them into sub 12 to win.

we hold the cards at the moment and that's before we get outbid and maybe raise.

If Clark is happy to come to us we'll get him because we can outbid Freo. But 12 alone doesn't outbid 16_20, we'll have to add more. If Clark insists on going to Freo, Brisbane will accept 16 + 20 in the end rather than have him go into the draft for nothing.

I see this turning into a poker hand. If Clark insists on going home then Lions are in a Luke Ball situation. If that happens it is a disaster for them following Fev and the GC fallout. IMO they will cave in, in the last hour if Clark holds out. If it gets to that I would as I said earlier offer 12 to Freo for 16 & 20 and get our position improved. At least we would have gained something from the attempt. If Lions do call Freo's bluff and he goes into PSD there is no guarantee he will get through to us, he well might, but we will then have a player coming to us totally against his will. That is not a great position to be in when he is on a massive contract.

Don't say he is a professional and will play wherever, attitude will be a major problem.

I think we should continue to chase Walsh as a backup as he won't be expensive and we have salary cap room. Could then offload the 3 who want to leave.

If unsuccessful with Clark I would fill salary cap by frontloading even more and get in position to launch against GC and GWS or a star player who comes out of contract in the next year or two.

  On 13/10/2011 at 22:30, old55 said:

If Clark is happy to come to us we'll get him because we can outbid Freo. But 12 alone doesn't outbid 16_20, we'll have to add more. If Clark insists on going to Freo, Brisbane will accept 16 + 20 in the end rather than have him go into the draft for nothing.

Agree and disagree. Agree Lions will cop 16 and 20 if it gets to the death knell. They have said 12 will do the deal I believe, especially as they will then have 3 picks in first round early and not lose him for nothing and it sticks it up Freo, who got into him during the year.

  On 13/10/2011 at 22:23, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yes but even if he goes to Freo we have put a spanner in the works. Let's say he has his heart set on WA but Brisbane wants more than pick 16. In we step with pick 12 and say to the Dockers "what have you got?" we could end up with pick 16 or 20 plus a player, question is who do we want from Freo?

Just looked at there list. No one!

  On 13/10/2011 at 22:58, jungle dee said:

Just looked at there list. No one!

Not every post requires an exclamation point.

And I am sure there are a couple of Freo players we would like to have...

This guy is a gun, and is only going to get better. If we landed him it would be huge, especially given our current "needs"...

  On 13/10/2011 at 23:00, rpfc said:

Not every post requires an exclamation point.

And I am sure there are a couple of Freo players we would like to have...

Fyfe, Pavlich???

Tell me who you would like? Give me 2.

Agree that I think he would be great get, and good fit for the needs of the club.

I think also from a perception point of view it is important that we are able to bring in a name player. Like it or not we have an image of being soft, and not an attractive option for players on the trade table.

Was just listening to Greg Denham on SEN, he has a pretty low opinion of us, and regardless of whether it's justified or not, (and there were a lot of Melb supporters having a go at him) that perception is out there. Mud sticks. Only by winning games, and being able to make statements like we are trying to do with securing Clark will some of the mud be washed off.

Not to mention it builds on the excitement of the coaching announcements to be able to attract a few players in as well through trade week.

  On 13/10/2011 at 23:00, rpfc said:

And I am sure there are a couple of Freo players we would like to have...

I wouldn't be averse to us taking Morabito (fat chance of that ever happening) :-)

  On 13/10/2011 at 23:11, jungle dee said:

Fyfe, Pavlich???

Tell me who you would like? Give me 2.

Wishful thinking. Their big 6 would be off limits, so you're wasting your time.

Clark would be a more than handy addition for Neeld's plans. But Ballantyne comes to mind for this example. Nevertheless I'd be hoping for Clark, given our needs, even though I think Freo will do their best to snag him.

  On 13/10/2011 at 23:11, jungle dee said:

Fyfe, Pavlich???

Tell me who you would like? Give me 2.

You know, I had no idea you were asking a question until the third question mark...

And are those the only Freo players you are aware of?

Suban, Ibbotson, De Boer, Duffield, and Mayne are possibly attainable and would trust their ability to get a game for us...

Edit: Schammer is no longer playing footy. Retired.

  On 13/10/2011 at 23:22, rpfc said:

Mayne

I believe Neeld has a 'no perm' policy.

  On 13/10/2011 at 23:22, rpfc said:

You know, I had no idea you were asking a question until the third question mark...

And are those the only Freo players you are aware of?

Suban, Ibbotson, De Boer, Schammer, Duffield, and Mayne are possibly attainable and would trust their ability to get a game for us...

Byron Schammer is retired IIRC.

Mayne was another that came to mind.

  On 13/10/2011 at 23:22, rpfc said:

You know, I had no idea you were asking a question until the third question mark...

And are those the only Freo players you are aware of?

Suban, Ibbotson, De Boer, Duffield, and Mayne are possibly attainable and would trust their ability to get a game for us...

Edit: Schammer is no longer playing footy. Retired.

We dont need any of those players. I would prefer to play our own.

  On 13/10/2011 at 23:31, jungle dee said:

We dont need any of those players. I would prefer to play our own.

We are.

And isn't it a roaring success...

  On 13/10/2011 at 11:32, RobbieF said:

This years draft is thin and there seems to be 8 to 10 that are ok and after that it is ordinary, it depends on club needs who falls outside the top players and who will be there at 12 but I have a feeling that we will be saying meh when our selection is read out. I hope not but it may be the case.

On the contrary...I predict that MFC will make great, positive announcements about how lucky we were to get from the draft players who (a) we expect to be 10 year/200+ gamers (B) that we didn't think would be available when our time came to call out their names and © they are exactly what we need going forward to complete our list. And then posters here will be in raptures...particularly about our final rookie pick who apparently was missed by every other recruiting manager in the first 5 or 6 opportunities they had to draft him before we did.

Of course, it is always possible that there is a James Hird, Chris Grant or Dane Swan out there who will slip through.

I would love to see Mitch Clark in a dees jumper.

However these names spring to mind: Trent Croad, Nick Stevens, Chris Judd, Jade Rawlings, David Hale, Luke Ball...

By the sounds of it, we have made a great offer to Mitch and Brisbane. In the past when we have been in a two horse race for a player, and made the better offer, the player has usually ended up in the Draft. (Stevens, Rawlings, Ball)

  On 13/10/2011 at 23:51, simma02 said:

Clark is not a key forward - he's a far better ruckman. We already have an excellent prospect on our list in Lucas Cook to be a key forward. I'd prefer us to get Lisle whilst Cook is developing and stop wasting time on Clark. We won't land him and we are wasting our time trying to do so.

Simma, Clark IS a key forward. I know you don't believe it, and you're entitled to your opinion, but think about it from the perspective...

Neeld, at his job interview, put a MFC team on the board, and highlighted where the holes are on our list. In terms of rucks, it would be safe to assume that we are travelling ok with Jamar (AA ruck), Martin, Gawn, and for drastic measures we can use Robbie Campbell (rookie), Jack Fitzpatrick and Lynden Dunn. It's only after Dunn that I would consider Spencer.

It was no secret that we made a play for Dawes. What's his primary role? Full forward/Centre Half Forward. We didn't get him, even after throwing big dollars at him. The very next person we are throwing those sort of dollars at is Mitch Clark. If, as you believe is right, Mitch Clark is a ruckman, why on earth would we be offering him a similar contract to what we offered a full forward/chf?

Is there going to be any stage that you will think, and don't worry - you're not on your own, that maybe, just maybe Rawlings (who was an assistant coach for him for the past 2 years, Neeld (who is our head coach and has been given a licence (within reason) to target the exact type of player he wants), that these blokes actually know a bit more about M Clark's strengths than you do?

I don't mean to sound like a smart ass, but I think it's pretty clear what role they think Clark is best at playing, and as a result, are wanting him to fill that role in our team. They WON'T be offering those sort of terms to a player that isn't the right man for the job.

  On 14/10/2011 at 00:03, billy2803 said:

Simma, Clark IS a key forward. I know you don't believe it, and you're entitled to your opinion, but think about it from the perspective...

Neeld, at his job interview, put a MFC team on the board, and highlighted where the holes are on our list. In terms of rucks, it would be safe to assume that we are travelling ok with Jamar (AA ruck), Martin, Gawn, and for drastic measures we can use Robbie Campbell (rookie), Jack Fitzpatrick and Lynden Dunn. It's only after Dunn that I would consider Spencer.

It was no secret that we made a play for Dawes. What's his primary role? Full forward/Centre Half Forward. We didn't get him, even after throwing big dollars at him. The very next person we are throwing those sort of dollars at is Mitch Clark. If, as you believe is right, Mitch Clark is a ruckman, why on earth would we be offering him a similar contract to what we offered a full forward/chf?

Is there going to be any stage that you will think, and don't worry - you're not on your own, that maybe, just maybe Rawlings (who was an assistant coach for him for the past 2 years, Neeld (who is our head coach and has been given a licence (within reason) to target the exact type of player he wants), that these blokes actually know a bit more about M Clark's strengths than you do?

I don't mean to sound like a smart ass, but I think it's pretty clear what role they think Clark is best at playing, and as a result, are wanting him to fill that role in our team. They WON'T be offering those sort of terms to a player that isn't the right man for the job.

Okay, just say I change my view on Clark being a decent key forward - I'm not but for argument sake I'll put that on the back burner. He is not worth pick 12 + and a compo and this is what we may have to give up to get him. Pick 12 alone - not a bad get. Don't get me wrong I think Clark is a decent player but no superstar. Most importantly, he doesn't want to live here. His heart is in Perth. This is the biggest issue here - he doesn't want to live in Brisbane so I really can't see why he would come to Melbourne. Perth is where he wants to be.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/demons-tempt-clark-with-offer-20111013-1ln63.html

  On 13/10/2011 at 22:23, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yes but even if he goes to Freo we have put a spanner in the works. Let's say he has his heart set on WA but Brisbane wants more than pick 16. In we step with pick 12 and say to the Dockers "what have you got?" we could end up with pick 16 or 20 plus a player, question is who do we want from Freo?

the big Pav