Jack Viney will be a gun looking at his current form. We have to pay tops for him.

What's the problem?

Just get the deal done. What a nothing story.

You can't hide it. We signed him up to keep Adelaide away.

I'm waiting for the AFL's next announcement. Moving goalposts are to be installed at every ground and only activated when MFC is kicking to that end.

Jack Viney will be a gun looking at his current form. We have to pay tops for him.

What's the problem?

Just get the deal done. What a nothing story.

You can't hide it. We signed him up to keep Adelaide away.

Its this roll-over attitude that has gotten MFC to where they are now, the bottom of the ladder!

MFC should do what possible to pay as least possible and get the best out of this super draft that they possibly can.

Not just pay 'Whateva we can'

Mark Neeld said it exactly right:

"If we've got pick No.3 and Jack is rated in the top three, then that is an easy one. If we've got pick No.3 and Jack is rated in the top 10, then we'll need to have a discussion about that.

"I'm learning very quickly that there is absolutely no guarantees in this industry."

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/135181/default.aspx

If he turns out that he is worth pick 3, then by all means pick him. If we finish 3rd last (or should I say when) and GWS or Gold Coast try to be pricks and force us into taking him with pick 3 when he isn't worth it, then let them waste pick 1 or 2 on him, and we can use pick 3 to get what is essentially pick 2. I see no problem with that at all.

Its this roll-over attitude that has gotten MFC to where they are now, the bottom of the ladder!

MFC should do what possible to pay as least possible and get the best out of this super draft that they possibly can.

Not just pay 'Whateva we can'

But we have already played the card. He is a gun with top 3 value. Christ we need him.

Rolling over would be a fatter Moloney contract IMO.

But we have already played the card. He is a gun with top 3 value. Christ we need him.

Rolling over would be a fatter Moloney contract IMO.

Top 3 value now

Maybe not after 6 weeks out and a slow recovery getting back into it. Never know, a dozen kids may come storming home end of the year with Viney struggling after his injury.

And yes a fatter Moloney contract would be rolling over also. He dosn't have much ground on his recent form to hold MFC to ransom. I would like him to stay but I beleive his best is behind him sadly.

Is the net result not to cause us to pay fair value?

No it would be causing us to pay over fair value as far as the rule is written. The rule is deliberately skewed in favour of the F/S club where they have to use their next pick, not their pick in the same round. Fair value is our pick after the pick a club will genuinely use on the player. Take out shafting us and it may be that say the Lions who finish 14th with pick 7 would legitimately take hiim with that pick to succeed Simon Black - then we'd have to use our second rounder - which would be a win for us within the spirit of the rule. I could easily be persuaded that our compo picks should be in play too and that we should have to use our mid round compo at 13 in this scenario.

Top 3 value now

Maybe not after 6 weeks out and a slow recovery getting back into it. Never know, a dozen kids may come storming home end of the year with Viney struggling after his injury.

Fair comment, but that was the risk of playing him early in the VFL.

We already knew the people operating GW$

We have tampered with multiple drafts so we have form.

The idea of the drafts is to equalize the comp and allow teams at the bottom to rise to the top. We have thumbed our nose at that philosophy and refused to follow the AFL directive to improve. We'll show em

PS its not BP's fault

I may be wrong but don't the AFL still have a priority pick system in place which is to be awarded to a club or clubs that are struggling?

Isn't this priority pick at the discretion of the panel set up by the AFL and to be approved by them?

If it is they could use it as a stick to punish us if they feel we have breached the rules of the draft but were entitled to one; let's face it we should get a priority pick after 4 years of crapidness but probably won't anyway.

It isn't ideal but don't we get the draft selection afterwards anyway? (Scully compensation)

I don't like what GWS & GC are doing (if they're actually going to do it) but it won't end the club.

From what I understand JV is top 5/10 quality anyway, the prospect of having him plus two other first rounders on the list in what is supposed to be a very deep draft has me salivating!

It isn't ideal but don't we get the draft selection afterwards anyway? (Scully compensation) I don't like what GWS & GC are doing (if they're actually going to do it) but it won't end the club. From what I understand JV is top 5/10 quality anyway, the prospect of having him plus two other first rounders on the list in what is supposed to be a very deep draft has me salivating!

Provided we use the picks properly. Our track record ain't great in that respect is it?

Entirely predictable that the AFL takes this stance.

In any case until we know what PPs will be handed out at the discretion of the AFL and what our final picks will be it is hard to measure the overs/unders on bidding our 1st rounder for JV.

Provided we use the picks properly. Our track record ain't great in that respect is it?

Not really, but if the alternative is to rock back and forth in the foetal position muttering: "we stuffed it before, we'll stuff it again" - I'd rather be optimistic that we have the whip hand in this draft.

I hope Tim Lamb and his team have the same attitude.

If we finish as low as we are now, we could take the punt and not nominate him. Force the other teams to pick the players on their merits and we could get him with one of our compo picks.

Not an ideal situation, because I really do want him at the club but the gods and sent us down this unfortunate path. Let's go for a second half of the season revival, get as high as possible and then we don't have worry about paying overs!

If we finish as low as we are now, we could take the punt and not nominate him. Force the other teams to pick the players on their merits and we could get him with one of our compo picks. Not an ideal situation, because I really do want him at the club but the gods and sent us down this unfortunate path. Let's go for a second half of the season revival, get as high as possible and then we don't have worry about paying overs!

And by "the gods" you mean our own utter incompetance don't you?

Is the net result not to cause us to pay fair value?

1] If JV is not top 3 and we finish 16th then we pay overs - not fair value

2] If the 2012 premiers have a FS who is rated as a no. 1 they get him for pick 18 (actually higher cos of compo picks) - so is it fair that the stronger clubs get a top ranking FS cheaper than a weak club?

and you think this system is fair

1] If JV is not top 3 and we finish 16th then we pay overs - not fair value

2] If the 2012 premiers have a FS who is rated as a no. 1 they get him for pick 18 (actually higher cos of compo picks) - so is it fair that the stronger clubs get a top ranking FS cheaper than a weak club?

and you think this system is fair

It's fairer than what it used to be.

The AFL hate the MFC because Bailey told the world we tanked thanks DEAN. But if GWS after taking scully do this then them rats should be told by the AFL to F$$$OFF as they are the one's draft tampering and have F$$$ the MFC allready

and you think this system is fair

No, that's too absolute. I think the system is fairer than any of the alternatives.

I think the next round pick after a team nominates them would be fair.

IE GWS nominate him first round then we use 2nd round pick

GWS bid 2nd rounder, we get him for 3rd rounder.

Sure we get a small boost but so we should as its F/S

Just make it that you must take any father-son with your second round pick.

It's fairer than what it used to be.

that is beside the point......we are discussing if the current system is fair and if it can be improved on

there was always supposed to be a bonus element to it

i.e. you pay your next higher pick to "what he is worth" decided by other clubs bidding

problem here as we know is that other clubs don't really have to bid on "what he is worth"

i.e. other clubs can play ducks and drakes to force a club's hand and pay overs (i.e. no bonus element)

I would call this manipulating the draft which is just another fancy name for tampering, esp if as reported other higher up clubs have been lobbying GWS/GCS (never would be admitted though)

I agree with most of what is being said here. Once again it seems if were ever in a position to get screwed, we get screwed - 5 ways from Sunday.

As much as I'd love to have Jack at Melbourne I think common sense must prevail. If we think he is in the top 5 players in the daft then take him at 3 by all means. If there are clearly better options for us then we just need to let him go, the club is bigger than 1 player regardless of committments made.

No doubt if this eventuates track record suggests we end up with Richard Tambling at 3 and Jack Viney wins the brownlow in his third season.