I see that Prendergast Harrington has been quoted that what he wants to see from the draft period is a "Net Gain"?? What is this? Surely if you come 16th and have picks 3,4 and 13 a "Net Gain" is a formality. Unless we pull another "Morton". I am after "significant gain".

Watto

Edited for losing interest in the Dees during our era of hell and not being sure who the list manager now is...

Edited October 8, 201213 yr by Jack_Watts

Quote["I see that Prendergast has been quoted that what he wants to see from the draft period is a "Net Gain"?? What is this? Surely if you come 16th and have picks 3,4 and 13 a "Net Gain" is a formality. Unless we pull another "Morton". I am after "significant gain".]Quote

My heart skipped a beat when I read your post.

Edited October 8, 201213 yr by Ben-Hur

Prendergast. Yep he's done a good job for us in the past......

Nett Gain?

Well we gain Viney, Byrne & about 6 rumours = 8

But, we have lost Green, Lawrence, Jurrah and about another 7- 9 OOC to go plus FA & RFA. =14

I think we have to trim our total list by about 2 (could be totally wrong)

Therefore I reckon we must sign 4 of the OOC and FA's on the list to give us a Nett Gain.

Who could they be?

My Guess is Rivers, Dunn, Petterd & Bennell

am I having a nightmare or is somebody slagging off the recruiting department on the day of this magnificent coup? and it's because of a stupid quote? geez mate give it a rest and enjoy one day of being a Melbourne supporter, it was a good one.

Nett gain = being better off than when you started. Simple terms improved list.

Nett gain = being better off than when you started. Simple terms improved list.

Nett gain = being better off than when you started. Simple terms improved list.

this we have picks 3-4-13-26

Everything we do in trading is aiming to improve on this in terms of what we end up with, quality wise/worth on our list

Net Gain or Loss?

What do you think?

May have missed a couple of ins and outs so please ad or take off the lists

Melbourne have gained

Dawes (jury out to just how good he is. Tall, intelligent and young but can he tear a game apart like a Neitz?)

Byrnes (would not have played senior football for GFC in 2013 and was not on other teams radars)

Viney (Still very young and pinning hopes on him having an impact in 2013 just a little unrealistic)

Melbourne have lost

Brent Moloney(IMO better player than Shannon Byrnes)

Liam Jurrah (Faster, better mark, and potentially would kick more goals than Dawes)

Brad Greene (Will be missed regardless of age and arguably got us across the line V GWS this year)

Jared Rivers (IMO our best and most solid defender, badly managed in 2012 and played out of position.)

Net Gain or Loss?

What do you think?

May have missed a couple of ins and outs so please ad or take off the lists

Melbourne have gained

Dawes (jury out to just how good he is. Tall, intelligent and young but can he tear a game apart like a Neitz?)

Byrnes (would not have played senior football for GFC in 2013 and was not on other teams radars)

Viney (Still very young and pinning hopes on him having an impact in 2013 just a little unrealistic)

Melbourne have lost

Brent Moloney(IMO better player than Shannon Byrnes)

Liam Jurrah (Faster, better mark, and potentially would kick more goals than Dawes)

Brad Greene (Will be missed regardless of age and arguably got us across the line V GWS this year)

Jared Rivers (IMO our best and most solid defender, badly managed in 2012 and played out of position.)

Moloney - Chose to leave = couldn't adapt to new demands. Is he a better player than Viney will be? Why compare him to Byrnes who will play a completely different role?

Jurrah - Chose to leave = distracted, injured, didn't even say thanks for having him. Neeld has a plan that calls for bigger bodies, not the ones who keep getting hurt.

Greene - Chose to leave = retired but I guess you can read whatever you like into that. Past his prime and seemed happy to go.

Rivers - Chose to leave = looking for new opportunities. the only potential loss I can see from this quartet but we have the depth to cover him.

How much of a loss are any of these really?

Moloney - Chose to leave = couldn't adapt to new demands. Is he a better player than Viney will be? Why compare him to Byrnes who will play a completely different role?

Jurrah - Chose to leave = distracted, injured, didn't even say thanks for having him. Neeld has a plan that calls for bigger bodies, not the ones who keep getting hurt.

Greene - Chose to leave = retired but I guess you can read whatever you like into that. Past his prime and seemed happy to go.

Rivers - Chose to leave = looking for new opportunities. the only potential loss I can see from this quartet but we have the depth to cover him.

How much of a loss are any of these really?

Yes agreed Crawf with that summary though don't wish to get down dirty into another "LJ please say thank you"... My question is are we better off now or is there a "net gain"?

Moloney was sick and tired of Neeld.

How will Byrnes/Dawes react to Neeld's school boy approach after playing under the best coaches in the business?

Reasons aside my concern is that in 2013 we have lost more talent than we have gained.

hopefully the best is yet to come!!

Moloney was sick and tired of Neeld.

How will Byrnes/Dawes react to Neeld's school boy approach after playing under the best coaches in the business?

Reasons aside my concern is that in 2013 we have lost more talent than we have gained.

You need help.

Moloney was sick and tired of Neeld.

How will Byrnes/Dawes react to Neeld's school boy approach after playing under the best coaches in the business?

Reasons aside my concern is that in 2013 we have lost more talent than we have gained.

So players are sick of coaches ? is that how this game should work ?? I quite like your insulting school boy analogy for Neeld because it fits in well with how Moloney played all year - like a petulant school child. And I have got a feeling that Dawes may have some inkling of what Neeld is like.

I hope the message is being drummed loud and clear into the current list, that improvement won't come from players from other clubs plugging gaps. Improvement needs to come from the blokes with upside, who have so far under performed, stepping up.

Sylvia, Bail, Strauss, (Martin, Gysberts, if they stay) Watts, Trengove, Grimes, Tapscott, Frawley, Garland, even Blease, Clark and Howe who had good years but can still improve, all have upside that they need to deliver if this club is ever going to get anywhere.

I think the coaching group is trying to create an environment and a culture that will give those who want to ruthlessly compete, every opportunity to do so and those that don't, nowhere to hide.

'Net Gain' will come from within, or it won't come at all.

Moloney was sick and tired of Neeld.

How will Byrnes/Dawes react to Neeld's school boy approach after playing under the best coaches in the business?

Reasons aside my concern is that in 2013 we have lost more talent than we have gained.

I'm confident Dawes will know exactly what he's getting into and so will Byrnes. You seem to forget the Bomber Thompson dictatorship at Geelong.

You've got to stop taking shots at Neeld. Did he steal your bike or something? What's with the "schoolboy" stuff? Just because he used to be a teacher is not a reason to condemn him. All coaches are teachers after all. This one has a clearly written lesson plan and a solid curriculum base. He has established his assessment criteria and is about to embark on whole-school improvement plan.

Go Dees! Go Neeld!

Edited October 23, 201213 yr by Crawf52

How will Byrnes/Dawes react to Neeld's school boy approach after playing under the best coaches in the business?

You're right in (only) one thing. Dawes has played under the best coaches in the business at Collingwood. Including Neeld. One of the reasons cited for Dawes making the choice to come to Melbourne over other clubs, was to work with Neeld again.