As Port has lost Chaplin and Pearce they have two decent picks waiting for them. If they had signed up Monfires through FA they would have 1 pick and the value of the other would be lowered.

They traded away pick 48 for Monfries and will keep (at this point) their two picks where they were.

Tim Harrington conveyed an understanding that each club to lose players to free agency would most probably receive a single pick based on net loss. Hypothetically, Port Adelaide could currently be sitting on a first round pick which would explain their reluctance to participate in other FA deals.

But I still think that the pragmatic approach from the club would've been to sing his praises as much as possible until he left and feign that they would like to have him around if possible, then to pay him out afterwards (exactly as PA & Coll did with Chaplin & Wellingham).

Yep that would have made all the difference.

And we should give under-performing players games to maintain thier trade value.

Having read your first 6 posts I am suspicious of your motives..

Edited October 10, 201212 yr by dandeeman

Simply put, I view it as the club's responsibility to preserve the value of their players as best they can until they very end. I don't think MFC did that in this instance. I don't think Moloney himself did himself any favors either (and I never claimed this), but that's a separate issue.

Yes it was of the senior variety! I also overheard them commenting on how Emma Quayle 'picked it', but thats the only snippet I got - so I have no idea what "it" is

See her article in Age from today. I posted the link in te "State of Play" thread. I think she's picked the GWS/GC/Melb dealings and explained it well. Just a guess....

And we should give under-performing players games to maintain thier trade value.

Well done, that's exactly what I said, gold star for you!

But I still think that the pragmatic approach from the club would've been to sing his praises as much as possible until he left and feign that they would like to have him around if possible, then to pay him out afterwards (exactly as PA & Coll did with Chaplin & Wellingham).

Again, Wellingham isn't a free agent so you can't really compare.

Also Chaplin was still playing reasonable footy with Port, Moloney wasn't with us.

Neeld isn't into gifting players games and nor should he. If that means we only get a end of 2nd round draft pick for our net loss through FA compared to a mid 2nd round pick or end of 1st round then so be it.

Apologies you're right on with Dawes. Which in my view only strengthens the fact that keeping the perceived value of Moloney high was important because it will probably influence the pick MFC gets from the AFL (whereas if they were never going to get a pick at all since they clearly had a net gain in the FA period its not really important).

As I said, no doubt that Moloney hasn't helped his own cause. But Melbourne have also made it "crystal clear" that they don't want him, and don't consider him to be a modern footballer. That's been the word all year, from Neeld himself.

The result of that is lower value on the trade table, or lower compensation as a FA departure (which, as mentioned, is predicted to not be based solely on new contract & age - there is a discretion element involved as well).

Yes, Moloney said he wanted out quite early in the season. Yes, he played a [censored] season. Yes, his manager didn't help his cause.

But I still think that the pragmatic approach from the club would've been to sing his praises as much as possible until he left and feign that they would like to have him around if possible, then to pay him out afterwards (exactly as PA & Coll did with Chaplin & Wellingham).

Mark Neeld, by playing Moloney or singing his praises, would have sent the wrong message to the rest of the list and would not have re-inforced team standards or the buy-in philosophy. He was dropped and brought back several times during the season, giving him every opportunity as a senior member of the team to try to embrace the new way. The fact that he was unable or unwilling to do so, and as a result by mutually agreeing to part ways says more about him negatively than it does about the club. It only makes the club stronger. And if the lukewarm response to recruit him is an indication of how far he has fallen, other clubs will not want to take on a player who just wants to play his way and spits the dummy if he can't.

If the by-product of this, is that we don't get adequately compensated at the draft or trade table, then I am convinced that we will be more than compensated by the renewed attitude and buy-in from those who are left, knowing that Mark Neeld plays no favourites and was happy to cast adrift a fallen star who only 12 months earlier polled 19 Brownlow votes and won the club's B & F.

Our club culture is changing and for me that this a bigger win than any mid to late draft pick can bring.

Sigh. To get this point out of the way, I DON'T he should gift players games. I said that very clearly. People keep putting words in my mouth...

For the record I think the club has made some very good moves the last few weeks. I only want what is best for the Dees. It doesn't mean that I think their off field performance the rest of the year was spot on, though.

Simply put, I view it as the club's responsibility to preserve the value of their players as best they can until they very end. I don't think MFC did that in this instance. I don't think Moloney himself did himself any favors either (and I never claimed this), but that's a separate issue.

Statement 1: Give games to players who under-perfom to maintain trade value.

Statement 2: Moloney didn't do himsely any favours but that is separate to the Moloney issue.

You seem an articulate person, therefore I assume that you have some degree of intelligence and education. I therefore see no need to engage you in arguing obvious reasons why these statements are flawed.

Given you lack of post history and insincerity of your argument I question your motives.

Edited October 10, 201212 yr by dandeeman

FWIW I saw Neeld and Viney at the Virgin lounge out of Melbourne this morning at app. 8.40am. I was on the 9.10am to GC and they were off to board before me (on another flight). Cant quite recall what other flights there were but I did see Sydney and Adelaide (I think)

If they were off to Adelaide maybe they were going to have a chat with either Matt Thomas or Ben Jacobs?

Sydney then maybe Jesse White was being spoken to for a cheap KPF option until Hogan's ready to go?

Sigh. To get this point out of the way, I DON'T he should gift players games. I said that very clearly. People keep putting words in my mouth...

For the record I think the club has made some very good moves the last few weeks. I only want what is best for the Dees. It doesn't mean that I think their off field performance the rest of the year was spot on, though.

I'm not convinced that any significant harm was done by the quotes in the articles you posted earlier. Neeld didn't say anything that the rest of the professional footy community didn't know. In fact you could claim that it is a better negotiating position with the AFL to cut the usual spin and just call a spade a spade and cut to the chase (I'm running out of cliches...)

But I still think that the pragmatic approach from the club would've been to sing his praises as much as possible until he left and feign that they would like to have him around if possible, then to pay him out afterwards (exactly as PA & Coll did with Chaplin & Wellingham).

I think if you look at some of Neelds pressers and the fact they kept selecting him then that is what they were aiming to do. It just became a toxic position to keep playing him as the season went on, it wasn't going to work. The team had to start moving on without him.

FWIW I saw Neeld and Viney at the Virgin lounge out of Melbourne this morning at app. 8.40am. I was on the 9.10am to GC and they were off to board before me (on another flight). Cant quite recall what other flights there were but I did see Sydney and Adelaide (I think)

Virgin Aust Departures Today

Brisbane 8:00

Adelaide 8:10

Launceston 8:15S

Sydney 8:15

Gold Coast 8:20

Canberra 8:30

Perth 8:30

Sydney 8:30

Hobart 8:40

Brisbane 9:00

Brisbane 9:15

Well that narrows it down then! I'd say Perth is the answer....altho they would have to be at the gate by at least 8;20. Maybe it was Brisbane?????

If they were off to Adelaide maybe they were going to have a chat with either Matt Thomas or Ben Jacobs?

Sydney then maybe Jesse White was being spoken to for a cheap KPF option until Hogan's ready to go?

Maybe having a chat with Jimmy Toumpas while they are there.

Jesse White would be cheap for a reason, I don't think we will be going there.

Statement 1: Give games to players who under-perfom to maintain trade value.

Statement 2: Moloney didn't do himsely any favours but that is separate to the Moloney issue.

You seem an articulate person, therefore I assume that you have some degree of intelligence and education. I therefore see no need to engage you in arguing obvious reasons why these statements are flawed.

Given you lack of post history and insincerity of your arguent I question your motives.

Not all of us post only platitudes.

I only really took an interest in goings on around here during the FA period.

When I say "preserve a player's value", I don't mean "give him games he doesn't deserve" - I mean talk him up off the field.

Issue 1: Did Moloney do his best to maintain his reputation and value as a player? No, definitely not. Never claimed this.

Issue 2: Did the Club do their best to maintain one of their player's value off-field (ie without gifting him free games)? In my opinion, no. I think they should have tried a bit harder.

They are clearly two separate issues.

It's clear that everyone who has replied has disagreed with my conclusion in relation to issue 2, so be it. I think it is an arguable point, though.

*edit* Look in the end I am just stunned to lose last year's B&F winner for nothing, as we all are. Most of you see it as all Moloney's (and the system's) fault. I see the blame as laying in a few places. We will have to disagree.

Edited October 10, 201212 yr by cfe

So the club should fight to maintain a players "value", despite the same player doing his unbeknown best to diminish the same "value"?

Not in my book.

Edited October 10, 201212 yr by PaulRB

I cant get over the fact that Moloney decided to pi$$ off overseas to Vegas when he has no club to play for.

Youd think someone in his position would be running laps day in day out to maintain fitness and show how committed he is.

Ah well, his loss.

So the club should fight to maintain a players "value", despite the same player doing his unbeknown best to deminish the same "value"?

Not in my book.

I think that is the point.

Moloneys petulant displays happened within the season.

The important thing to note is that he announced his intention not to "explore free agency" as every other available free agency did, instead he was the only free agent to announce categorically that he was leaving his club.

The club knowing that he is a free agent and understanding that any compensation we awere likely to receive would be nominal wished him all the best.

If anyone has diminished BM's value it has been BM due to a loss of personal form, an apparent unwillingess to work on a new game plan and a premature resignation. It is hardly surprising to see clubs steering clear.

Anyhow thats the last post by me on this matter here, thread is being hijacked.

Edited October 10, 201212 yr by dandeeman

Virgin Aust Departures Today

Brisbane 8:00

Adelaide 8:10

Launceston 8:15S

Sydney 8:15

Gold Coast 8:20

Canberra 8:30

Perth 8:30

Sydney 8:30

Hobart 8:40

Brisbane 9:00

Brisbane 9:15

Well that narrows it down then! I'd say Perth is the answer....altho they would have to be at the gate by at least 8;20. Maybe it was Brisbane?????

Maybe talking to Koby Stevens or Matt Thomas?

I don't know if this has been covered on this thread or other but I haven't heard anything further on Farren Ray. I really like this guy and would be pleased if he came to us. Any update?

See her article in Age from today. I posted the link in te "State of Play" thread. I think she's picked the GWS/GC/Melb dealings and explained it well. Just a guess....

That would be my guess.

Virgin Aust Departures Today

Brisbane 8:00

Adelaide 8:10

Launceston 8:15S

Sydney 8:15

Gold Coast 8:20

Canberra 8:30

Perth 8:30

Sydney 8:30

Hobart 8:40

Brisbane 9:00

Brisbane 9:15

Well that narrows it down then! I'd say Perth is the answer....altho they would have to be at the gate by at least 8;20. Maybe it was Brisbane?????

wow this really is silly season, speculating on players based on airline timetables

Edited October 10, 201212 yr by Bates Mate

Moloney had the footy world at his feet. He never delivered.

B & F in a team such as ours, was merely a bonus award picked up over the top of mostly rookie type triers, with a few semi experienced, good ordinary, under achievers alongside.

It is not holding a heap of recognition in the eyes of other teams' recruiters yet.

He actually could be a top 50 player with a different attitude and focus. It wont ever happen...............IMO!

Yes he played some good games for us, but how many in his MFC time?

Build a better culture with players who are prepared to work hard and stay focussed.

Anyone not wanting to die for the jumper needs to be ignored by selectors nowadays.

Toughen up ......................

Damien Barrett reports that we are moving closer on the Cam Pederson deal with North

http://www.afl.com.a...x?newsid=146068

http://www.heraldsun...f-1226464763731

Neeld did not say that exact phrase, but that has been the inference from the club all year.

No, the club didn't infer anything.

Imply, maybe. You're the one who inferred.