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)

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)

Hopefully Perth to say hello to our soon-to-be Franchise FF.

Hopefully Perth to say hello to our soon-to-be Franchise FF.

hes already coming youd think theyll now concentrate on the next acquisition

hes already coming youd think theyll now concentrate on the next acquisition

They can chat to Stevens can't they?

I have no problem if the Head Recruitment Officer and the Head Coach take a couple days out from this marathon of a trade 'week' to say hello to a 17 year old we have just recruited.

I want him and his family to know that he is valued highly and he will be well looked after when he comes to Melbourne in a few months time and signs what is essentially a three year contract (and one I would immediately make 4 if I could).

Lawrence left and Moloney has gone as a free agent so that makes at least four.

As an additional minimum I reckon Bate and Petterd will be taken by other clubs, and if we are lucky Morton could also be traded.

Also i dont knnow if it was accounted for but Hogan isnt counted until next year as he cannot play, he is on a supplementary list not the first 44 or whatever it is.

As stated its pretty unlikely that PA would recruit Moloney as an FA at this point as it will reduce their compensation for losing other FAs. A Monfries-esque deal would be far more likely.

Brisbane could recruit Moloney as a FA relatively consequence free (for them) other than the $$$ of his contract (since they have not LOST any FAs or RFAs at this point and are not due for any compensation so far). There is no point to Brisbane TRADING for him since they can pick him up for free.

So the only way that MFC would get any compensation from Moloney leaving to Brisbane is if his departure through free agency, combined with others from the club, offsets the net gains the club may make elsewhere through free agency resulting in a net loss during the FA period. This would result in a pick of some sort from the AFL as compensation

Unfortunately, MFC have essentially destroyed any perception of Moloney's value throughout the year by dropping him and publicly declaring that the game has passed him by. This makes it significantly less likely that they will be adjudged to have has a net loss over the FA period.

Just say, hypothetically, that after FA is over, Melbourne's FA gains/losses look something like this: IN = Byrnes, Dawes, OUT = Rivers, Moloney, Martin... maybe a few other bit part players. To me (as it stands with the way MFC have handles the Moloney situation) this is right on the border of a net LOSS v a net GAIN for MFC. If MFC had, on the other hand, plumped up his value then the situation would be viewed differently.

MFC have significantly lowered Moloney's value by (1) dropping him (defensible) and (2) publicly stating that they don't want him and that they think the game has passed him by (no need for it and stupid).

Thus MFC has significantly lowered Moloney's value in most people's eyes, including those of the AFL.

I think that this reflects very poorly on MFC's list management - they should have done the usual lip service of claiming he was a "required player", fitted into the club's future plans, would be sad to see him go, would consider matching any contract offers he receives etc. This would have preserved some of his value in the eyes of the AFL, and other clubs such as PA who might consider a trade.

Instead they have made it very clear that not only do they not want him, but that they think he isn't a valuable modern day player for ANY club. I just don't get this - they have shot themselves in the foot, destroyed any value he had left to the club, and opened themselves up to receiving no compensation for his departure as a FA, and to receiving only lowball offers if any trade could be done.

Contrast MFC's treatment of the Moloney case with, for example, that of Chaplin at Port - yes, Chaplin played more in 2012, but even when it was pretty clear that Port wasn't going to match his offer they took it right down to the wire, they at least made it look like they wanted him next year.

Acting like they actually wanted to keep Moloney around and valued him as a footballer might end up being the difference between Melbourne receiving or not receiving a compensation pick from the AFL. Or it might be the difference between receiving, say, pick 30 vs pick 40. Doesn't matter. Being vicious in the pursuit of little gains is a hallmark of a successful club.

I think they have gone about this in a very shortsighted manner.

Dear Brent Moloney's Manager,

Brent has diminished his own value by not knuckling down and showing what value he could be to a prospective new employer.

As it is, all he can say now is, "I'm tough, hard at it, can run all day, and am not prepared to do everything asked of me."

signed,

Everyone else in the MFC community

have to ask is that you Brett ?

and I thought Dawes wasnt a free agent ??

I think they have gone about this in a very shortsighted manner.

I think you are a very confused person when it comes to FA.

1. Comp has to do with age, salary, and length of contract.

2. Dawes is not a FA, he isn't even OOC. Neither is Martin.

3. Chaplin is/was a required player at Port, they didn't want to see him go but couldn't match the offer sheet for a wantaway player. We are losing a player that had been dropped a couple of times. Completely different circumstances.

4. I really don't think you could accuse the FD, after the past couple of days, of being shortsighted...

Dear Brent Moloney's Manager,

Brent has diminished his own value by not knuckling down and showing what value he could be to a prospective new employer.

As it is, all he can say now is, "I'm tough, hard at it, can run all day, and am not prepared to do everything asked of me."

signed,

Everyone else in the MFC community

No doubt Moloney has not helped his own cause, but you're just avoiding the real issue. You don't see the bigger clubs disowning players or knocking their value until after they're gone through FA or the draft. It's not good business.

As stated its pretty unlikely that PA would recruit Moloney as an FA at this point as it will reduce their compensation for losing other FAs. A Monfries-esque deal would be far more likely.

Brisbane could recruit Moloney as a FA relatively consequence free (for them) other than the $$$ of his contract (since they have not LOST any FAs or RFAs at this point and are not due for any compensation so far). There is no point to Brisbane TRADING for him since they can pick him up for free.

So the only way that MFC would get any compensation from Moloney leaving to Brisbane is if his departure through free agency, combined with others from the club, offsets the net gains the club may make elsewhere through free agency resulting in a net loss during the FA period. This would result in a pick of some sort from the AFL as compensation

Unfortunately, MFC have essentially destroyed any perception of Moloney's value throughout the year by dropping him and publicly declaring that the game has passed him by. This makes it significantly less likely that they will be adjudged to have has a net loss over the FA period.

Just say, hypothetically, that after FA is over, Melbourne's FA gains/losses look something like this: IN = Byrnes, Dawes, OUT = Rivers, Moloney, Martin... maybe a few other bit part players. To me (as it stands with the way MFC have handles the Moloney situation) this is right on the border of a net LOSS v a net GAIN for MFC. If MFC had, on the other hand, plumped up his value then the situation would be viewed differently.

MFC have significantly lowered Moloney's value by (1) dropping him (defensible) and (2) publicly stating that they don't want him and that they think the game has passed him by (no need for it and stupid).

Thus MFC has significantly lowered Moloney's value in most people's eyes, including those of the AFL.

I think that this reflects very poorly on MFC's list management - they should have done the usual lip service of claiming he was a "required player", fitted into the club's future plans, would be sad to see him go, would consider matching any contract offers he receives etc. This would have preserved some of his value in the eyes of the AFL, and other clubs such as PA who might consider a trade.

Instead they have made it very clear that not only do they not want him, but that they think he isn't a valuable modern day player for ANY club. I just don't get this - they have shot themselves in the foot, destroyed any value he had left to the club, and opened themselves up to receiving no compensation for his departure as a FA, and to receiving only lowball offers if any trade could be done.

Contrast MFC's treatment of the Moloney case with, for example, that of Chaplin at Port - yes, Chaplin played more in 2012, but even when it was pretty clear that Port wasn't going to match his offer they took it right down to the wire, they at least made it look like they wanted him next year.

Acting like they actually wanted to keep Moloney around and valued him as a footballer might end up being the difference between Melbourne receiving or not receiving a compensation pick from the AFL. Or it might be the difference between receiving, say, pick 30 vs pick 40. Doesn't matter. Being vicious in the pursuit of little gains is a hallmark of a successful club.

I think they have gone about this in a very shortsighted manner.

A couple of things. Dawaes is not FA or RFA so getting him does not impact on any FA related compensation.

Secondly as i understand it players comp value is determined by factors such as age, contract value and to a lesser extent performance over last couple of seasons. Whilst i would concede his potential contract value may be influenced by our comments (ie by talking him down maybe his value also goes down), which may in a small way impact on the compensation we get i would argue that this would be negligible.

Other clubs would have as good an idea as us where Moloney is at performance wise. Before even thinking about getting him they would have pored over tapes, done all the research etc etc. Also he was given every chance to prove himself, only getting dropped at the end of the year. I would argue that they did so to give him every chance to show why we would want to keep him and when that was off the table to ensure his trade value was as high as possible. Moloney shot himself in this regard and his stupid manager hasn't helped him either.

No doubt Moloney has not helped his own cause, but you're just avoiding the real issue. You don't see the bigger clubs disowning players or knocking their value until after they're gone through FA or the draft. It's not good business.

They diidn't disown him at all. Moloney made it crystal he wanted out and they said alright see ya. As for knocking his value see above post

Meanwhile, it's been reported that former head recruiter Barry Prendergast doesn't rate Melbourne's draft decisions thus far in the 2012 draft and trade period.

We all need a good laugh every day. Who is offering something that may rival this though? T'would be hard to beat.

Moloney telegraphed his intention way way before anyone cared one way or the other.

That he followed it up with a particularly nothing season was also his doing.

I wouldn't play cards if i were Brent.

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)

Viney, Snr, I presume :-)

MFC have significantly lowered Moloney's value by (1) dropping him (defensible) and (2) publicly stating that they don't want him and that they think the game has passed him by (no need for it and stupid).

So dropping him was "defensible" ? I'm sure Neeld is relieved.

As for Melbourne stating that "the game has passed him by". Link ?

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).

No doubt Moloney has not helped his own cause, but you're just avoiding the real issue. You don't see the bigger clubs disowning players or knocking their value until after they're gone through FA or the draft. It's not good business.

The club did not publicly declare that the game had passed Moloney by.

If so, provide evidence by way of quote from someone within the club, because I have not read, nor heard anything of the sort.

"defensible" ?

Do you not know what the word means? Or are you questioning why I would say it was a "defensible" decision not to play him? If the latter: once out of the finals race, clubs often play players in the last few rounds of the season who haven't previously been in the team to (1) see if they are worth keeping on the list next year and (2) give them some sort of trade value. Melbourne could have done the same with Moloney, but did not. I think this was the right call, i.e. a defensible decision.

As for Melbourne stating that "the game has passed him by". Link ?

http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=146068

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/melbourne-midfielder-brent-moloney-looks-for-new-home/story-e6frf9jf-1226464763731

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

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).

That's quite a walkback...

Don't injure yourself.

Viney, Snr, I presume :-)

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

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).

So, is your disappointment that:

a) MFC have let themselves down with their treatment of BM?

or

B) you can't get as much for him now?

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 ......

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).

Not wanting to get into a to and fro but any negative comments made by Melbourne about Moloney would in no way impact on the decsion by the AFL re compo.

As i said it may, in some small way impact on the length and value of a contact another club might be prepared to offer (which would impact on the compo) but even this i doubt. Clubs do their own homework and as can be seen on these boards clubs leak like sieves so all clubs would have an idea of his preparedness or other wise to to tow the line.

Neeld did make some comment about him needing to adjust his style to fit with the modern game but i reckon that was spot on, was an honest response to a question and was an in the context of explaining why he had been dropped and where the club saw him as being at.

Also a reflection of the frustration the club obviously felt towards Moloney as no doubt they had had many conversations with him about this issue before the end of the season and he obviously refused to take on board. Specifically there was talk he didn't like to the required training or direction to trim down. Again all other clubs would have known this before Neeld's comments.

That's quite a walkback...

Don't injure yourself.

Huh?

The fact that Dawes isn't coming thru FA (if he comes) makes it MORE likely that Melbourne will get a compensatory pick from the AFL. Thus Moloney's worth is MORE important than it would be if they were no hope of getting a pick at all.

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

Emma Quayle picked that we would take Wines