Magner was welcome to nominate for the ND if he was upset about his treatment. I highly doubt that is how he sees it, though. He's still on the list and still has the opportunity to prove himself. If he makes it or not it'll depend completely on whether he's good enough, it'll have nothing to do with how many other 25 year olds from the VFL are on the list.

Rookies get paid additional for each seniors game they play, don't they. So Magner would have earnt quite a bit extra given he played 17 games in 2012.

Rookie contracts are a minimum base. A club may pay extra if it deems fit if the Salary CAP allows. It may be that this is the case in relation to Magna.

It seems like the FD like Matt Jones, and think he can offer a bit over 2 years +. Seeing that Magner and couch are on the rookie list already, its unlikley that they would have wanted any more 'ready to go' types on the rookie list. You dont want to plan or rely on for 3-4 long term injuries to be able to play your rookies!

remaining rookie spots will be reserved for project / young types IMO

It seems like the FD like Matt Jones, and think he can offer a bit over 2 years +. Seeing that Magner and couch are on the rookie list already, its unlikley that they would have wanted any more 'ready to go' types on the rookie list. You dont want to plan or rely on for 3-4 long term injuries to be able to play your rookies!

remaining rookie spots will be reserved for project / young types IMO

This from Neeld on the MFC website today:

"We’ll take a bit of a deep breath and have a look at a couple of younger types who perhaps need to come into the system for a couple of years, before they’re ready to play League footy. We think there are a number of players who will add that to the rookie list"

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/151628/default.aspx

Rookies get paid additional for each seniors game they play, don't they. So Magner would have earnt quite a bit extra given he played 17 games in 2012.

I think from memory Rookies get around 2.5 - 3k a game which is on top of the base wage they are on.

Rookie contracts are a minimum base. A club may pay extra if it deems fit if the Salary CAP allows. It may be that this is the case in relation to Magna.

This, I thought, was common knowledge.

Just because Magner is still ''just" a rookie, it doesn't mean he is getting paid $30k and not allowed into the showers at AAMI...

He did play for Box Hill Hawks against Casey Scorpions in Round 8 but I can't say I have any recollection of him from that game. I do have that game recorded so I'll have a look over the next couple of days.

Take it from me. It wont help you. He was hardly sighted in this game. Casey flogged them.

I would have preferred Luke Tynan. Then I didn't get see many Box Hill Games, so like most, I was also wondering who the hell is Matt Jones.

This is clearly a 'needs' selection, evidenced by TV's comment that we thought all our mids were a bit "one-sized".

Looks like he has enough of the requisite attributes to do well, both physically and skills-wise.

Like others, I'm a bit circumspect, since I know nothing of him, but we gotta put our faith in the club on this one.

At least until there's enough exposed form to make an informed decision.

But it's not like there was a bevy of other options there standing out like the proverbial - maybe a few popular names, but the hype is meaningless.

And even if his selection only helps to reinforce the mature workmanlike psyche of the playing group as a collective, it will be worth it for a pick at that stage.

However, I doubt it was this alone, or else we'd have waited until the Terlich pick to select him.

There's no indication Hawthorn weren't interested in taking him at their next pick, or any other club for that matter.

Like Bail, Howe, McKenzie, Nicholson, Tom McDonald, etc he'll come to club largely an unknown, but will be given every opportunity to succeed.

This bloke is an interesting pick up. He reminds me of Hawthorns 1980 star Gary Buckenara. Seems to move exactly like him, hope he has the same impact in his career. And apologies for mentioning Buckenara I still haven't forgiven him either for destroying the dream in 1987.

Neeld gone full moneyball.

Would have been available in PSD/rookie, surely

Seems neeld has little time or patience in developing young players.

Must have figured out that his tenure would be cut short if he has another uncompetitive year

I can understand our other choices, but this one is totally bizarre. Rookie selection at best I would have thought.

Why waste a pick at 52 when you could have picked jones up in rookie draft?

Why waste a pick at 52 when you could have picked jones up in rookie draft?

Jones had no idea Melbourne would pick him up so for all he knows, another 17 clubs could have been looking at him. If the football department deem him good enough to add something to our list, I don't care whether he is pick 52, 1 or 706.

Props to the club who clearly had a specific list of players they thought would benefit the list, and have picked them up accordingly. Let them do their job and grade when a pick could have been used in a few years once he's showed us his ability.

Who's to say that some other club may not have used a late pick to pick up Jones, we say something in him others may have too and taken a chance with a late pick. He fills a need take him, lots of good players still in the rookie draft.

Keeps getting reffered to as a running inside mid...could turn out alright. was he training with any clubs?

Seems neeld has little time or patience in developing young players.

Must have figured out that his tenure would be cut short if he has another uncompetitive year

Would you have preferred another uncompetitive year? Not that this selection is going to be the difference between competitiveness and not anyway, so I'm really not sure what your point is other to whinge and moan and pot the coach.

The reason these two ôn the main list is there is already two mature player on the rookie list, also, there are less rookie spots, there is no point in having our rookie list full of muture age players on there, we will pick up two young kids ôn the rookie list, dont forget that we still picked up three young players, neeld wants a blanced list, look at sydney the reason they did not bottom out is that nethey never throw out the baby with the bathwater, they always keep a blanced list, cause our club has done so well with a list full of kids.

Seems neeld has little time or patience in developing young players.

Must have figured out that his tenure would be cut short if he has another uncompetitive year

That's crap.

We have plenty of young players or 'projects' if you will.

No need to get more. If we have Trengove, Blease, Tapscott, Viney, Toumpas, Watts, Strauss, Barry, and Nicholson playing AFL does anyone here really think that we should play more kids around them?

And how many 'projects' should Neeld and co. have to worry about? We got rid of three challenging yet contracted projects for, effectively, two 25 year olds and a 29 year old.

None of Martin, Gysberts, and Morton were commanding a spot in the 30 best players at the club, and the attentions of the FD should not be on more speculative kids but on improving the blue chip kids we have.

All those young players I mentioned above require development to become what we all hope they will become.

So in summary: Viney, Toumpas, Barry, Hogan, and Kent are enough new kids...

Edited November 25, 201212 yr by rpfc

That's crap.

We have plenty of young players or 'projects' if you will.

No need to get more. If we have Trengove, Blease, Tapscott, Viney, Toumpas, and Watts, Strauss, Barry, and Nicholson are playing AFL does anyone here really think that we should play more kids around them?

And how many 'projects' should Neeld and co. have to worry about? We got rid of three challenging yet contracted projects for, effectively, two 25 year olds and a 29 year old.

None of Martin, Gysberts, and Morton were commanding a spot in the 30 best players at the club, and the attentions of the FD should not be on more speculative kids but on improving the blue chip kids we have.

All those young players I mentioned above require development to become what we all hope they will become.

So in summary: Viney, Toumpas, Barry, Hogan, and Kent are enough new kids...

plus 2 more in the rookie draft and we have well enough.

plus 2 more in the rookie draft and we have well enough.

Its also worth noting we have had a lot of success with the Rookie list, Jamar, Davey, Mckensie, Nicholson, Evans, Magner have all been good for our club and if we pick up two young kids and give them time we may well uncover another primary list player.

Why waste a pick at 52 when you could have picked jones up in rookie draft?

I reckon Neeld thinks he will/can play seniors in 2013. No use rookie-ing a 25 year old. He obviously sees him as having an immediate role to play.

Take it from me. It wont help you. He was hardly sighted in this game. Casey flogged them.

Watched till quarter time and you're right ... unsighted.

I reckon Neeld thinks he will/can play seniors in 2013.

"Can" being the operative word for me. Viney alluded to one of the rationales behind the choices is to create competition for spots. There's no pressure to perform when the player who would take your spot won't actually be ready to do so for a couple of years.

"Can" being the operative word for me. Viney alluded to one of the rationales behind the choices is to create competition for spots. There's no pressure to perform when the player who would take your spot won't actually be ready to do so for a couple of years.

We've had too many over the last ten years that have only had to turn up to training to get a game; it's almost like they've been doing us a favour.

His presser is gold.

Mr No Nonsense.