Mark Neelds policy to go for experienced fringe players to shore up the list after dumping the light bodied young and hastening the departure of MFC senior players he didn't want. As a result we now have added 9 mature age recruits, ( Seller Roden, Terlich, Magner, Couch, Byrne, Gillies, Pederson, Matt Jones) Of these three have been acquisitions, Magner, Terlich and Matt Jones, that gives us 3 out of 9 ultimately worth it. (I have not included Byrne and Seller because I don't believe they will provide any value as we improve slightly) I understand most of these recruits have been given at lease 2 years. Is it true Pederson has been given 3 - Casey is going to do well out of this.

The hidden problem I see here is that we are virtually working with a team list that is in effect 6 players short for two years at least. It will then take another two years at least to replace and develop new young recruits that may develop long and significant careers.

The consequence, a list black hole of 6 for at least 4 years just to get back to where we could have been.

You argue that I'm missing the cultural change in the club. Yes Neeld's purpose, but as a major policy for changing the culture of the, he has to be held accountable for the outcome. Some good trainers from good cultured clubs verses, denuding our own home grown experience and a culture of greatest losses in the clubs history, that's a defeatest attitude.

I claim, it was a bold move that has becomes disastrous.

I would argue that we already had an experiential black hole and Neeld's recruiting strategy was aimed at filling it. We can probably all agree that it hasn't really been all that successful, but if nothing else it has netted us Dean Terlich and Matt Jones - two players who I think could form a part of any future premiership team we are smart enough to create.

Other players Neeld has recruited include Mitch Clark and Chris Dawes, who I think will play a very large role in guiding our team over then next six or more years.

Edited May 17, 201312 yr by Chook

I understand most of these recruits have been given at lease 2 years.

Go for it with your opinions, but at least get your facts straight.

Only one of those, Pedersen (apparently?) has more than 2 years - but I don't know even where that came from, because the word was when he signed that it was 2 years.

Gillies and Rodan both only have one year, Magner and Crouch have till the end of this year as Rookies, when they can be dumped or re-signed. Sellar is contracted only to the end of this year, he originally had a 2 year deal. Terlich, Jones etc. came through the draft, and have the obligatory 2 years. Byrnes has 2 years.

i.e. the majority of the players on your list are out of contract at the end of this year, and the others, except Pedersen it seems, are OOC at the end of next year. 4 year black hole????

I still think it is too early to judge all of these players as duds, given that virtually our whole side is playing well below their best.

After one off season our list looks more like a spud farm than an AFL list, some of the players we have signed is an absolute joke.

After one off season our list looks more like a spud farm than an AFL list, some of the players we have signed is an absolute joke.

Oh I don't know Df26 we picked up Gillies.

Now there is a good choice!

Oh I don't know Df26 we picked up Gillies.

Now there is a good choice!

At least he was on a one year contract, 3 years for pederson is shocking.

At least he was on a one year contract, 3 years for pederson is shocking.

I am finding it hard to believe it would be 3 years.

But then I suppose I should not be surprised.

I am finding it hard to believe it would be 3 years.

But then I suppose I should not be surprised.

I didn't realise that either until today 3 for pederson 2 for rodan 2 for byrnes and 1 for gillies

Byrnes to me was the only acceptable choice of the whole lot :/

After one off season our list looks more like a spud farm than an AFL list, some of the players we have signed is an absolute joke.

I don't believe our list is that bad. They are just coached by someone whose methods they don't understand therefore they are unable to respond!

I don't believe our list is that bad. They are just coached by someone whose methods they don't understand therefore they are unable to respond!

Our list on the whole is okay, some of the decisions have been shocking however, Dawes and Byrnes i can understand, the others i just shake my head at, there is plenty of upside to our list though, the right people will know how to make it shine.

Our list on the whole is okay, some of the decisions have been shocking however, Dawes and Byrnes i can understand, the others i just shake my head at, there is plenty of upside to our list though, the right people will know how to make it shine.

Agree!

Edited May 17, 201312 yr by FairBump PlayOn

Mark Neelds policy to go for experienced fringe players to shore up the list after dumping the light bodied young and hastening the departure of MFC senior players he didn't want. As a result we now have added 9 mature age recruits, ( Seller Roden, Terlich, Magner, Couch, Byrne, Gillies, Pederson, Matt Jones) Of these three have been acquisitions, Magner, Terlich and Matt Jones, that gives us 3 out of 9 ultimately worth it. (I have not included Byrne and Seller because I don't believe they will provide any value as we improve slightly) I understand most of these recruits have been given at lease 2 years. Is it true Pederson has been given 3 - Casey is going to do well out of this.

The hidden problem I see here is that we are virtually working with a team list that is in effect 6 players short for two years at least. It will then take another two years at least to replace and develop new young recruits that may develop long and significant careers.

The consequence, a list black hole of 6 for at least 4 years just to get back to where we could have been.

You argue that I'm missing the cultural change in the club. Yes Neeld's purpose, but as a major policy for changing the culture of the, he has to be held accountable for the outcome. Some good trainers from good cultured clubs verses, denuding our own home grown experience and a culture of greatest losses in the clubs history, that's a defeatest attitude.

I claim, it was a bold move that has becomes disastrous.

That's why last year we secured Hogan and Barry through the mini-draft for debut next year, and chose an undeveloped mid, Toumpas, instead of a developed mid Wines.

So thats 3 coming through next year (2 mids and 1 forward)

Ps, If this performance keeps up we should get a few round 1 picks

Our list on the whole is okay, some of the decisions have been shocking however, Dawes and Byrnes i can understand, the others i just shake my head at, there is plenty of upside to our list though, the right people will know how to make it shine.

Agree!

I have a feeling Rodan was drafted because no one expected Viney to play so well/so many games.

There is merit in some of the trades... Pederson I'm still trying to work out

I have a feeling Rodan was drafted because no one expected Viney to play so well/so many games.

There is merit in some of the trades... Pederson I'm still trying to work out

If that's the case 'PJ' then they weren't paying much attention. Viney was always a walk up start, it's only injury that's held him back from being even better.

If that's the case 'PJ' then they weren't paying much attention. Viney was always a walk up start, it's only injury that's held him back from being even better.

'rjay', the club has been criticised alot about playing new draft picks too early, there will be times when he will have to go down to Casey and if he gets injured.

I think it was a good trade - particularly considering Viney has an injured toe ATM.

Anyway didn't we get him for trading a pick over 80?

'rjay', the club has been criticised alot about playing new draft picks too early, there will be times when he will have to go down to Casey and if he gets injured.

I think it was a good trade - particularly considering Viney has an injured toe ATM.

Anyway didn't we get him for trading a pick over 80?

Viney is out this week and Rodan hasn't come in so I'm not sure if it was a good trade or this is the reason we got him.I think we picked up to many of these fringe players and got rid of some of our last years fringe players like Matt Bate. I'm not sure we have gained anything.

I have a feeling Rodan was drafted because no one expected Viney to play so well/so many games.

I find that hard to believe. Byrnes has been OK, Dawes I think was a good pick up as was the drafting of Hogan but Gillies, Pedersen, Rodan?? Bleh

Oh I don't know Df26 we picked up Gillies.

Now there is a good choice!

What I can 't understand is that Hawthorn were desperate to get Gillies last year and the Cats wouldn't clear him. I can' t see why the love for Gillies.