lol, now I don't know what to be optimistic about.

"The Tigers will be without forward Jack Riewoldt, who will miss one week with quad soreness, and ruckman Ivan Maric, who has been managed through the pre-season after groin surgery and is now recovering from an ankle injury that will take one to two weeks."

  On 12/02/2014 at 21:26, mdemonski2 said:

Far too many posters in demonland are grammar nazi's. I suggest go and write a book and get it out of the system.

No place for spelling lessons on a footy fan forum!

No apostrophe, my friend, unless you're talking about the Nazi's shoe or jumper or other possession.

The stuff Jake Niall writes is usually good but in this speculative article he shows the Melbourne Football Club and its players very little respect: Richmond a good fit for Frawley

Now, many would say that the club and its players have done nothing to earn respect from the football public and they would be right. This article brings home the poor perception the football world has of us as a club, automatically placing us in 17th place with no hope of being able to sway Frawley to stay or to match any offer for him if he decides to leave - and the person I'm talking about is one of our leaders.

That is why first and foremost we have to stop making excuses every time the team goes out and performs poorly. A limp, lifeless and insipid effort like that of Brisbane's admittedly undermanned team last night should not be excused by the fact that ten or so of our finest didn't make it to the line.

To be clear, it's not the result on the scoreboard I mean here, but rather the tactics and strategies applied by the coach and the effort and commitment of the players. Yes, it is a Mickey Mouse NAB Challenge match being played for no prize and it takes place in February, but after seven years of indifferent results in both the real thing and in meaningless practice games there should be no excuses for rubbish on field performance or excuses based on political upheaval, club in fighting, injuries or poor coaching.

We are in the public eye tonight and if the 24 or so who run out display anything less than total commitment, it will only set the scene for continuing the contempt and lack of respect in which we are held by the rest of the football world - and we will deserve every bit of that.

sportsbet.com.au has us at $4.50 and Richmond $1.20.

No respect for us there either

  On 13/02/2014 at 19:58, Amino Nothing said:

sportsbet.com.au has us at $4.50 and Richmond $1.20.

No respect for us there either

You have to earn it!

Put simple we have not for 6 years

  On 13/02/2014 at 19:42, Whispering_Jack said:

The stuff Jake Niall writes is usually good but in this speculative article he shows the Melbourne Football Club and its players very little respect: Richmond a good fit for Frawley

Now, many would say that the club and its players have done nothing to earn respect from the football public and they would be right. This article brings home the poor perception the football world has of us as a club, automatically placing us in 17th place with no hope of being able to sway Frawley to stay or to match any offer for him if he decides to leave - and the person I'm talking about is one of our leaders.

That is why first and foremost we have to stop making excuses every time the team goes out and performs poorly. A limp, lifeless and insipid effort like that of Brisbane's admittedly undermanned team last night should not be excused by the fact that ten or so of our finest didn't make it to the line.

To be clear, it's not the result on the scoreboard I mean here, but rather the tactics and strategies applied by the coach and the effort and commitment of the players. Yes, it is a Mickey Mouse NAB Challenge match being played for no prize and it takes place in February, but after seven years of indifferent results in both the real thing and in meaningless practice games there should be no excuses for rubbish on field performance or excuses based on political upheaval, club in fighting, injuries or poor coaching.

We are in the public eye tonight and if the 24 or so who run out display anything less than total commitment, it will only set the scene for continuing the contempt and lack of respect in which we are held by the rest of the football world - and we will deserve every bit of that.

It is a poor article because there is no evidence that Richmond is any closer to a flag now - than they were 10 years ago.

Richmond are built on hype, but they lack leadership, this is evident. MFC have far more leadership than Richmond, far more.

The only thing is, our leadership sits in the stands. Dawes and Clark are leaders, once they get on the field, combined with Grimes, Jones, the recent addition of Cross, Vince and the uprising of Viney and Toumpas, there is no logical being that would leave MFC - in order to play at Richmond.

We might be perceived in the media to be no-hopers at present, but with a fully fit list, we will actually stand for something, especially under Roos.

On Richmond, the only leader they have desperately wanted out - in Martin, he should've followed his instincts as well.

Richmond are the most overrated club in recent times, they are gunners.

  On 13/02/2014 at 09:46, DemonDave said:

watching the game tonight really emphasises that we need to leave a good impression on prospective members/supporters by, if not winning, at least being competitive. if you were a lions supporter right now you'd be demoralised at the prospects for your season (regardless of circumstances and available personnel they have shown absolutely nothing)

Undercuts the AFL expansion into rugby states. Why gift so many players to gold coast if triple premiers brisbane are going to fall away like this. gold coast, this is your fate in a few years too.

  On 13/02/2014 at 19:58, Amino Nothing said:

sportsbet.com.au has us at $4.50 and Richmond $1.20.

No respect for us there either

There is plenty of respect... last year they would have had us at $10.50!

  On 13/02/2014 at 16:44, Undeeterred said:

No apostrophe, my friend, unless you're talking about the Nazi's shoe or jumper or other possession.

Thanks for enlightening me. My world is now a better place thanks to your lesson on the possessive apostrophe.

Now can you please go and write a book or alternatively let's talk footy on here.

Ps oh my, did I get let's right. Or is it lets? I wouldn't dream of inserting an apostrophe incorrectly. There I go again is it wouldn't or wouldnt? Will I ever be able to post again without fear of another grammatical reprimand!

I see nothing wrong with Niall's article, although I suspect when a journalist has nothing to write about they'll speculate on Frawley to fill some column inches.

He says, "if" Melbourne finish 17th, which is hardly a slap in the face. He says "some clubs" think Frawley will stay once he sees we're over the disasters. He acknowledges that Richmond is not a premiership threat yet, but slowly edging towards their goal. And he paints a scenario (depending on where we finish) that sees Melbourne come out in a reasonable position should he go.

There's nothing earth shattering in the article, but I don't find it disrespectful, it's merely stating the facts of free agency and who is a good fit for someone like Frawley.

Agree there is nothing earth shattering, and I suspect many here find it disrespectful, because we seem to have let go (or lost) several relatively high profile players from our club (Sylvia, Rivers, Moloney, Scully)with the introduction of free agency, and the thought of losing yet another one is painful, especially a player of his quality, and popularity.

The reason I am not a fan of the article is that it's just tabloid journalism with a football flavour. I don't dislike Jake Niall and generally find what he writes is ok to read, but this article to me feels like it was written from a template where all you do is replace the word Frawley with Rivers and Richmond with Geelong, as an example... and the flavour of the article doesn't change. Speculative crap like this where there appears to be no basis for the article other than... Frawley is a defender and Richmond has a suspect defence, just feels lazy and as if the paper has no quality articles on their boards to go with.

Can someone explain to me when Frawley's status changed from Restricted Free Agent to Unrestricted? I was under the impression that he was still restricted as a free agent?

He is a restricted free agent at the end of this year. So if we can match any offer we probably will.

  On 13/02/2014 at 22:16, Bedraggled Dee said:

He is a restricted free agent at the end of this year. So if we can match any offer we probably will.

And then he can go into the draft.

If he agrees to another teams contract, we will trade him or let him go and get the compo.

Just had a look at the Tigers squad and I recon even without the big three we are a reasonable chance. Their squad is not that strong. We are going to need Howe and a couple of smalls to jag a few goals but I recon $4.50 is a good bet.

  On 13/02/2014 at 10:07, DemonOX said:

It actually reminded me of the way Melb played during last season tbh.

Must admit i am nervous about this season and at the same time a bit excited.

Didn't Lions have half their side out last night?

I wouldn't read a thing into it.

All I've seen Frawley do for the past 3 years is: hesitate until every option is covered by the opposition, kick it out from an opposition behinds straight to the opposition, turn it over in every way possible, sulk. He's supposed to be all Australian level. He hasn't been showing it.

  On 13/02/2014 at 22:20, rpfc said:

And then he can go into the draft.

If he agrees to another teams contract, we will trade him or let him go and get the compo.

If he wants to pay for GWS or another team of flogs.

We need to play hard ball mate. He is a professional athelete, if we want him and match the offer he stays and does what a professional does. The only thing I dont understand is what aout contract conditions? We can match the money but must we also match the contract arrangement?

  On 13/02/2014 at 22:34, Demon31 said:

All I've seen Frawley do for the past 3 years is: hesitate until every option is covered by the opposition, kick it out from an opposition behinds straight to the opposition, turn it over in every way possible, sulk. He's supposed to be all Australian level. He hasn't been showing it.

....you are joking aren't you, either that or the medication isn't working.........he has been one of the most consistent players in the last 3 years, in the leadership group, I don't blame him wanting to see if we are on the up...

  On 13/02/2014 at 22:16, Bedraggled Dee said:

He is a restricted free agent at the end of this year. So if we can match any offer we probably will.

Is he? To be a restricted free agent he has to be in the top 10 or so paid players at the club. He signed a long term contract which means his contract amount might be lowish.

I'm not confident he's an unrestricted FA.

I had this thought too BUT it is tough to find 10 players paid more than the kind of contract Frawley would have got after his near-AA 2010.

Jones, Garland, Dawes, Clark, Grimes, Trengove, and Vince probably would be making more than Frawley.

McDonald, Howe, and Watts might be making more...

All of those players would have to be on more than Frawley for him to be an UFA.

We will know soon anyway when the AFL release the RFA/UFA Class of 2014.

  On 13/02/2014 at 22:43, Bedraggled Dee said:

If he wants to pay for GWS or another team of flogs.

We need to play hard ball mate. He is a professional athelete, if we want him and match the offer he stays and does what a professional does. The only thing I dont understand is what aout contract conditions? We can match the money but must we also match the contract arrangement?

Playing 'hardball' doesn't rule out letting him go. He will be offered a very good contract by us, on our terms, if he agrees to another teams contract it is an explicit wish to leave the club. If we 'match' and he thinks he can get through to that team in the draft we would be throwing away a top 5 pick in the draft.

Due to the Franklin deal - this 'matching' of contracts will be a little hazy. The AFL have come out and said that the Swans must honour the entire fiduciary amount for the life of the deal and not renegotiate the contract:

  Quote

Dillon said the AFL acknowledged that the nature of the nine-year deal was an unprecedented commitment of TPP funds to a single player over such a contract length, and as a result it sought written guarantees from all members of the Sydney board as well as its senior management.

These included:

• "An explicit acknowledgement that the long-term specific financial commitment over the nine-year agreement will apply to the Swans' total player payments for each of the nine years, regardless of how many years Franklin is available to play for the club."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/afl-clears-buddys-10m-move/story-fnca0u4y-1226735072406

  On 13/02/2014 at 22:49, Satyriconhome said:

....you are joking aren't you, either that or the medication isn't working.........he has been one of the most consistent players in the last 3 years, in the leadership group, I don't blame him wanting to see if we are on the up...

Agree, a very important player on and off field.

Would hate to lose him but understand him not being in a hurry to sign, I think we will start to turn it around this year and he will stay.

Consistently bad. The only consistently good player has been Nathan Jones.

  On 13/02/2014 at 23:50, Demon31 said:

Consistently bad. The only consistently good player has been Nathan Jones.

  On 13/02/2014 at 22:16, Bedraggled Dee said:

He is a restricted free agent at the end of this year. So if we can match any offer we probably will.

I thought he was... but several of the articles coming out since Frawley decided to hold off on his contract for the time being have stated he is unrestricted.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-02-07/roos-ok-with-frawley-delay

Is the unrestricted status based upon the earnings in the given year of a contract? as in if a contract is front loaded does it hurt you at the end in cases like this because Frawley is earning less in his final year? or is it based upon the total contract value?