In the mini-analysis in The Age of Free Agency moves (if they went to higher clubs or lower clubs) of the 17 players listed, 3 were from Melbourne (Sylvia, Maloney, Rivers). Two of these went to current finalists.

While i'm not overly upset about losing those three, if you add Frawley to the list this year, then we are officially becoming a feeder club, losing our experienced players to more successful clubs in an era of football dominated by mature bodies and wise heads.

If you add the losses of Clark, Jurrah, Wonna as additional unexpeceted talent losses during this period, its no surprise we've struggled on the field.

To break this cycle and hold onto our players despite free agency we need to rise quickly, and the AFL should facilitate this with a PP in addition to the Frawley compo...

Edited July 31, 201411 yr by PaulRB

In the mini-analysis in The Age of Free Agency moves (if they went to higher clubs or lower clubs) of the 17 players listed 3 were from Melbourne (Sylvia, Maloney, Rivers). Two of these went to current finalists.

While i'm not overly upset about losing those three, if you add Frawley to the list this year, then we are officially becoming a feeder club, losing our experienced players to more successful clubs in an era of football dominated by mature bodies and wise heads.

If you add the losses of Clark, Jurrah, Wonna as additional unexpecetd talent losses during this period, its no surprise we've struggled on the field.

To break this cycle and hold onto our players despite free agency we need to rise quickly, and the AFL should facilitate this with a PP in addition to the Frawley compo...

I would love a PP but I just can't see it happening.

It is so subjective and for all the arguments you can (rightly) give for us requiring a pick, you can give subjective reasons for not giving a pick.

Whilst they were correct in assuming that Roos would make some difference , for the AFL to suggest that there was significant upside in the young talent on the list is nothing more than a guess. The improvement IMO has come mainly from our the introduction of our imports - Tyson, Cross and Vince. Some players have improved but we actually haven't seen significant upside from our young talent.

It is flawed to base the giving of a priority on what the AFL think "might" happen.

It is flawed to base the giving of a priority on what the AFL think "might" happen.

Of course it is, Evans used it as a poor excuse which backfired. He said we would have Clark and Hogan playing with improvement from Toumpas and other youngsters.

Now we have finished again at the foot of the ladder. What is the excuse this time after 8 years of bottom of the ladder finishes. Oh of course, our percentage improved.

If we don't get a PP and I don't think we will, it should be forever done away with.

I'd further the argument for a PP with the following:

1. during our rebuild we were retarded by the AFL's introduction of draft concessions to the expansion clubs.

2. during our rebuild we were retarded by the AFL's introduction of free-agency, resulting in the departure of a disproportionately high number of our experienced players.

3. during our rebuild we were retarded by the AFL's change in stance on tanking, where what was condoned as "acceptable tanking" (Carlton's Kreuser cup fiasco) was redefined as "unacceptable tanking" by the AFL.

All of these factors were introduced by the AFL and have impacted the lower placed teams of the time (Us) more than they impacted higher placed teams. This results in us down the bottom longer, with lower revenue, members and morale a resulting additional factor...

It is an AFL policy driven cycle of decline. While other internal factors are involved, these AFL driven factors alone have hurt us and prolonged our period near the bottom of the ladder.

What happens in two years when we lose Roo's if we're still haemorrhaging experienced players, and sitting in the lower reachers of the ladder?

Goodnight Melbourne.

Edited August 1, 201411 yr by PaulRB

The AFL wont need any more logic thrown at them as to why we ought to get a PP. its got nothing to do with logic, or deserving one etc. Its all political now. They will do so if it suits them not us.

The AFL wont need any more logic thrown at them as to why we ought to get a PP. its got nothing to do with logic, or deserving one etc. Its all political now. They will do so if it suits them not us.

I reckon BB rather than get a PP they might just do us a couple of favours, make sure Chip's compo is Band 1, and things like that

I reckon BB rather than get a PP they might just do us a couple of favours, make sure Chip's compo is Band 1, and things like that

Provided we are FA negative by a sufficient amount id agree with this.

In a fair world we should be given a PP but giving the Dees anything seems a hardsell for the AFL.

But strange things do happen.

I hope PJ is lobbying hard for our cause.

My thoughts simply go to the notion that there's nothing truly formulated or transparent about either a PP nor compo picks...all backroom secret squirrel shlt !

I.e What suits THEM !!

I agree the AFL will do what suits them.

But I bristle at suggestions that marking the compo up to Band 1 for Frawley is a favour.

The MFC would NOT have traded Chip for anything less than a top 5 pick? ie anything less than Band 1.

So the free agency policy, even with the compo "favoured" up to band 1, gives us NOTHING, and is worse for us as it takes away our ability to decide on trading Chip or not...

We are being fleeced once again.

Provided we are FA negative by a sufficient amount id agree with this.

In a fair world we should be given a PP but giving the Dees anything seems a hardsell for the AFL.

But strange things do happen.

I hope PJ is lobbying hard for our cause.

My thoughts simply go to the notion that there's nothing truly formulated or transparent about either a PP nor compo picks...all backroom secret squirrel shlt !

I.e What suits THEM !!

"Secret Squirrel [censored]"

Do you mind if I use that one bb?

Love it

"Secret Squirrel [censored]"

Do you mind if I use that one bb?

Love it

cant really claim ownership so feel free OD

Has a rustic quality about it doesn't it ..lol

I agree the AFL will do what suits them.

But I bristle at suggestions that marking the compo up to Band 1 for Frawley is a favour.

The MFC would NOT have traded Chip for anything less than a top 5 pick? ie anything less than Band 1.

So the free agency policy, even with the compo "favoured" up to band 1, gives us NOTHING, and is worse for us as it takes away our ability to decide on trading Chip or not...

We are being fleeced once again.

The real problem is that ostensibly we get a pick to select a young kid, who will take 3 years to come up to speed, while we have lost an experienced, big bodied, key position player.

That could change if you traded the pick for a couple of experienced players though.

This reminds me of the Tom $cully dialogue of a couple of years back. Lots of speculation, cloak and dagger whispers etc with the reveal at the end of the year doing nothing to stop the speculation that he was gawn months earlier.

Managers do what they do, so I don't blame Chip, but as time goes on I think we need to also plan forward on the basis that JF will not be with us next year. For the alleged big bucks he may command, he is probably worth more to higher placed clubs than he is to us.

Og great importance will be our effective use of the compo pick we get for him.

Steve - it's not just you I will bite back at.

Again - you can debate his worth all you like and whether you want him to stay or not - but I will ask two questions.

Continue to underperform ?? no 2 on our goalkicking, no 1 marks for the club overall, no 1 on average marks per game, no 3 on contested marks, no 2 on marks inside 50, no 3 on inside 50's ( means he is working hard as a lead up forward), ranked 7th in dreamteam and 4th in supercoach ( i don't really rate these systems as reflective of a players true worth). Would you possibly like to revise your post ?

Is he in AA form ? No. Could he play better ? Yes, Calling him an underperformer ?

Poor leadership - please elaborate. Do I think he is great leader ? probably not. Do I think he should be in the LG - probably not. But again we don't really have full insight. Just because a player is not a great leader - doesn't follow that he is a poor leader. I would like to know why you think he is "poor" leader.

Please tell me what you think opposition clubs will see in his attitude ? What opposition clubs will see is a player that is a "cleanskin" - doesn't come with baggage like your Heath Shaws, like your Fevola's. He trains, he plays, he doesn't miss too many games through injury. tick. What opposition clubs will see is a player who can is quick and can play against bigs and has had some success against smalls. tick. What opposition clubs will see is a player who can swing both ends of the ground. tick. What opposition clubs will see is a player who is still off his best AA form from years back. Cross. What opposition clubs will see is a player who can turn the ball over, can make dumb decisions and doesn't really hurt oppositions with his foot and hand skills. Cross.

And again, won't argue with posters that feel he won't be missed and easily replaced. Maybe yes maybe no. Won't argue with posters that feel we will do better by receiving an early draft pick for him. Maybe yes, maybe no. Won't argue with posters who think he is gone - probably yes, maybe no. But I will take exception with opinions that are coloured because of his stance of not revealing his preferred position until seasons end.

Edit - You will also note that Frawley is 3rd in the league for marks. Not too bad when you consider where we are ranked for inside 50's. IMO opinion it also shows that for a player who has taken the 3rd most marks in the league he hasn't had enough impact - means he doesn't do enough with the ball when he marks it.

When you pick two ambiguous throwaway lines/examples and isolate them from the context they were used in, translation is easily lost.

But I'm glad you're wanting more detail.

I'm assuming you're quoting another poster about the 'underperforming' because it's not the word I used. I believe I said something along the lines of Frawley has displayed some worrying habits and efforts throughout games this year which are a concern because he is apart of the leadership group. When posters use the word 'underperform', I imagine they've seen some of the things I'm talking about. Sacrificial acts, desire to chase and harass, block, second and third efforts. All of those non-negotiables that build and bind the strongest clubs. Frawley has absolutely 'underperformed' in some of those areas this year. He has absolutely looked disinterested at times this year when it comes to wanting to perform those team acts. No doubt about it. If you disagree with this, I urge you to go back and re-watch some games this year and keep an eye on Frawley and when the ball is in his area etc.

When you have a bloke in your leadership group displaying disinterested behavior of that kind, no matter how 'insignificant' you might think it is, it has a ripple effect. On younger guys. On guys who like (Frawley, Sylvia, Gysberts, Blease, Cook, Watts etc) don't quite have the philosophical or psychological knowhow/skills to break free of the impressions and examples their senior players and leaders are themselves subconsciously setting. Those younger players then think that it's acceptable behavior and eventually they themselves become conditioned to playing at that intensity, with little clue of what they're doing wrong.

As for players who are more 'self-driven' like Viney, Jones, Dawes, Hogan etc, things like this are indeed less of an issue. But that's not the point. Personalities are different and you get a different one to your club every year.

The MFC have given birth to this toxic, unprofessional and 'kick in the park' approach to AFL which isn't all a result of the players. It started at the top, spread throughout our coaching department, recruiting department, leaders and players. The last 5 years have been the result of the virus, and only now - with the right people back in place starting at the top in Peter Jackson and Glenn Bartlett, the right Coaches in Paul Roos and George Stone, a competent recruiting department headed by Jason Taylor and some strong leaders in Daniel Cross, Nathan Jones and Chris Dawes are we starting to see the wheel turn. The virus is slowly being flushed out. But it's still there in some capacity and Frawley is definitely one who is still carrying it. Sylvia has gone and is clearly still affected, a fault of his own and the environment he was brought up in.

As for Frawley being voted in to the leadership group. That's something that even I question. I can only assume Roos didn't know the extent and complexity of the situation and as an 'experienced' KPP who had been on the list for a long time, Frawley was voted in by his team mates and obviously coaches. But I don't like that he is in it, not one bit.

The sooner he is gone, the better in my eyes. We have the opportunity to further rid ourselves of the virus and the further the season has gone on, the more I reckon Roos would be noticing such things and thinking that we'll be better off as a club without Frawley.

Edited August 1, 201411 yr by stevethemanjordan

I think we need to also plan forward on the basis that JF will not be with us next year.

This is the only thing I am certain of. Our list managers will absolutely be planning forward for life with or without Frawley.

Steve - I will retire from this discussion now because in my opinion - we will never agree. I see a footballer with some talent and obvious flaws - you see these flaws and major attitude problems that will affect others in the club - I dont see it.

However where you are 100% wrong is "I reckon Roos would be noticing such things and thinking that we'll be better off as a club without Frawley."

Roos has been asked incessantly about Frawley. He has constantly "it's James decision and we are comfortable with him taking his time" ( or words to that end).

He could have stopped there but he hasn't - he has continually said ( as recently as two days ago) when asked if he is going and i am paraphrasing, " you can tell when a player has disengaged from the club and James was not like that at all." . Read what Roos has consistently said about Frawley - he does NOT want Frawley to go - "While Roos said this was still up to five years away, he said the Demons were very keen for James Frawley to commit to the club in the coming months." You are again putting your spin on things and making up stuff to suit your argument.

However where you are 100% wrong is "I reckon Roos would be noticing such things and thinking that we'll be better off as a club without Frawley."

Roos has been asked incessantly about Frawley. He has constantly "it's James decision and we are comfortable with him taking his time" ( or words to that end).

He could have stopped there but he hasn't - he has continually said ( as recently as two days ago) when asked if he is going and i am paraphrasing, " you can tell when a player has disengaged from the club and James was not like that at all." . Read what Roos has consistently said about Frawley - he does NOT want Frawley to go - "While Roos said this was still up to five years away, he said the Demons were very keen for James Frawley to commit to the club in the coming months." You are again putting your spin on things and making up stuff to suit your argument.

I'm giving my opinion of what Roos is thinking behind closed doors.

What he says to the media about the Frawley situation means zero. Of course he's going to say he wants him to sign. Saying that is in the best interests of the club.

He doesn't play both ends of the ground until he kicks goals he cant kick goals for sht

He may be second in goal kick but thr benchmark is low

He may be second in goal kick but the benchmark is low

Very much. We have the lowest "for' in the league

Very much. We have the lowest "for' in the league

It may have something to do with lowest inside 50's in the league ?

Fairly hard to kick goals from the wing.

I'd further the argument for a PP with the following:

1. during our rebuild we were retarded by the AFL's introduction of draft concessions to the expansion clubs.

2. during our rebuild we were retarded by the AFL's introduction of free-agency, resulting in the departure of a disproportionately high number of our experienced players.

3. during our rebuild we were retarded by the AFL's change in stance on tanking, where what was condoned as "acceptable tanking" (Carlton's Kreuser cup fiasco) was redefined as "unacceptable tanking" by the AFL.

All of these factors were introduced by the AFL and have impacted the lower placed teams of the time (Us) more than they impacted higher placed teams. This results in us down the bottom longer, with lower revenue, members and morale a resulting additional factor...

It is an AFL policy driven cycle of decline. While other internal factors are involved, these AFL driven factors alone have hurt us and prolonged our period near the bottom of the ladder.

What happens in two years when we lose Roo's if we're still haemorrhaging experienced players, and sitting in the lower reachers of the ladder?

Goodnight Melbourne.

Paul, you have thrown up some good arguments for us to throw at the AFL for a PP.

As all here have said, it is anyone's guess whether the AFL would even entertain a PP discussion, but if you don't ask you won't get.

It may have something to do with lowest inside 50's in the league ?

Fairly hard to kick goals from the wing.

The point is the benchmark is low...and it is.. Argue anything you like...its low

This is the only thing I am certain of. Our list managers will absolutely be planning forward for life with or without Frawley.

Hi Nutbean.

You may get 100% for maths covering both heads and tails but my suggestion was we should plan forward on the basis that Chip IS NOT playing in Red & Blue after 2014. The likelohood of him changing his mind (or his management) at this late stage is minimal, and our realistic potential to play in finals in the short term is even slimmer.

Chip is a good player who is highly sought after by clubs "topping up" for a tilt at the flag. Ultimately, the impulse for on field success, as much as the money, should see him moving on.

The point is the benchmark is low...and it is.. Argue anything you like...its low

Agreed but you have no interest to ascertain why it is so low ?

We are a long way last in the inside 50 statistic. Interestingly our conversion once inside 50 is right up there - we just don't get it in enough.

Hi Nutbean.

You may get 100% for maths covering both heads and tails but my suggestion was we should plan forward on the basis that Chip IS NOT playing in Red & Blue after 2014. The likelohood of him changing his mind (or his management) at this late stage is minimal, and our realistic potential to play in finals in the short term is even slimmer.

Chip is a good player who is highly sought after by clubs "topping up" for a tilt at the flag. Ultimately, the impulse for on field success, as much as the money, should see him moving on.

Again - quoted by the club "Roos said the club was playing out both scenarios for the club’s planning for next year, but he was prepared to wait a little longer for Frawley’s answer". Not quite sure what else you want me to say ? Would you suggest that because there is minimal chance of him staying that all your plans revolve around him going. I hope my club is professional and has contingency plans either way.

I think GNF stated that the clubs expectation on Frawley staying was low but you would expect them to be planning for life with and without him. Here's the thing - whilst there may be some truth in players agreeing to move prior to the trade period/contract expiry date - IMO - those would be minimal. Clubs would be planning lots of different scenario's for different players depending on who was available and who may be shaken loose at trade time.

I'm giving my opinion of what Roos is thinking behind closed doors.

What he says to the media about the Frawley situation means zero. Of course he's going to say he wants him to sign. Saying that is in the best interests of the club.

ahhh..alright then..

The debate has descended into the realms of mind reading.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/2014-07-30/roos-on-afl360 - "I think he hasn't made up his mind.. you can generally tell when a player has made up his mind....he is invested in the club ..invested in team meetings and the leadership group" ( Bomber chimed in that he looked invested in the Port game)....

so behind closed doors he thinks exactly the opposite ....ok then..

Roos could have said one of many things - he could have gone with " I don't think James has made up his mind - we want him to stay but we respect his decision to delay his discussions" - Roos has said those words almost identically on numerous occasions but he decided to go down the track of how he is invested in meetings and the leadership group - which goes directly to his attitude. Yet you think Roos thinks the exact opposite of what he said ?

Again for the record - I think he will go. I can live with the opinion that Roos thinks he will go. But your suggestion that Roos is thinking that we will better off without him due to his attitude and actually wants him to go is based on...hmmm.. what is that based on ?

Edited August 1, 201411 yr by nutbean