WELCOME TO THE MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB – JAKE MELKSHAM

[Adam The God 30,602]

Sorry, couldn't read your post. Something was distracting me.

Emilia Clarke's gorgeous. That is all.

[FarNorthernD 5,861]

shhh...everyone's got their head in the sand.....

Exactly!! It would be indefensible if we picked up one of the tainted 34 only for him to get banned a couple of months later.

The other reason I hate this idea is because for the past 2 years I have fervently hoped that everyone involved in that disgraceful cheating program would be given maximum penalties. If we have one playing for us I'm going to have to barrack for him

[P-man 13,366]

I get the feeling he wont be coming to the Demons. Think he will stay a Bomber.

Well, that seals it.

Welcome to the MFC, Jake.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

At this stage of the Vince rumours:

Love it so much.

No idea.

[Mach5 4,768]

I'm surprised so many are quick to believe that the Essendon 34 will actually get banned.

Does no one remember the farce over in the NRL that WADA allowed to go unchecked?

I'd say the distinct likelihood is that there are no suspensions to come for anyone.

[bing181 9,410]

Does no one remember the farce over in the NRL that WADA allowed to go unchecked?

This is very very different. WADA didn't take anyone to CAS for starters.

I'll be very surprised if there are no penalties, but with the 6 months already served (provisional suspension), and a reduction for no significant fault, it could come down to 12 months or so to serve = 1 season (or even less, though hard to see how given the rules in place).

Presumably that's being (or has been) weighed up.

[daisycutter 29,891]

Whilst $400k sounds like a lot now, bear in mind that the average player salary is now only about $360k. This takes into account the first and second year players, as well as rookies, who are on well below $200k. Given the new TV rights deal, I think that $1.6m over four years will be a standard contract for a player on the cusp of the best 22 who is essentially depth at about the midpoint of the mooted contract period.

Yes, this sounds like a lot to the standard supporter, but when the big picture is taken into account, it's really chump change compared to the sycophants at AFL House, who take on nowhere near the risk the players do.

360k * 44 = 15,8m, so i don't see 360k as the average unless you mean excluding rookies and 1st, 2nd year players

to get to 360k avg you would have to exclude 17 players i.e. 360k average for 27 players

plus if you are going to exclude the low earning players you should also exclude the top earners in which case the average would drop even more

400k would put someone into the top 10

Edited September 19, 2015 by daisycutter

[rpfc 28,894]

The average salary is about $265k-275k.

The numbers for last season were published by the Hun earlier in the year.

[Tyson4Brownlow 154]

Time for posters to stop seeing the trade market as a "unless their a superstar we don't want them" opportunity.

Our elite will come from the draft, like all clubs. A Melksham, like a Vince or a Lumumba, is to support, fill gaps on the list and hope for a bargain.

Dangerfield, Judd like trades are once every five years, and if you ain't a successful club, forget it

Edited September 20, 2015 by JumpinJeremyHowe

[Deeoldfart 8,104]

I'm not a great fan of Melksham as a player, but if all the 'noise' about him coming to Melbourne turns out to be true, I will trust that our current administration see something in him that I don't, and that he will be recruited on a deal that they regard as fair and reasonable to all. If he then fails to add value as a player, I will adopt a 'you win some / you lose some' attitude, and seek to move on quickly. However, I will be absolutely livid if he becomes a Demon, and is then rubbed out because of his involvement in the Essendon drugs scandal. That would be unforgivable imo.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,102]

Time for posters to stop seeing the trade market as a "unless their a superstar we don't want them" opportunity.

Our elite will come from the draft, like all clubs. A Melksham, like a Vince or a Lumumba, is to support, fill gaps on the list and hope for a bargain.

Dangerfield, Judd like trades are once every five years, and if you ain't a successful club, forget it

I don't expect us to land one of the top players, although it would be nice if we at least tried. I just don't want us trading for players who are kind of ok if you tilt your head and squint a little. A marginal improvement on our current fringe players is all we'd get out of Melksham. As they said this morning on the Sunday Footy Show, he's your fifth or sixth midfielder. He's just not that valuable.

Edited September 20, 2015 by RalphiusMaximus

[bing181 9,410]

As they said this morning on the Sunday Footy Show, he's your fifth or sixth midfielder. He's just not that valuable.

Would be an improvement on our current fifth or sixth midfielder.

Once again, I trust Goodwin and McCartney (and others at the club) on players they've worked with.

[DistrACTION Jackson 10,179]

I think the real question is do we think we can get someone better at our 2nd round pick.

If it's unlikely then it's a no brainer really.

[Henrietta Lumbago 331]

I don't expect us to land one of the top players, although it would be nice if we at least tried. I just don't want us trading for players who are kind of ok if you tilt your head and squint a little. A marginal improvement on our current fringe players is all we'd get out of Melksham. As they said this morning on the Sunday Footy Show, he's your fifth or sixth midfielder. He's just not that valuable.

Most teams take about 12 midfielders into any game, so if Melksham is your 5th or 6th midfielder, then he makes our team easily.

I believe if we can get him cheap, late second rounder or third rounder, as they said in the Sunday footy show, then he is worth it.

I think he is a big improvement on our current fringe players if we can get him for not much cost.

They also talked about Jack Watts, and mentioned that he doesn't really have any value on the market, straight swap for Melksham?

[chookrat 4,268]

Offer our 3rd round pick

OR

2nd round pick + Dean Terlich

[RalphiusMaximus 6,102]

They also talked about Jack Watts, and mentioned that he doesn't really have any value on the market, straight swap for Melksham?

I'd have Watts over Melksham any day. We need more who can kick like him.

[KLV 1,768]

Most teams take about 12 midfielders into any game, so if Melksham is your 5th or 6th midfielder, then he makes our team easily.

I believe if we can get him cheap, late second rounder or third rounder, as they said in the Sunday footy show, then he is worth it.

I think he is a big improvement on our current fringe players if we can get him for not much cost.

They also talked about Jack Watts, and mentioned that he doesn't really have any value on the market, straight swap for Melksham?

God no!

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,602]

At the end of the day Roos et al want competitors. Melk fits that description.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

We win our last game, and at Etihad, Hogan wins the rising star. I'm thinking well at least I can be happy with small victories for 6 months.

Couple of weeks later I'm slapped with a reminder of how embarrassing this club can be. Just a month of good news would do me.

I'm not religious, but I'll convert to all of them and pray this [censored] isn't true.

#melkshambles

Just as embarrassing as when we picked up Bernie Vince? What'd you say again?

'Excitement level equal to that of getting David Rodan', or something similar? Haha.

Club being embarrassing you say? Mate, have a look at some of those posts RPFC highlighted from when we got Bernie. Yours topped the list for embarrassing!

You should just hold your tongue on this one and it's the same with everyone else who jumps the gun thinking the sky is falling.

You're all being stupidly short-sighted. We won't pay overs and he'll turn out to be better depth replacement than the blokes we've just delisted with the potential to be even better than that. Sadly, not many can see that.

Edited September 20, 2015 by stevethemanjordan

[DistrACTION Jackson 10,179]

Just as embarrassing as when we picked up Bernie Vince? What'd you say again?

'Excitement level equal to that of getting David Rodan', or something similar? Haha.

Club being embarrassing you say? Mate, have a look at some of those posts RPFC highlighted from when we got Bernie. Yours topped the list for embarrassing!

You should just hold your tongue on this one and it's the same with everyone else who jumps the gun thinking the sky is falling.

You're all being stupidly short-sighted. We won't pay overs and he'll turn out to be better depth replacement than the blokes we've just delisted with the potential to be even better than that. Sadly, not many can see that.

That's because everyone's trade ideas is 1) Get Dangerfield 2) if we can't get Dangerfield then we may as well just stop trading.

[poita 3,908]

I'm not sure what part of the (proposed) Melksham deal is worst - the four years, the $$$, the second round pick or the player himself. It is a shocker in every respect.

And whilst some around here are in love with Roos and co, I think our trading last year was a bare pass at best. Lumumba was a clear fail, the jury is out on Frost, Newton has been disappointing, and Garlett is a clear win.

[Good Times Grimes 2,396]

I'm not sure what part of the (proposed) Melksham deal is worst - the four years, the $$$, the second round pick or the player himself. It is a shocker in every respect.

And whilst some around here are in love with Roos and co, I think our trading last year was a bare pass at best. Lumumba was a clear fail, the jury is out on Frost, Newton has been disappointing, and Garlett is a clear win.

We effectively traded Lumumba for Clark. I wouldn't consider that a clear fail, given that Clark only got on the park 8 times for the year and he's clearly not going to fully get over his injury and mental issues. I have been less than impressed with Lumumba, but I think that we at least broke even.

[Born to Run 204]

We effectively traded Lumumba for Clark. I wouldn't consider that a clear fail, given that Clark only got on the park 8 times for the year and he's clearly not going to fully get over his injury and mental issues. I have been less than impressed with Lumumba, but I think that we at least broke even.

In hindsight, we should have traded Clark for Varcoe, then we would have been winners.

[Bring-Back-Powell 15,240]

In hindsight, we should have traded Clark for Varcoe, then we would have been winners.

We were rumoured to be interested in Varcoe before everyone here laughed the it off.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

We were rumoured to be interested in Varcoe before everyone here laughed the it off.

I know Trav personally - we never made contact with him. Was always going to the Pies.