WELCOME TO THE MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB – JAKE MELKSHAM

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Strawberry, chocolate & banana are flavours of these.

Looks like a hot tuna he does.

Aside from him.

(Like the hot tuna lookalike though).

[Grand New Flag 3,227]

Not sure how much help I am going to be this year. The Board Member who was giving me the inside word pre-mid last season (Roos to coach etc) is now an x Board Member........ and for some reason, can't imagine why, my friend from the football department who I regularly have beers with, no longer talks shop with me.

Maybe I have blown my cover.

Not withstanding I have done my best work, extracted my best info, at the Grand Final in previous years. Alcohol loosens lips big time. Lets wait and see.

[rjay 25,345]

Not sure how much help I am going to be this year. The Board Member who was giving me the inside word pre-mid last season (Roos to coach etc) is now an x Board Member........ and for some reason, can't imagine why, my friend from the football department who I regularly have beers with, no longer talks shop with me.

Maybe I have blown my cover.

Not withstanding I have done my best work, extracted my best info, at the Grand Final in previous years. Alcohol loosens lips big time. Lets wait and see.

Thankfully...

[poita 3,914]

I'm still not convinced that Melksham is the player we need, but it's not up to me. The two things that really bug me about this are:

1. 4 year deals for average players are not good practice. By all means, give Hogan a 10 year contract, and the rest of your top 10 players 4-5 year deals, but we need to stop handing out long term deals to everyone else. Dawes, Lumumba, Jamar, McKenzie - the list of poor decisions is becoming rather long, and that does not include the inappropriate shorter deals given to Barry, Evans and Terlich.

2. Why make commitments to players, particularly average players, before the trade period begins? We have no idea who might become available once proper negotiations commence, and I would hate to think we might miss out on a quality midfielder because we have given up our 2nd round pick to get Melksham.

[Devo 104]

We can't complain about Melksham when our depth has been so pitiful for so long. He has his limitations obviously, but he is still an improvement on the likes of Bail, M Jones, McKenzie etc. The best teams are defined by their depth as much as they are by their top end talent.

We also can't complain about paying overs to get players in. Melbourne is absolutely not a destination club and we don't have A-grade players begging to wear the red and blue. That's not to take away from the club's ambition to become a destination club, we'd all love Melbourne to become an attractive place for players to come. We become attractive by winning lots of games. Like most other people, I'd prefer we weren't offering Melksham 4 years (and Dawes before him), but it's a product of where the club is currently at. We will have to continue paying overs for players until the club becomes a proper top 8 contender and we have something tangible to offer.

What we can ask questions about, as poita pointed out, is why the deal had to be done now. The market for him was not red-hot. The only reason I can see is if Essendon had put a contract in front of him and he was on the verge of signing it.

[The Chazz 4,077]

Does anyone see Melksham playing a dedicated HBF so if Howe does the right thing, we have a ready made (better) replacement? Will probably be costing us the same amount that Howe is asking for, and will free up H to go in to the midfield (where he was originally recruited to play).

Our side looks better with him in it and Howe out of it.

[Akum 2,660]

Yes I agree, although if the contract was only for say two years instead of four, those two seasons may be spent by him looking on from the stands while serving a two year ban.

...

Agree with this.

The other factor is that, once we decided to target him, we can beat the offer from his present club either by offering him either more money or a longer contract.

So by offering him a longer term, we don't have to offer him as much money as we would if we only signed him for 2 years. Leaving more in the kitty for the Big Fish.

Trouble is, I can see the reasoning behind offering him 4 years, but like many I'm still not convinced ...

[Moonshadow 17,678]

Anyone comparing him to our VFL level Z grades like Bail and M Jones are clueless... he is Bernie Vince like the way he can kick off both feet and get penetration on his opposite foot.

He will be a great pick up for us (WADA permitting).

[DeeSpencer 26,478]

I don't see how Melksham helps fix our depth.

He might help give us more competition for spots next year but depth is a long term issue that requires long term solutions. You have to keep drafting and developing well for years to get a good squad of players which then provides depth.

If we are giving up anything more valuable than a 3rd round pick for Melksham, and the contract indicates we might be keen to do that, then we need Melksham to be part of the best 22 and a consistent player who has the skills to feature in a finals team.

If we wanted depth for depth sake we could pursue delisted players or late round pick trades.

[P-man 13,367]

I wish we could just find out one way or the other.

If I have to face the reality of cheering for Jake Melksham, I want to prepare myself. That will take time. Possibly some practice.

[ManDee 7,343]

I wish we could just find out one way or the other.

If I have to face the reality of cheering for Jake Melksham, I want to prepare myself. That will take time. Possibly some practice.

Put a demon jumper on him and think of England.

[DSP 1,488]

I dont get it.

The whole "he is better than Jones, Terlich etc" is utter crap. They are either out the door or will be playing for Casey for the remainder of their contracts. We are getting RID of these types of players and we bring in a guy that has been in and out of arguably Essendons weakest team for years. Enough of these fringe depth players. We simply cant afford to have them any longer.

Goodwin has to get some benefit of the doubt, but its a baffling call to say the least.

[mo64 5,886]

Not sure how much help I am going to be this year. The Board Member who was giving me the inside word pre-mid last season (Roos to coach etc) is now an x Board Member........ and for some reason, can't imagine why, my friend from the football department who I regularly have beers with, no longer talks shop with me.

Maybe I have blown my cover.

Not withstanding I have done my best work, extracted my best info, at the Grand Final in previous years. Alcohol loosens lips big time. Lets wait and see.

GNF, do you have the power to bring down the whole board "Deep Throat" style?

[the fork 357]

I wish we could just find out one way or the other.

If I have to face the reality of cheering for Jake Melksham, I want to prepare myself. That will take time. Possibly some practice.

It's just a matter of working out a trade: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-09-29/demons-offer-to-bomber-jake-melksham-is-too-good-to-refuse

[ManDee 7,343]

GNF, do you have the power to bring down the whole board "Deep Throat" style?

Linda Lovelace?

[mo64 5,886]

Linda Lovelace?

Wrong one. I'm thinking Watergate.

[bing181 9,436]

- He can serve 6 more months if he takes another 'voluntary' suspension thru this off-season.

No he/they can't.

[P-man 13,367]

It's just a matter of working out a trade: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-09-29/demons-offer-to-bomber-jake-melksham-is-too-good-to-refuse

Looks imminent.

Fingers crossed that Goodwin can get the best out of him.

[ManDee 7,343]

Wrong one. I'm thinking Watergate.

I'm still laughing at the thought of a Linda Lovelace deep throat solution to bringing down the board.

I thought you meant the Woodford Bernstein option, but I couldn't resist.

[bing181 9,436]

I dont get it ... we bring in a guy that has been in and out of arguably Essendons weakest team for years. Enough of these fringe depth players.

Last year we brought in a guy that couldn't get a game at Carlton. Was worth 40 Goals.

Melksham has shown that he's a solid, capable, first-22 player. That's the Melksham that we're looking to sign, not the one who has obviously had a hard time over the last 2 years.

[DSP 1,488]

Last year we brought in a guy that couldn't get a game at Carlton. Was worth 40 Goals.

Melksham has shown that he's a solid, capable, first-22 player. That's the Melksham that we're looking to sign, not the one who has obviously had a hard time over the last 2 years.

Jeffy was out of favour cause he was being a rat bag, had nothing to do with his skill or ability.

He also wasnt dropped to VFL and brought back like a yo-yo.

Big difference.

Edited September 30, 2015 by DSP

[daisycutter 29,909]

I wish we could just find out one way or the other.

If I have to face the reality of cheering for Jake Melksham, I want to prepare myself. That will take time. Possibly some practice.

well if he gets the gig he starts behind the 8 ball for mine

[Redleg 42,039]

Jeffy was out of favour cause he was being a rat bag, had nothing to do with his skill or ability.

He also wasnt dropped to VFL and brought back like a yo-yo.

Yes he was.

[rpfc 28,964]

I don't see how Melksham helps fix our depth.

He might help give us more competition for spots next year but depth is a long term issue that requires long term solutions. You have to keep drafting and developing well for years to get a good squad of players which then provides depth.

If we are giving up anything more valuable than a 3rd round pick for Melksham, and the contract indicates we might be keen to do that, then we need Melksham to be part of the best 22 and a consistent player who has the skills to feature in a finals team.

If we wanted depth for depth sake we could pursue delisted players or late round pick trades.

So he won't fix depth but he will give competition for spots?

One player doesn't fix depth problems but if you get enough 'one players' then they become many players and then you fix the depth problem...

I dont get it.

The whole "he is better than Jones, Terlich etc" is utter crap. They are either out the door or will be playing for Casey for the remainder of their contracts. We are getting RID of these types of players and we bring in a guy that has been in and out of arguably Essendons weakest team for years. Enough of these fringe depth players. We simply cant afford to have them any longer.

Goodwin has to get some benefit of the doubt, but its a baffling call to say the least.

You don't get 'it?'

'It' being that he is BETTER than Matt Jones and Dean Terlich.

Heppell was a stalwart of Essendon's worst team, Nathan Jones of our worst teams.

It's not baffling - Goodwin knows we have a midfield that bats 6 deep and can see an AFL-tested 7th best midfielder that he can get to the club.

Is it really that hard to see what Goodwin is trying to remedy?

[chookrat 4,268]

Anyone comparing him to our VFL level Z grades like Bail and M Jones are clueless... he is Bernie Vince like the way he can kick off both feet and get penetration on his opposite foot.

He will be a great pick up for us (WADA permitting).

A WADA holiday will mean he has a year to get his face sorted. Edited September 30, 2015 by chookrat