My point is that it was only two years ago a three time premiership player was being paid roughly the same amount as we are now offering an NQR from Essendon.

I'm just disagreeing with your assertion that he will be depth at best, but rather a list clogger that will add no value to the club, and an expensive one at that (if the reports are accurate that we are indeed offering him 1.6 million over 4 years).

I said depth at worst (a very different thing) and until I see an actual offer i'm not necessarily believing the 400 pricetag. It could be front loaded, the truth is often in the detail

Perhaps, but at $400,000 a year?

Corey Enright was on this kind of coin after his 3rd flag...

As Roos says, don't believe everything you read in the press - there's a lot of noise.

I reckon Goodwin and McCartney have a fair idea of what this bloke's worth - and, clearly, they also know what they want in players going forward and they know how to assess a good footballer from a bad one.

IMHO you don't trade pick 24 for a depth player. Michie and Riley were good examples of depth players we picked up for loose change. Ergo, the club wouldn't see Melksham as a depth player (certainly not with the reported contract offer).

I said depth at worst (a very different thing) and until I see an actual offer i'm not necessarily believing the 400 pricetag. It could be front loaded, the truth is often in the detail

I don't necessarily believe it either because the very notion of giving Jake Melksham $1.6 million guaranteed is patently absurd (and obscene).

As Roos says, don't believe everything you read in the press - there's a lot of noise.

I reckon Goodwin and McCartney have a fair idea of what this bloke's worth - and, clearly, they also know what they want in players going forward and they know how to assess a good footballer from a bad one.

I would hope they do have a fair idea what a bloke's worth.

I just don't believe he will add value to the squad based on my observations.

So what happens if he gets banned by WADA?

So what happens if he gets banned by WADA?

I think the populist view is that any bans will not be for a great amount of time.

I don't rate Melksham, but he's better depth than Matt Jones, Terlich or Bail. Is that a valid reason for bringing him in on a 4 year deal? Not sure. I hope McCartney stays and Goodwin knows what he's doing.

I think the populist view is that any bans will

not be for a great amount of time.

The WADA hearing outcome will not be swayed by any populist or even popular views, most of which are no doubt uninformed anyway. And if the club really is looking to get him, they could also be taking too complacent a view about that outcome. He's not worth taking that risk of a two year ban for.

I don't rate Melksham, but he's better depth than Matt Jones, Terlich or Bail. Is that a valid reason for bringing him in on a 4 year deal? Not sure. I hope McCartney stays and Goodwin knows what he's doing.

Not happy if true.

24 pages. 24. Twenty-four. Pages. Devoted to discussion of a trade that literally can't happen for three weeks.

24 pages dedicated to a VFL level player. I think the pages are only going up now because there is speculation MFC are going to part with a second round pick for this spud.

Perhaps, but at $400,000 a year?

Speculation.

Speculation.

Hopefully utter bullshite.

I still don't get why posters take a reported payment to a player as gospel....

As I have stated before only the player, his manager and the club KNOW how much a player gets.

The media guess and some how it becomes a fact.

As Roosy said "Don't believe all the media hype"....How about we just wait til trade week is over and then sh it can the club after we know who's doing what.

24 pages dedicated to a VFL level player. I think the pages are only going up now because there is speculation MFC are going to part with a second round pick for this spud.

How would anyone possibly know this? I doubt the two clubs have even had a discussion, and better yet, that any sensitive information would be leaked directly to the radio show running this circus.

The CB minimum senior player payments for 2016 are:

- base pay $83,240 and match payments $3,605 per match

- for 22 games = $162,550 pa. This will be a lot higher under the 2017 CB.

How much more each player gets depends on experience, performance and perhaps incentives.

Melksham is 24 with 6 years experience, played 114 games and has a good B & F record.

Mahoney and Viney will make sure a WADA suspension is covered in the contract. In fact, I would expect the AFL has specific clauses included in all Ess player contracts who have changed clubs.

I am happy Goodwin and Macca will make a good selection decision based on list requirements.

I am happy that Taylor and Viney will make a fair trade with EFC.

I am happy that Mahoney and Viney will negotiate a fair contract that is in sync with other MFC/AFL players of similar age/experience.

Nothing to worry about folks!

Edited September 19, 20159 yr by Lucifer's Hero

how do you cover in a contract the eventuality that a player doesn't play fpr all or part of 2016?

despite contractual considerations you are still one player down

I still don't get why posters take a reported payment to a player as gospel....

As I have stated before only the player, his manager and the club KNOW how much a player gets.

The media guess and some how it becomes a fact.

As Roosy said "Don't believe all the media hype"....How about we just wait til trade week is over and then sh it can the club after we know who's doing what.

The AFL know what players are on too & many media figures come from AFL leaks, so we'll likely get an idea eventually, especially if considered obscene &/or he is a bust for us.

how do you cover in a contract the eventuality that a player doesn't play fpr all or part of 2016?

despite contractual considerations you are still one player down

Wouldn't the club treat it like recruiting a player with a history of serious injury? Higher than normal chance they will miss for a period of time. I would also think a pretty good bargaining chip to argue down his trade value.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the AFL allow clubs with former Essendon players who do get suspended to promote a rookie in their place. Similar to LTI list. To not have allowances like that would make it even harder for those Essendon players to move, and if the AFL believe the players have been duped they'd be doing everything in their power to make things easy for the players involved (but not Essendon).

Not happy with that deal at all. Pick 23 got us Frost, O-Mac and ANB last year and this year we want to settle for [censored] Melksham? A kid who may be ineligible to play for two years??

Abhorrent list management if true considering the huge risk he brings. Don't forget that players like Nat Fyfe have been taken in the 20's.

Speaking of hand wringing, does anyone remember how that Frost, 40, and 55 (or whatever the numbers were) for 23 was seen on here?

It was scandalous that trade - then it wasn't, and now it is an example of what a 2nd round pick should be able to bring consistently...

despite contractual considerations you are still one player down

Given some that were on our list this season, not sure that that would be any different.

Wouldn't the club treat it like recruiting a player with a history of serious injury? Higher than normal chance they will miss for a period of time. I would also think a pretty good bargaining chip to argue down his trade value.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the AFL allow clubs with former Essendon players who do get suspended to promote a rookie in their place. Similar to LTI list. To not have allowances like that would make it even harder for those Essendon players to move, and if the AFL believe the players have been duped they'd be doing everything in their power to make things easy for the players involved (but not Essendon).

elevating a rookie..........whoopie doo

hfgvogvjjsfogj[i ijgkiJSFG Pfijzifjgoja SOIfgosj

KJfkjsdhn Hfj blah SOFh ...

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

So what happens if he gets banned by WADA?

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

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.