Have to agree.

Did anyone see what Ted Richards was like before he went to Sydney?

Ugh.

I remember him at Essendon. It's why (to much ridicule) I argued that we should have recruited him on the old Demonology

Edited September 30, 20159 yr by Rod Grinter Riot Squad

Food for thought for some;

Are we all familiar with what a WADA ban entails.

In short. ( i think WC10.10 is the reference ) ...You cant compete nor even associate with the club. Persona non grata effectively.

The club could set up a futness regime....even fund it.

Milkshake man would be all but a man alone. They all will be.

Someone explain the sense ¥as well the expense) of bringing him on board . I'm interested.

Does anybody know whether he was one of the 34 doing drugs? Maybe there isn't a problem (but in any advent I am sure negotiations would cover it)!

Edited September 30, 20159 yr by CBDees

Does anybody know whether he was one of the 34 doing drugs? Maybe there isn't a problem (but in any advent I am sure negotiations would cover it)!

he was on the list published by the hun

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...

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?

Food for thought for some;

Are we all familiar with what a WADA ban entails.

In short. ( i think WC10.10 is the reference ) ...You cant compete nor even associate with the club. Persona non grata effectively.

The club could set up a futness regime....even fund it.

Milkshake man would be all but a man alone. They all will be.

Someone explain the sense ¥as well the expense) of bringing him on board . I'm interested.

I guess I am starting to come around to Milkshake as a player, a cig in the wheel, but the WADA sword of Damocles still deeply concerns me in several ways:

Say, worst case scenario, he gets 2Y, or even one.

We will have

- used a spot on our list

- presumably traded away a pick

- spent salary cap $, all on someone who may play as many games for us as Lucas Cook.

Are there any other 'cleanskins' around at a similar overall price who can fill the rôle that Goodwin has in mind for him?

The only part of that equation that I see we could have any control of at all is the salary, and maybe a little wriggle room on the list place.

Are there any industrial relations lawyers here? Can a contract have a get out clause to void payments and overall contract in the event of something such as a WADA sanction? Were that the case we will still have given up a draft spot, but would not have continuing obligations..

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...

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?

He doesnt 'get' the argument that we should be happy to pick Melksham up because he is better than Riley, Bail, Mckenzie, Terlich and Matt Jones. And he is right.

The last two in particular have been given longer contracts than warranted and now we face the prospect of either paying them out or watch them play out the year at Casey.

Now we are discussing giving Melksham a 4 year deal. Personally I think / hope that he would be playing out the last 2 years of his contract with Casey, which would be the same situation we are in now with Jones and Terls.

Yes. He would be an upgrade on the players we have delisted. But how much?

If you put numbered rankings on players out of 10 and had Bail and Mckenzie as 4, would you be happy that we have improved the list by picking up Melksham who is ranked 5?

Yes the list has improved slightly. But its not worth getting too excited and not for a 4 year contract on good coin.

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.

I understand your concerns though I'm not sure that the length of the deal is really too much of a concern. Contracts are made to entice and to also protect. There would mitigation in there by way of reducing financial loss if they are on-traded before contract expiration. Think of contract management in the world game.

I honestly don't think any will serve 2y

My thoughts have always suspected 18m...and possibly the small amount of time assigned to vol suspensions. Its still real with real time involved. Career ending for some...certainly a holiday for the many.

Can't believe ppl are talking about an upgrade on Terlich, Matt Jones and McKenzie. Surely our trading period/strategy is aiming higher. melksham has been held back from a toxic club (Essendon). Therefore he is an unfulfilled talent. I have trust in our current crop of recruiters and coaches.

Watch this space me thinks.......

He doesnt 'get' the argument that we should be happy to pick Melksham up because he is better than Riley, Bail, Mckenzie, Terlich and Matt Jones. And he is right.

The last two in particular have been given longer contracts than warranted and now we face the prospect of either paying them out or watch them play out the year at Casey.

Now we are discussing giving Melksham a 4 year deal. Personally I think / hope that he would be playing out the last 2 years of his contract with Casey, which would be the same situation we are in now with Jones and Terls.

Yes. He would be an upgrade on the players we have delisted. But how much?

If you put numbered rankings on players out of 10 and had Bail and Mckenzie as 4, would you be happy that we have improved the list by picking up Melksham who is ranked 5?

Yes the list has improved slightly. But its not worth getting too excited and not for a 4 year contract on good coin.

Thank you, at least someone understands me... *sob*

I don't know anything about this guy but he sure generates a lot of negativity. Can anybody explain why?

I would have thought Goodwin would have a lot of insight and wouldn't chase him he was a dud.

Clangers. Really highly visible big ol' clangers.

Also, brainfarts.

HOWEVER

I was just now doing some checking back, because part of the reason Essendon fans turned him into an object of hate was that he had seemed to be developing well, but then tapered off.

Melksham played the first few years of his career (to 2013) under Simon Goodwin. By the end of that time he was a useful, quick, goal-kicking midfielder.

After Goodwin left, Melksham's numbers immediately declined - halving his goals, knocking a quarter off possessions (particularly kicks), and just generally not being that great.

So the 'Goodwin-Melksham connection' is probably more than just nice talk or a bit of favouritism. I'd reckon Goodwin is backing himself to refresh Melksham and have him delivering in a very particular role that we do need more of.

I'm feeling better about it with some more facts on hand. Still very wary, but better.

I remember him at Essendon. It's why (to much ridicule) I argued that we should have recruited him on the old Demonology

And your thoughts on Melksham, mate?

And your thoughts on Melksham, mate?

Don't get to see as much footy now, very little of Essendon.

I was in Australia for the Bombers game though and was annoyed that they dropped Melksham, so safe to say that the trade doesn't excite me.

The WADA issue is why I personally wouldn't touch him.

On the footy side, Roos has the runs on the board and Goodwin has worked with Melksham, so if such a trade happens, I will be reluctantly supportive.

As a side note - Essendon are rooted.

Quick comparison of 'definite' talent under the age of Jack Trengove (just turned 24)

Melbourne

Gawn, McDonald, Tyson, Viney, Hogan, Salem, Vandenberg, Petracca and Brayshaw

Plus a whole host of maybes.

Essendon

Heppell, Merrett, Merrett, Daniher... Carlisle and Melksham

Really only a couple of other possibles - Laverde? Gleeson?

They were expelled from one draft, stuffed up a couple more, and tried to cover the gap with veterans like Cooney, Goddard and Chapman, which just clogged their list and slowed the much-needed turnover.

Essendon 2015 = Melbourne 2007.

Sure there will still be some quality players carrying through, but they will be overwhelmed much like the way Green, McDonald, Bruce and Robertson couldn't hold a team together with so little depth and such unreliable younger cohort.

They've fallen off a cliff and really Melksham should pay us for the chance to get out.

As a side note - Essendon are rooted.

Quick comparison of 'definite' talent under the age of Jack Trengove (just turned 24)

Melbourne

Gawn, McDonald, Tyson, Viney, Hogan, Salem, Vandenberg, Petracca and Brayshaw

Plus a whole host of maybes.

Essendon

Heppell, Merrett, Merrett, Daniher... Carlisle and Melksham

Really only a couple of other possibles - Laverde? Gleeson?

They were expelled from one draft, stuffed up a couple more, and tried to cover the gap with veterans like Cooney, Goddard and Chapman, which just clogged their list and slowed the much-needed turnover.

Essendon 2015 = Melbourne 2007.

Sure there will still be some quality players carrying through, but they will be overwhelmed much like the way Green, McDonald, Bruce and Robertson couldn't hold a team together with so little depth and such unreliable younger cohort.

They've fallen off a cliff and really Melksham should pay us for the chance to get out.

Didn't we lose to them this year? Jeez I hope we beat them next season.

Edited September 30, 20159 yr by Ethan Tremblay

Can someone with a little bit of legal knowledge email the club about this, it really concerns me that we would be thinking about recruiting a player, for a second round pick mind you, that has this WADA crap hanging over his head. It just isn't good business management. Would we be looking at recruiting someone that is awaiting his jail sentence? I dont care who the payer is. Unless we know what the penalty will be we should not even contemplate this deal.

Edited September 30, 20159 yr by AzzKikA

Can someone with a little bit of legal knowledge email the club about this, it really concerns me that we would be thinking about recruiting a player, for a second round pick mind you, that has this WADA crap hanging over his head. It just isn't good business management. Would we be looking at recruiting someone that is awaiting his jail sentence? I dont care who the payer is. Unless we know what the penalty will be we should not even contemplate this deal.

Good idea, someone email the club. I'm sure no one at the club has considered any of this.

AzzKika, Not sure if you are being serious. Do you really think the club wouldn't be across this? You must have a very low opinion of the entire organization if you think they wouldn't have weighed up everything before making a call such as this.

Good idea, someone email the club. I'm sure no one at the club has considered any of this.

Perhaps some called the club to warn them and the receptionist thought they were saying yada, yada, yada so didn't pass it on to roosy

Sorry forgot the

But i do stand by my statement about it being a bad business move.

Edited September 30, 20159 yr by AzzKikA

Sorry forgot the

But i do stand by my statement about it being a bad business move.

Too late, I emailed the club. I used a legal dictionary.

Too late, I emailed the club. I used a legal dictionary.

Have they replied yet?

Can someone with a little bit of legal knowledge email the club about this, it really concerns me that we would be thinking about recruiting a player, for a second round pick mind you, that has this WADA crap hanging over his head. It just isn't good business management. Would we be looking at recruiting someone that is awaiting his jail sentence? I dont care who the payer is. Unless we know what the penalty will be we should not even contemplate this deal.

You would think the club was all over this. I dont assume anything however as this is a situation nouveau . The AFL and all of it's constituents are carrying on as is this nasty WADA lot are just such an inconvenient imposition upon our little green pasture. They , from the outside at least, seem to think nothign of consequence will come of this and that the CAS hearing is just WADA being niggly

What I do see is a whole lot of NOTHING. This entire subject is whitewashed everywhere. Where has anyone in the media ( with any real cred ) asked the awkward question(s) ? What are the contingencies ? What of any fall out etc etc? All you hear are crickets !!

I have no issue with Melksham being a player of choice from Goody/Macca/Roos , none at all. Might not have been my selection but what of it. I do have serious doubts as to whether our illustrious club is actually taking some of this seriously enough though.

I bet if you asked the club you wouldnt get a straight answer anyway.

This of all things this trade draft is the most interesting aspect.. The WADA fall out

Considering the outstanding recruiting in the last 2 seasons since Roos & co took over I trust that Melksham will be a wonderful recruit. Roos has a long, strong record of rejuvenating players. He knows what he is doing. Personally I am excited about the prospect.

Riley's been delisted while Michie and Newton are still very much on the fringe at this stage.

Have they replied yet?

They did, reply below.

Dear Ethan,

Thank you for your email, your legal knowledge is clearly second to none. We were unaware Melksham played for Essendon and may possibly be suspended if found guilty at the conclusion of the WADA v EFC trial. We will reassess. Do you think Dangerfield would come to us?

All the best

Roosy.

Edited October 1, 20159 yr by Ethan Tremblay