I stand corrected. I just stupidly parroted what someone told me.

No issue, I just thought you might be interested. If you looked at the administration you'd find a similar thing I reckon.

I've never been more confident about the management of the club - not that it had much to beat!

Part of the reason I would say Josh Mahoney stayed on was because his ego didn't outweigh his ability.
He had a couple of years as an assistant under Bails and found that it wasn't for him. Others in that case may not have accepted reality and would have pursued that path despite evidence to the contrary telling them it was a bad idea.
Josh didn't. He got out and moved towards being a manager of football operations. That shows tremendous maturity and level headedness. Two reasons why he has succeeded.

Very happy with this , we now have added some good talent to our midfield brigade and will get two of the best seven youngsters in the land.

Well done , Mahoney and co.

I think it will be Parish plus Curnow or Weideman.

Highly rated quick mid and a forward to help out Hoges.

No issue, I just thought you might be interested. If you looked at the administration you'd find a similar thing I reckon.

I've never been more confident about the management of the club - not that it had much to beat!

Spot on BB

The FD now compared to the past is like day and night.

Me driving home today

You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you just might find you get what you need.

I hope the penny has dropped for those doubters that our Club is now in the hands of top notch people. We are so far removed from where we were 3 years ago. The foundations are now in place for sustained success.

Well done to all involved in the current trade period.

But if you're merely looking at showing what we started with to what we have right now then I think you're pretty spot on.

yep, that was the aim, now fixed to add the pick 43 out

comes up pretty well I reckon

essentially we swap 2 players we didn't want for 3 that we do

and get 2 first round picks upgraded a few crucial spots each

Out: Howe, Toumpas, 64

In: Melksham, Kennedy, Bugg

Out: 2016 Rd1, 6, 25

In: 3, 7, 50

It's nice work. But I'm not overly impressed.

We gave up players for different players, that's part of trade week. Then we made the bold call to swap next years first rounder out and use associated picks to then upgrade that to pick 3.

Overall I'd rather the 3 players we get than the 2 we did have. So that's nice.

Personally I'd rather have grafted a little longer on the early deals and tried to get better than picks 46 and 50. If those picks were lower I'd feel more confident about getting talent to increase our depth. Especially as we will have needs to make with some of those selections or rookie picks - mainly outside run, key forward, ruck.

It's a B+ week that sets up for a bumper draft.

Me driving home today

Molloy, I pictured you taller.

Argh, third revision, is this it?

Can someone please correct me if this is wrong

remaining picks: 46,82,100,118

OUT: Howe, Toumpas
OUT: 6, 25, 64 and 2016RD1 (pick 8-10ish)

IN: Melksham, Kennedy, Bugg
IN: 3, 7, 50

IN - Bugg, Melksham, Kennedy, pick 7, pick 3, pick, 50, pick 46, pick 94

OUT - Howe, Toumpas, pick 6, pick 25, pick 64, 2016 1st round (could influence prestia)

Think 50's out also isn't it?

Wonder if Jack Grimes is a chance to be traded to the Tigers as was rumoured last week, or have they cooled on him? Maybe the Yarran negotiations are holding any Grimes deal up

Forgot Fitzy. Verification again please?

Can someone please correct me if this is wrong

remaining picks: 46,82,100,118

OUT: Howe, Toumpas, Fitzpatrick
OUT: 6, 25, 64 and 2016RD1 (pick 8-10ish)

IN: Melksham, Kennedy, Bugg
IN: 3, 7, 50, 94

Pretty sure we have picks

3, 7, 46 (may not use and get DFA instead), 82 (Vandenberg), 94 (Harmes)

Think 50's out also isn't it?

we have 50 now, and we didn't at the start so it's IN

Forgot Fitzy. Verification again please?

Seems spot on. Wouldn't worry too much about Fitzy and 94.

We win on the players. If we draft well and improve next year we will win on the picks too.

If we draft poorly and go backwards next year we are in a bit of trouble!

Pretty sure we have picks

3, 7, 46 (may not use and get DFA instead), 82 (Vandenberg), 94 (Harmes)

46 we've had all along, as you said but we also have 50 now

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-10-21/indicative-draft-order-your-clubs-provisional-picks-as-trade-period-unfolds

Question remains, are we done?

Today should be a lesson for those who wanted to do the trades early and for those who continually wanted to play hard ball.

MFC and GWS clearly had a plan from the beginning of trade period to use the system to benefit both parties. They were prepared to do this because of a trust between the parties. This trust was also evident in the initial GCS trade.

Playing hard ball only puts people off side. MFC with Mahoney and Roos have built a reputation of being sensible to deal with and trustworthy. We have clearly worked on outcomes that are "win win" which is the key to all successful negotiations.

Well done MFC. Let's hope the posters who shot off at the mouth learn from this. I'm so sick of blokes coming out slagging decisions and then saying "I'm happy to eat humble pie" and then being stupid enough to make exactly the same mistake two minutes later.

On another note, I wonder if Prodee is still "underwhelmed".

Our relationship with GWS and GC goes all the way back to the Viney thing. I don't know if the MFC foresaw the benefit of that bearing fruit now all the way back then, but we are now clearly a preferred trading party to these clubs who have an incentive to trade away early picks and surplus players.

Plenty to criticise the MFC for over the years, but the management of this relationship looks like it has been first rate from the outside.

As per our website

The Demons used selections No.10, No.43 and No.64 to gain No.7 and Bugg on Wednesday afternoon.

It means Melbourne – at this stage – has four selections in the November NAB AFL Draft (picks No.3, No.7, No.46 and No.50) given it has four vacancies on its primary list.

That could change, with the first list lodgement still to come on October 30

Our relationship with GWS and GC goes all the way back to the Viney thing. I don't know if the MFC foresaw the benefit of that bearing fruit now all the way back then, but we are now clearly a preferred trading party to these clubs who have an incentive to trade away early picks and surplus players.

Plenty to criticise the MFC for over the years, but the management of this relationship looks like it has been first rate from the outside.

Interesting perspective Nasher. Like it.

GNF didnt just pick Neelds exit, he said when it will happen

He gave an exact play by play with Roos from around 6 months before it happened. He called absolutely everything that happened long before anyone else, including the media

GNF never ever said Lever at pick 3. In fact he said the opposite. He claimed Roos rates him and would like to trade for a later first rounder to get him but that was it. In fact here is his EXACT post:

So he got that one spot on

And finally he never ever said Dangerfield and Kennedy are dees. Hes said were working hard to get deals for them. Melbourne tried hard for Danger last year but obviously didnt happen. GNF even said the deal died when we could no longer trade Trengove which was completely unexpected

By this logic youre saying he has said Prestia will 100% be a dee when in reality is he said Melbourne are working hard to make it happen

Whether he is right or wrong is also irrelevant when you consider some of the abuse given to him when he makes a post. Everyone can be wrong and things change. To abuse someone for that is so childish you would wonder what some grown men are doing on a message board

Id take the one or two things hes wrong about to keep hearing about the good stuff about the club like getting Roos or finding out who we are targeting. If people interpret him telling us who we are working on as "were 100% getting" then hes not the problem

Keep posting GNF, Appreciate the updates

while i agree with what you say I only posted that to stir the pot.

That being said while not having the time or inclination to trawl through previous posts I remember with 100% certainty that he posted Jake Lever was a lock at pick three.

He definately posted that.

I do enjoy his posts though.

Great day for the dees.

we owned this trade period in my opinion. And no one predicted it. No leaks. Clever

46 and 50 combine for 604 points which is just short of pick 31.

I wonder if we could trade them for pick 32 and then promote both Harmes and Vanders, use just the 3 live picks in the ND and use a PSD or delisted free agent pick up if we decide to move another player on.

At this stage I wouldn't think so as I think we will move any of Hunt, Terlich and Matt Jones either out or back to the rookie list, but it has to be under consideration.