Jump to content

Featured Replies

1 minute ago, rpfc said:

He is usually so chatty...

you know very well what I mean

 
41 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

and in all of this someone is remarkably silent 

Which chap are you talking about?

IF Hogan doesn’t leave but refuses to sign an extension of his contract at the same time, I would be extremely disappointed. 

One has to coincide with the other. Commit or go. It can’t be both. 

 
Just now, Jaded said:

IF Hogan doesn’t leave but refuses to sign an extension of his contract at the same time, I would be extremely disappointed. 

One has to coincide with the other. Commit or go. It can’t be both. 

but it can be, and has been elsewhere. may not be ideal, but then, what can you do if he digs in

If Hogan stays then Luke Darcy loses credibility. Which would mean he enters negative credibility. Also known as the Greg Denham Zone.


11 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Which chap are you talking about?

him

5 minutes ago, P-man said:

If Hogan stays then Luke Darcy loses credibility. Which would mean he enters negative credibility. 

Did he have any to start with??

1 minute ago, Jibroni said:

Did he have any to start with??

No....hence entering negative territory.

 

 

The Channel 7 news update about Melbourne digging their heels in was based on a 10 second soundbite Nathan Jones gave Mark Stevens at the B&F last night. Jones said “Hoges is a contracted player who we rate highly and expect to be at the club next season.” Jones also added “plenty of water to go under the bridge before anything plays out there” or words to that effect.

So I take from that nothing really except that perhaps Jones has been told by club power brokers to trot out a defensive line and pushback on the narrative that the club is simply happy to walk our key forward  to Freo on quick, friendly terms. 

Ie. The club is prepared to talk tough on Hogan, readying itself for a stoush at the trade table.

Posters like Bing181 who can’t grasp this concept take note.

Edited by EnterTheDragon

1 minute ago, P-man said:

No....hence entering negative territory.

 

are we arguing over a moron and a oxymoron?

 


2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

are we arguing over a moron and a oxymoron?

 

O2 be so cruel

52 minutes ago, Jaded said:

IF Hogan doesn’t leave but refuses to sign an extension of his contract at the same time, I would be extremely disappointed. 

One has to coincide with the other. Commit or go. It can’t be both. 

I understand the sentiment and frustration but disagree.

He has committed to the club when he signed his last contract extension, it would be manifestly unfair if he honoured that contract, yet we demanded an additional extension on top of the one he's already committed to.  There are plenty of players on our list who are out of contract next year, yet we're no demanding an extension from them...

 

 

Or wanting Jesse to stay one more year for a big tilt at the flag?

I'm sick of hearing radio hosts/sport's commentator's thinking Hogan is only worth a early first round draft pick. Which we would then use to secure May. I would be staggered if we agreed to that deal. You don't give up a 23 year old KPF that will kick 50+ goals a season for the next 10 years for a 27 year old KPB. Dees need to play hard ball and get two early first rounders for Hogan. No exceptions!     


55 minutes ago, EnterTheDragon said:

The Channel 7 news update about Melbourne digging their heels in was based on a 10 second soundbite Nathan Jones gave Mark Stevens at the B&F last night. Jones said “Hoges is a contracted player who we rate highly and expect to be at the club next season.” Jones also added “plenty of water to go under the bridge before anything plays out there” or words to that effect.

So I take from that nothing really except that perhaps Jones has been told by club power brokers to trot out a defensive line and pushback on the narrative that the club is simply happy to walk our key forward  to Freo on quick, friendly terms. 

Ie. The club is prepared to talk tough on Hogan, readying itself for a stoush at the trade table.

Posters like Bing181 who can’t grasp this concept take note.

Completely agree

The club and the media trainers have just tightened up the messaging which was a little raw/loose (or honest) over the weekend

Nothing to suggest an outcome one way or the other OR a change in position

Here are the two key IVs that have spurred the media reporting today

Check out @9NewsMelb’s Tweet:

Check out @7NewsMelbourne’s Tweet:

 

 

Just now, Caligula's cohort said:

I'm sick of hearing radio hosts/sport's commentator's thinking Hogan is only worth a early first round draft pick. Which we would then use to secure May. I would be staggered if we agreed to that deal. You don't give up a 23 year old KPF that will kick 50+ goals a season for the next 10 years for a 27 year old KPB. Dees need to play hard ball and get two early first rounders for Hogan. No exceptions!     

it just goes to show how much bs gets thrown around by the sports media - we are so blessed

3 minutes ago, DeeZee said:

Or wanting Jesse to stay one more year for a big tilt at the flag?

It's not that many weeks ago that we were extolling the virtue of having a pair of big forwards the equal of the best in the league.

We were the highest scoring team this season. I can't see the need to change this style of play.

Losing one of the big two KPF will do nothing to maintain our high scores.

Or am I missing something?

 

9 minutes ago, corowa said:

It's not that many weeks ago that we were extolling the virtue of having a pair of big forwards the equal of the best in the league.

We were the highest scoring team this season. I can't see the need to change this style of play.

Losing one of the big two KPF will do nothing to maintain our high scores.

Or am I missing something?

 

It’s about finding that better overall team balance. If Weid can kick 30 (very achievable) and Petracca can increase his goal output (also very achievable) the loss of Hogan can be ameliorated or close to.

At the same time the trade should allow us to strengthen our back six (May) and add some class elsewhere on the park, preferably outside midfield.

On the balance of it, this trade can and should strengthen our best 22, particularly it should make us harder to score against.

 

4 hours ago, DeeZee said:

Melbourne has denied a move by Hogan to Fremantle.

Source Channel 7 just now 

Cool. We still want our man...


11 minutes ago, Frustrated Demon said:

I still want May for our backline, is this still possible?

Only if the AFL allow us to trade next years first round pick which might not be enough considering it will be Pick 18

 
23 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Cool. We still want our man...

Bell moved the goal posts

We moved them back.

1 hour ago, Caligula's cohort said:

I'm sick of hearing radio hosts/sport's commentator's thinking Hogan is only worth a early first round draft pick. Which we would then use to secure May. I would be staggered if we agreed to that deal. You don't give up a 23 year old KPF that will kick 50+ goals a season for the next 10 years for a 27 year old KPB. Dees need to play hard ball and get two early first rounders for Hogan. No exceptions!     

Most media pundits don’t want Melbourne to receive two high first rounders for Hogan. They still see is as a minnow club who should do as we’re told and accept what we’re given in the manner of the third born in a poor family. Mark Robinson was on FoxFooty the other night adamant the Dees should not receive two first round picks for Hogan. I wonder why? Could it be that an even stronger Melbourne outfit makes it that much harder for his beloved Bombers to lift another Cup?

Vested interests left right and centre in all this reporting on potential trades. All we need to be concerned about is laying it out very clearly to Freo what we expect in trade and then stick to it. Any media noise that suggests we are being unreasonable or that we are overvaluing Hogan is exactly that ... noise.


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • GAMEDAY: Collingwood

    It's Game Day and the Demons face a monumental task as they take on the top-of-the-table Magpies in one of the biggest games on the Dees calendar: the King's Birthday Big Freeze MND match. Can the Demons defy the odds and claim a massive scalp to keep their finals hopes alive?

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 67 replies
  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies
  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Thanks
    • 216 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

      • Thanks
    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies