North Melbourne Assistance Package

[darkhorse72 1,809]

Based upon our experience this plan will not developed, simply putting more young kids into a side at the bottom does not fix the wider team problems.  Looks like they are losing a lot of their mature talent (Actually talent) this year, which we know puts you further behind.  They could be on a very long path like GC, lots of high draft talent but not culture left.  Look how long GC have taken to just be competitive. 

They should be given extra support in the soft cap for development coaches etc.

And if McKay avg less than 10 possession a game, gee, why would you want him.  Or did he just defensive punch and watch the ball?

[Sir Why You Little 35,633]

This is so badly thought out by the AFL. 

3 Second Round Picks will not help this problem. It will just ruin young players careers 

Nought got rid of Heaps of experience over 1-2 years. That is what they lack now 

I am not suprised other clubs are furious….

[rumpole 497]

What I find ridiculous, if not actually corrupt, is the gifting of two end of first round draft picks in 2024 which are ostensibly subject to review but which are apparently “tradeable” in 2023. If North trades these picks then they can be bundled together to provide sufficient points to enable a trade to be concluded for pick #4 giving them the ability to draft a Ryley Sanders. Meanwhile, once the picks have been traded and used in 2023, how can they be reviewed in 2024? No wonder the clubs smell a rat.

[monoccular 16,916]

On 9/25/2023 at 5:38 PM, Blistering said:

How can you trade picks that are subject to future review?

 

On 9/25/2023 at 5:53 PM, Sydney_Demon said:

I agree. It doesn't make sense but at this stage the AFL hasn't put any restrictions on North trading those picks right now as far as I can see. 

Without a shadow of doubt the AFL will make to up as they go along

On 9/26/2023 at 8:51 AM, beelzebub said:

This is a total joke..   Scott is right ( for a change )   borders farce and criminal towards rest of comp. 

If the Roos are THAT bad ( and i don't believe they really are ).   but if so...take them out the back paddock and shoot them.

If this is what they're happy to do for this rabble...   just wait til the Devils come in..

The best thing would be to send the Roos hopping down to Hobart and become the Devils.

Apart from anything else it would avoid making the "draw" aka FIXture even more inequitable by throwing in a bloody bye.  We all know which teams will get the horror bye round 1 or 2, or last few rounds, and which ones will get it nicely spaced out.

Edited September 29, 2023 by monoccular

[Dr. Gonzo 23,018]

On 9/26/2023 at 10:29 AM, ChaserJ said:

The McKay deal has been estimated (by Marc McGowan in the Age) as 750k per year over 6. Not a slam dunk for band 1, don’t have faith that AFL won’t still make it happen though.

Similar to Frawleys deal?

[Redleg 38,927]

8 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Similar to Frawleys deal?

Maybe not, as value of money has decreased.

[spirit of norm smith 13,888]

I’m still dirty on the AFL changing the rules on NGA.  
Dogs got JUH, and so then they changed the NGA rules meaning we miss Mac Andrew. 🤬🤬

[old55 22,178]

55 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

I’m still dirty on the AFL changing the rules on NGA.  
Dogs got JUH, and so then they changed the NGA rules meaning we miss Mac Andrew. 🤬🤬

and get JVR instead ...

[Gawndy the Great 8,240]

1 hour ago, spirit of norm smith said:

I’m still dirty on the AFL changing the rules on NGA.  
Dogs got JUH, and so then they changed the NGA rules meaning we miss Mac Andrew. 🤬🤬

Mac Andrew may have a decent career but for now I prefer JVR. #wedodgedabullet

[Whispering_Jack 28,439]

On 9/29/2023 at 5:08 PM, rumpole said:

What I find ridiculous, if not actually corrupt, is the gifting of two end of first round draft picks in 2024 which are ostensibly subject to review but which are apparently “tradeable” in 2023. If North trades these picks then they can be bundled together to provide sufficient points to enable a trade to be concluded for pick #4 giving them the ability to draft a Ryley Sanders. Meanwhile, once the picks have been traded and used in 2023, how can they be reviewed in 2024? No wonder the clubs smell a rat.

The AFL could fix that by making an announcement to clarify what it means when it says something is subject to review. 

[Demon Dynasty 16,643]

On 9/29/2023 at 10:08 PM, monoccular said:

 

Without a shadow of doubt the AFL will make to up as they go along

What made you come to that conclusion Mono!