Leaderboard

Interestingly, it is the second year in a row, where the AFL has denied us the right to upgrade a Rookie, despite having a spot available to do so. While the Bombers uplifted players to replace suspended ones, we were not allowed to replace Melksham, who was also suspended. If Melksham had remained a Bomber, they would have been able to replace him. As a bonus, they were given the first pick in the draft.

It is media outlets that have deemed 1,000 points to be GWS's pick 15 to 18 assuming they finish top 4. There has been nothing from the AFL to suggest that is the case. Consider these scenarios: GWS trades out their 2017 1st round pick (lets say #15-18) and maybe their second for a very good player, leaving only later picks to 'pay' 1,000 draft points. GWS trades out their 2017 1st round pick for a 2018 1st round pick or two 2018 2nd round picks, again leaving only later picks to pay the 1,000 draft points. GWS 'negotiate' with AFL to use their 2017 first round pick and 'pay' the 1,000 draft points with later picks. GWS finish outside the top 4. Theoretically, they could lose only 1,000 points of their first 2017 pick leaving them with 'floating' points they cannot use unless there is an academy player further down the line. GWS will negotiate with the AFL to take the 1,000 points from later picks. I could float a bunch of other scenarios but you get the point: GWS has a lot of room to manoeuvre to eliminate any hurt from loss of 1,000 draft points. In fact, I would bet my bottom dollar GWS and AFL have already done a deal on how the 1,000 draft points will be 'paid'. If the AFL wanted to remove their first round they would have. They didn't!! That speaks volumes! I will be mighty surprised and happy to eat humble pie if GWS effectively lose their first 2017 draft pick.

And if he had stayed on the LTI for a year we would have paid the salary as well, it didn't work out, you never left a job under lesd than perfect circumstances? To actually doubt the concussion issues is pathetic to say the least next time I chat to Gus Brayshaw or Nev Jetta I'll let them know we have some doubters amongst supporters about the debilitating affects a couple of concussions can have Yours is exactly the reaction when a player doesn't fit the normal stereotype, similar to bullies in school or the workplace, except you can do it from behind the anonymity of your keyboard H came to the club, it didn't work, he has gone, I would just say thank you for his efforts

It seems clear that we now have genuine depth, but we also have quite different but effective alternative options all over the field, eg, Garlett, VDB and Petracca as mids or forwards, Watts on the wing or as a dedicated forward, Hunt off half back or as an outside mid etc. In short, we have several players who can be dangerous in multiple positions - that spells 'deadly' for an opposition coach. The list is starting to develop its own X factor.

The same could be said for posters who are busily denigrating him, does it make you feel better? Muhammed Ali was not only a boxer, he stood up for personal freedom and against bigotry and racism, could ring a few bells for H The contradiction about the concussion is on fan forums, well known breeding grounds for misinformation and conspiracy theories His time at MFC didn't work out, like a lot of other players, so why is he singled out?

Speaking of the suspended Collingwood players, based on the lack of punishment handed out by the AFL, GWS and any future culprits would have to think that rolling the dice and avoiding a drug test is better than subjecting players to drug testing. The Collingwood boys got a full season for their positive drugs test, where as Whitfield, GWS got a slap on the wrist and less than half a season for their dishonest behaviour - well done AFL, massive opportunity to send the right message missed.

"The sub-committee also found that the Giants’ board, chief executive and chief operating officer had not been aware of the misconduct and the club’s governance could not be faulted." That's the trouble with governance if there is no corresponding moral values system to go along with it. The treatment by the media and the AFL of the EFC case and to a large extent this case means that we are further from instilling those moral values. I suspect it will only occur when sponsors demand it. By the way I have never seen the public apology to the girlfriend. One might dislike Collingwood but I think their treatment of the two suspended players was measured. O well.... let us see how long it takes until the next issue like this comes along.

Maximum list 47 players. So we go into the season minus our 47th best player, or an injured Prince that would not play. Move on. Edit:- If we have no injuries we are unlikely to need an upgraded rookie, if we have injuries we can. Simple.

Tempting As a middle aged white married male im always on the look out for new looks that minimise my potential to get laid

In the marking contest with Ty Vickery...

At training on Friday Peddo was just in front of me and lifted his jumper to wipe his face. I can tell you there is not one bit of fat on him, he looked ripped. I was surprised to hear in the report he wasn't in good shape, I reckon it's rot. I've got no idea what the story with Oliver is but he was a star on Friday although his running is poor by AFL standards. He has this break to make things right and we'll learn a bit when he comes back in the new year. The kid is a freak, he just needs to learn good habits. Macca will do the job with him I'm sure.

No. They won't take marks 'inside 50' often enough to hit the scoreboard and are a complete liability when it comes to forward pressure and ground balls. We averaged 3 marks 'inside 50' per quarter in 2016, which is evidence that the ball is on the deck in the forward-line far more often than it's controlled in the air. The best 'player average' was West Coast's Josh Kennedy, who couldn't quite average one mark 'inside 50' per quarter per game. If he can't average one mark 'inside 50' per quarter per game how many do you expect Spencer to take ? And once the ball is on the deck he's virtually useless. It will be rare if Melbourne plays two rucks in 2017. So rare I doubt we'll see one. It happened in 2015 down at the Cattery, but that experiment only happened twice more that season.

I, for one, and very pleased about this new rule, to be implemented in 2017. To me, the pure ruck contest between two, opposing ruckmen, is an iconic part of the game. To me, the third man up ruins the spectacle, and tends to negate the effect of the pure duel. The third man up is also a recipe for unwarranted injury. So, I'm happy to see it brought in. Think it will only reduce other teams' efforts to negate big Max's dominance.

...the only problem is it doesn't work. Sorry it's a very poor idea and not well thought through. Max is the number one ruck in the competition. Why would we consider putting a 2nd stringer at best in his place and then playing Max in a position he can't play!!!

That was written by a very troubled person who needs help. He is carrying around a lot of hatred and bitterness and this is coming out in his assaults and other incidents in his private life. Interesting the resentment at some clubs about players who set themselves high standards, some thing has happened to others such as Rockliff. In the past you would work to match them, it seems to today they resent them when they work so hard to succeed.

Something to mull over - latest club by club membership figures: http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/where-does-your-afl-club-sit-on-the-2017-membership-ladder/news-story/1a960325e0737945ffa31631aacc72f0 To make sense of it I've put the info into a table (below). I've also shown how far each team is to reaching last years total (Carlton and North will struggle to get there). We are at the mid point relative to other clubs of 'Latest vs 2016'. I've also shown the cost of an adult Home Game, General Admission season ticket. I wouldn't take the figures too literally as there are lots of variations in how clubs count and types of membership. Nonetheless, the relativity is reasonable. While it is exciting to see our club figures rising, this shows we are rising at the average rate of other clubs. But hey, at least it is better than falling behind! CLUB Latest 2016 2015 Latest vs 2016 Gen Admiss Adult Cost HAWTHORN 61,028 75,351 72,924 81% $193 ADELAIDE 61,000 54,307 52,920 112% $250 WEST COAST 54,661 65,188 60,221 84% N/A RICHMOND 52,401 72,278 70,809 72% $199 PORT ADELAIDE 50,027 53,743 54,057 93% $210 ESSENDON 45,536 57,494 60,818 79% $180 GEELONG 43,007 50,571 44,312 85% $220 CARLTON 33,270 50,130 47,305 66% $332 SYDNEY 31,046 56,523 48,836 55% $230 ST KILDA 31,000 38,009 32,746 82% $240 BULLDOGS 30,000 39,459 35,222 76% $215 MELBOURNE 29,426 39,146 35,953 75% $215 NORTH 27,481 45,014 41,012 61% $215 BRISBANE 14,877 25,408 0 59% 0 GWS 10,002 15,312 13,480 65% 0 GOLD COAST 7,294 12,854 13,643 57% 0 *Collingwood (2016: 74,819) and Fremantle (2016: 51,889) have not made their membership numbers public. Things that might distort the numbers: Adelaide has a 'Free' Membership category St Kilda have a $1 membership category North and Hawthorn would have a lot of 3 game members in Tassie

Silk: My lud I move the thread be closed Beak: on what grounds? Silk: on the basis that our continued discussion may give cause to the belief that we care

It is stated "he has retired on medical advice", it is only getting silly because some posters on here have now managed to get the 'mob' howling behind them, you believe there are other issues, I don't, no excuse for some of the disgusting vitriol being posted here

I would have thought at the least I would have got a call from Josh and PJ explaining it all to me.

I don't get the angst aimed at HL......he is a different cat.....So What? There are so many robots already in the AFL. Any one a bit different is treated like they are insane. and are scorned and belittled. He has now gone.........Lets move on.

The guy is a [censored]. Why any love for him at all? Does it make people feel better about themselves to pot posters for disliking him. His attitude has been disgraceful. Seriously ........ grieving for Muhammed Ali, and now this concussion contradiction. A greedy self entitled grub.

It looks like we've exhausted all reasonable matters for discussion about a training session that in the end involved one player from our list. The training threads will continue when the team returns, presumable in the second week of January. To all who contributed to the training threads enjoy the festive season and have a happy and healthy new year.

And us to him. Another example of brilliant people management since PJ has come on board. He wanted to play on. Was certainly fit enough to. But unfortunately he would have taken games away from young players. His retirement was managed in a way that was not only respectful but provided us the opportunity to keep him engaged at the club in a way that we get much of same benefit as if he had continued playing, primarily as a brilliant role model and mentor for the younger players. His role at the club also aligns with what he said he was interested in pursuing career wise post footy - sports science, fitness and conditioning. He gets to learn under Misson and build his career. And we get to keep him at the club. A win win. Not to bang on about the past but the contrast to how the retirement of J mac was handled could not be more stark. Just on PJ, he is held in such high regard at the club that it has created a clothing range in his honor, surely the first footy boss to be honored in such a way: Zoom Mens Checkard PJ Pant $30.00 Members: $27.00

Was the WAFL his idea? We we're always going to have a team in the comp. Taking the AFL appointment of Peter Jackson aside how are our profits attributable to Gil? What was Gil's role in the Dogs premiership outside of the farce that was the one sided umpiring. The game to some extent runs and sells itself, the TV rights deals and major sponsors (NAB/Toyota) are locked away for years, anyone could of got those deals over the line. The AFL was always going to buy Etihad. Gil : Failed to act with regards to Jobe Watson The AFL tribunal remains a farce. Anual rule changes which aren't needed. Soft handling of GWS with relation to Lachie Whitfield. If every difficult decision is put into the "too hard basket" and then referred to the commission, why is he there? Why not just have the commission ?

You miss the point. WADAS ASADA and thereby as signatories AFL rules make hiding from a drug test as serious an offence as failing one. AFL have chosen to ignore this.

There were stats published a couple of weeks ago, maybe on afl.com.au? They were pretty damming. In redirect of repeat stoppages the third man up made ~1-2% difference but that statistic didn't reflect who won the stoppage indicating there was actually no advantage to either side to go up or stay down, it didn't statistically change the outcome. There is already a rule that says you cannot Sheppard in the ruck. If two designated rucks are competing body on body and a third man comes up, to me that means the original ruck had shepparded to provide access for his 3rd man team mate Sometimes this is paid. But not consistently. This just clears it up.

This is precisely the reason I have been frustrated that we finalised our list without understanding H's situation. The odds are against picking up useful players late in the draft or in the rookie draft - but most successful teams have one or two. Look at Hamling and Papley this year - or Dalhous and Picken. Actually throw in Morris and Dickson - and the premiers had 5 !! I'd also like to think that we are sufficiently close to all our players to know which ones are going to hit the training track on Day 1 - and which ones are not. Perhaps he did a back flip the night before - but it's reasonable to assume that he had some doubts for some time. Reckon most supporters would prefer.a speculative pick over an empty slot

Pretty ordinary that Age report. The VFL one was a body collision, not a head shot. Which is enough to give concussion particularly if a pre-existing condition is there. It was caught on video as that game was televised. H came off shortly after. The incident was replayed during the coverage Can't recall the AFL one and CBF looking for it. But I don't remember anyone questioning it at the time. Like others, I suspect that there's more than just concussion here but that is the key that both H and the club have used to the exit door. I wish him well. He's a different unit but for a while there he was OUR different unit. He kept his thoughts largely to himself at MFC and focussed on footy. Certainly didn't embarrass the club with his musings like he did at Collingwood (until Ali's passing but I'm blaming the concussion for that). And when he was out there in red and blue he had a decent crack

I think the AFL ruling is consistent with past rulings and an understandable position to have in order to prevent clubs from engineering retirements to their advantage. It seems to me that some people feel aggrieved that Lumumba's departure was left far too late and that this somehow disadvantaged the club. They seem to be of the belief that had he gone in October then we would have had an additional vacancy on our list at draft time to enable the club to draft another player. However, given our draft position with no pick till the late 40s the extra selection would have been a lowly pick and not of great value. Even without the capacity to upgrade a rookie in the off season, we can play rookies in the pre season competition and if necessary, upgrade a player from virtually the start of the season. The whole thing is a storm in a teamcup - we've lost a player whose contribution was negligible in 2016 and it was unlikely that he was going to get many games next year. He was able to dominate a game once whilst at the club - and that was a pre season NAB Challenge game in his first season. No sweat.

Something is fishy with the AFL ruling if it is in fact a ruling. We could have kept HL on the list and paid him the agreed amount, while declaring him unfit to play and eligible for the LTI list and then able to uplift a rookie. He then would have retired at the end of the season. Something is funny here.

Well that's a story in itself SWYL. It was on a recent club sanctioned trek to Tibet, The Prince went to bow to the Dalai Lama, the Dalai Lama moved to one knee to bow to the Prince and it was just a simple clash of heads. There's no concussion testing (other than incense) in that part of the World and, naturally, The Prince held the club accountable. Did he have a case? It's hard to say.

I'm glad he's gone. How the bloody hell can you build a premiership team, when some ponce is hanging around talking about the deli llama or the time someone pulled a gun on him in Brazil. Get out and good riddance. I doubt players from either club would be interested in hanging out such a self important [censored]

I don't understand this. Either he's off the list for 2017 in which case we should be able to upgrade a rookie or he's on the list and should be able to go as a long term injury due to concussion. The ruling that he's a terminated player and therefor we can't promote someone is ridiculous.

It does highlight just how tight this ship is. Not a word gets out without being sanctioned.

Thank Christ we don't have more of these "not-normal-stereotype" players. The ones who decide it's a great idea to drag our club's medical department, and their professional integrity, through the mud. I must have missed the part where Nev Jetta or Gus Brayshaw threatened to sue the club over the club's treatment of their concussions. I do remember Bernie Vince having some choice words on H's commitment to the club though; maybe you could ask him?

I see it more as FIXING the ruck as opposed a rule change. The 3rd man exploited a loophole really. Now it's shut. Good

29426 ?

Is there a harder working MFC staffer than Crossy? That pick up keeps giving in spades.

Well in that case I'd like to take this opportunity to criticise Stuie for .... for ........... well there must be ........... It'll come to me .................! I'm sure he's guilty of ....... something.

Pedersen to start Weed by the end

Reports were that he was upset that Melbourne didn't allow him to play when he could play (meaning the fourth year in contract couldn't automatically be triggered), but he has now retired because of concussion based on medical advice?

GWS needs to fill the gap left by the removal of their pick 17 by Gil and they therefore should be awarded our rookie upgrade. It's only right.

Concussion ???? - I am confused The previous story was a complaint that the Club wouldn't let him play more than 5 games which stopped him triggering a contract extension. Anyone professional who can't play because they are so distressed at someone's death is more Clown Prince than royalty.

This is going to in my opinion make max even more dangerous

I find it humorous that so many people are trying to find a Macchiavellian angle into the departure of the player known as The Prince.

As for H, I have good memories of his storming goal in his first game with us (against Gold Coast) that seemed to get the team fired up and kicking on for a win (our first opening round win in how long?). He always wore his heart on his sleeve which I don't mind and he has left the club wishing us no malice and in fact praising our list and wishing us the best of luck. Good luck to him in the future.

All the other players were at the Heretier farewell function

Mud

I don't wish him any ill will and nor do I wish him well. I have zero feelings for this player. Although, I'm happier today than I was the day we drafted him.

Good riddance.