Rhino Richards

Firstly, Ball must be prepared to go into the uncertainties of ND. While Richmond have 19, MFC have picks 11 and 18 and other C;ubs earlier picks that could be used to choose Ball. It might not be the club of Ball's choice. Also it means that Richmond will not have pick 19 to use for another young player. They would prefer PSD 2 but I cant see how they can exercise if MFC are firm on PSD 1. Secondly, Possibly he will stay at StK but not for the wrist slashing reason you give. There is a significant amount of humble pie on both sides to address and both parties need to decide whether they can repair the damage. But there appears to be some bad blood from both sides.

Neither do I and Ball needs to be careful indeed.

I dont think it would get to that. But worst case (and I hope its not), if Luke Ball flatly refuses MFC then if MFC adopts Hannibal's approach it would be silly for Ball to take the PSD. So yes it is tough for Richmond. At the end of the day, its seems unlikely that Ball will repair his ties at StK. I would think all sensible roads lead to MFC...hopefully.

While I agree with that approach from the MFC to encourage Ball to us and that was MFC's stated intention, then that would close out Richmond in the running. However, if Ball states flatly that he does not want to go to MFC then he should nominate for the ND to avoid disappointment. However he has no control where he will end up in the process and that will be interstate. I think we can leverage the PSD to our benefit in that way to encourage Ball. However if does not want us and nominates for the PSD then he is playing russian roulette with a blindfold.

It would be ludicrous for MFC to draft a high profile player at considerable $$$ who does not want to play for us. It would be both untenable for MFC and Luke Ball. MFC would get a disinterested player and be the venue for a sour end to a players career with little in return. If he did choose Richmond, he could only do so if MFC confirmed that we would not exercise our PSD 1 pick on him. Ball would require some form of promise from MFC to proceed to Richmond. If MFC back tracked on that deal and drafted him, MFC would cop it in spades for years to come from current and potential players, their managers and other Clubs as a dishonest and untrustworthy negotiator on player contracting and recruiting. Furthermore we would hardly have a happy recruit (or his manager) who would feel they have been "cheated" in the process. It would send a rightful chill in the minds of other players and agents if we behaved in such a belligerent and provocative manner. I hope wiser minds are handling the Ball negotiations

If he decides after consdieration that he does not want to play for MFC then I dont want him...period. It would be stupid to draft a high profile player like Ball if he does not want to play for us. I know the "Stuff you buddy" scenarios that MFC could play but i only think that serves to punish MFC in the long run. And i dont think we need further damage to our brand. We should in the meantime do everything within our reasonable means to encourage Ball to choose us. If I were Richomd, I would be talking MFC down at every opportunity and encouraging him to go with Punt Rd. If I were Ball, I wouldn't do that.

They would be mad not to try to get him. The issue with the Tigers is that their cream is either very young or its very old with few stars in between. It was never going to be easy for MFC.

Who have we got that can compete with Cousins, Cotchin, Foley and Deledio at the present time? MFC have performed like a 3rd world midfield for the past 3 years. The promise is indeed brght with Grimes, Morton, Sylvia, Blease, Strauss, Jones, Scully and Trengove (in expectation). And I expect the MFC to surpass the Tigers within 2 to 3 years time But at this point in time, MFC are crud in the midfield.

PJ is contracted in 2010.

Its called a rumour. I am surprised its taken this long to surface. Big deal if its true. Player told he would have limited opportunities going forward and offered a pay cut is not happy with the coach. What controversy! He's gone and MFC have work to do.

He is not quick by AFL standards and he will need to every inch of pace to survive in an FP role. I hope Wonna can live up to the hype that surrounds him. He flew under the radar last year when opposition did not respect a weak MFC outfit and were opposition defenders were prepared to zone and run of their MFC forwards. Wonna was credible as the opportunist but he will need to lift to cope with greater attention. He will also need to develop the engine to be able to run in the midfield from time to time. He may struggle being accountable for quicker defenders.

Read the first page of the thread.

No doubt you wont understand. I always like how a player in poster's minds have not been given many chances but forget that the player has been on the list for four years and the coaching panel have observed this player at close quarters. As you point out, Buckley is a player with ordinary kicking and decision making. They're big issues in todays game. He is a fringe player at best. His medical condition does not help his cause. And Miller is not competing with Buckley for a spot. We are likely to pick 3 to 4 quality midfielders in this draft with good foot and hand skills under pressure. I am not sure where there is room for a player who does not have those skills. Miller has been given a one year contract. He fills a 3rd forward spot that is currently challenged by no one. His football skills are ordinary but leadership, character and his physical attack on the ball provide some options to MFC, some of which are in short supply in a young and inexpereienced list. Your outright condemnation of Miller is naive.

When did MFC do that? I would hope they didn't. It would be small minded and unprofessional to do so. In this draft given the assessment of the top 10 and the margin between the best 3 the potential picks at 8 and 9, it would be ludicrous. We have in our sights two quality blue chip midfielders of real class and character. Why cash one of them in for a lottery of lesser quality?

He's not good enough. After four years either at Sandy or MFC, the coaching panel have had enough time to assess him and they made a decision.

They get CJ for free in the PSD - no loss if he fails...and it looks that way to date. They paid top dollar for McLean at pick 11. Might work then again. If Collingwood would not budge on pick 25 for Ball then pick 11 is not a bad deal for MFC. They get Buckley for free and see CJ

Bollocks. And its your "majesty" serf.

Not necessarily. Port may well know but it depends on who is available. I am trying to think of a year where picks 1 & 2 werent seemingly head of the class An uncompromised draft does not ensure that is no or a lesser gap than this year between picks 1 and 2 and 8&9.

Maybe its the lack of success at MFC over many years, but I just cant believe so many posters getting distraught over players who at their best were borderline players. If MFC are to get better, then its inevitable that uncontracted players who are at the bottom level of list are going to get cut. And its going to happen more often going forward as another poster put it. I hope MFC does improve significantly over the next couple of years and develop a couple of stars so poster wont have to eulogise the ordinary.

There was an essence of wit with YM without the 4 preceding letters that accompany the word for the cheap imposter.

Who gives a royal fruit tingle about what happen at St Kilda with Ball? The only question MFC need Ball to answer is whether he will commit to MFC. If so the only way he is to come to MFC is via the PSD. Completely counterproductive for all parties (Ball and MFC) if we sacrifice a pick for him. If not, I could not give a stuff about him and he can rot where he finishes up. Getting Ball will be far bigger than Shanahan. The equivalent to Shanners is picking up Max Hughdon in this years pre season draft

Correct.

No he isnt Cant kick it, poor decision making and no defensive skills. Next.

We must have 10 or 11 stars in the making then. Morton, Watts, Jurrah, Grimes, Blease Strauss, Wonna, Davey, Garland, Frawley, Warnock. But Newton has no flaws...... Mainly your own ........proven tenfold. And for the fact the people that were lauding him then are quizzical now. They were enough posters questioning Buckley for a number of reasons. You need to read beyond your one hand typing.

No. 1 Guernsey wearers.. 1912 liam Allan (No. 9, 1913; No. 19, 1914) 1913 Douglas Chapman 1914 Des McDonald/Carlyle Kenley (No. 22, 1913) 1915 Johnny Hassett (No. 34, 1913) 1919 – 1923 William Allan (see 1912 above) 1924 – 1931 Stan Wittman 1932 Leo Nolan 1933 Noel Barnett 1934 Col Niven (No. 10, 1933; No. 2, 1935) 1935 – 1940 Gordon Jones 1941 Stan ‘Pop’ Heal 1942 Keith ‘Bluey’ Truscott (No. 5, 1937 – 1940) 1943 Keith Shadbolt/Don Hooper (No. 18, 1932 – 1935) 1944 Ron Kimberley (No. 21, 1939 – 1941)/Jack Compton 1946 – 1947 Ern Rowarth (No. 33, 1945) 1948 James Mitchell (No. 37, 1946 – 1947) 1948 – 1956 Denis Cordner (No. 17, 1943) 1957 – 1959 Dick Fenton-Smith 1961 Bruce Leslie 1963 Garry Byers (No. 50, 1962) 1964 – 1967 Robert Foster 1968 – 1972 Max Walker (No. 46, 1967) 1974 – 1981 Garry Baker 1984 – 1985 Steven Smith (No. 35, 1974 – 1983) 1988 – 1991 Steven O’Dwyer (No. 32, 1987) 1993 – 1994 Adrian Campbell 1995 – 1997 Sean Charles (No. 44, 1992 – 1993; No. 18, 1994) 1998 – 1999 Jamie Shanahan 2003 – 2005 Chris Heffernan 2006 - 2009 Buckley