Rhino Richards

Good point. Unfortunately some MFC players have managed to shake off that pressure easily and not performed up to contract terms. Food for thought: 1. For players coming out of contrract and who we want to retain we may have to pay them more. 2. Not all long term injured on the list drew on injury payments this year. The figure may have been higher this year than reported and expectations of falls in that figure may be pre mature. However we should see some salary relief from higher paid senior players retired or retiring this year.

Will you have made a valid drafting debate point by then?

If we are giving White, Yze and Holland a final testimonial game then logic with proper selection policy goes out the window. While none of them play mids, none them are good enough to hold a position anywhere so bring them in just throws the side out anyway. I am not sure of the value for Grimes in a game where we have sacrificed three spots on the ground for charity recalls. I dont think it anything to do with the rounds. Unless the player is really good or there is a dire need for that type of player, I think 2 to 3 games adjusting to the harder pressure of VFL 1sts over VFL 2nds with the expectation of showing you are ready for the next step to AFL is a big ask. If he can then fine...great. If not then thats OK for next year. I dont see the big need to push him through to AFL yet. I would hope he would develop his composure confidence and skills within the VFL.

Both before and for a number of years during Schwabs time. But you are right about the hatchet job.

Its not much of a debate when if you considered the basic facts that: 1. We took Thompson with with our first pick 2. The AFL took away picks 2 and 3 for salary cap breaches. 3. All sixteen clubs overlooked players like Johncock and only one club took him as a punt. The drafting debate has been done to death and you may want to do a Search to find them. The Cameron Schwab/ Salary Cap issue was flogged recently in a post a couple of weeks ago. You probably had 20 responses on that thread anyway.

Will it matter? IMO I would not give either of those three a final game as it suggests you are not putting your best team on the paddock to win but using it as a testimonial match. Having to play any of these three veterans does not necessarily assist in bringing for a debutant who is worthy of call up. If he can dominate in Sandy 1sts in two to three games then we have a star in the making. From reports on his progress, he could be a good to very good player for us. Its a big expectation on a player who has had so little senior football this year and has only just been able to run out a complete Sandy 2nd's game.

Neither timD nor I have made any opinion on Chopper Lovell. You branded Lovell a failure and got asked to substantiate. And as usual you have not and seemingly cannot.

Why the rush to play him this year? He still needs to get the tempo of Sandy 1sts and show he is capable at that level. I am confident that in time he will clearly show he can make the next step. But two weeks is a very short time to do that. Let him learn a litttle at Sandy 1sts level and bring him on next year. I look forward to him showing his wares in 2009.

I doubt it especially if they are using Rd 22 for testimonial games for senior players leaving. Whether Lovell does go with MFC will depend upon the terms of any alliance with Casey Scorpions and the role anticipated for Lovell if were to maintain some involvement with MFC. Agreed. Both the MFC and Sandy lists have been decimated to key players which have robbed Sandy of much fire power this year.

Dont fool yourself. TJ would have been tagged heavily all year and struggled and as per his form and habit would have rarely given a defensive or accountable yelp. I cant recall any game is 2007 he was prominent in.

What I would like to happen and what I believe will happen are two different outcomes and I dont confuse them like your good self.

Didak was past being stupid about 12 drinks earlier and a ride home. If he had shot through it would have come out that he was at the Geebung and possibly seen at the accident. Being thumbed for running off from the scene would have made him look even worse (if possible). Collingwood collectively have handled this poorly and the soft touches to past offenders has caught up with them. They had to act. All be it too late to stop the egg on the face. I cant see Collingwood back tracking on the penalties without looking as dishonest and lacking of integrity as the offending players did. And we must remember that Eddie has told us that the Collingwood Football Club is built on honesty and integrity.

Dont overestimate it either. MFC have proven little this year. On form there is daylight between the sides. How the match will be decided is not really in MFC's hands. MFC could win if Geelong rolled over for 4 quarters, the planets line up.........

The Collingwood players are contracted so they wont be in the PSD.

It has not been Bailey's style to flood and try and kill the game and against sides as good as Geelong they will just pressure you until they crack you open and you end up with a flogging. Bailey will back his players to take the game on and will be wanting accountability and pressure in the centre clearances which has been lacking alot this year. Hopefully by taking the game the players will back themselves and be rewarded if there disposal is not poor. If we have our usual skill errors and turnovers then Geelong will methodically belt us. With Miller missing (is he back this well) and Newton giving us little, the lacking of marking options hurts us. I expect they will play Sylvia and Bate forward. I hope we do ourselves proud and give them a good run for their money.

Given what MFC have shown to date and the way Geelong have dismantled the best put before them, if Geelong actually go at 80% they will burn MFC. MFC might nullify them for a quarter or two but it aint going to be a good standard of footy.

I understand the terms of his new contract has superceded his old one. Even if he his new contract does not start until after the old one finishes, if he is sacked under old contract the terms of his new contract will still apply from the date of its commencement. So the Pies would still be liable for terms of the new contract. So I doubt sacking him is either legally sensible or commercially responsible. However we need to watch what happens.

I understand the terms of his new contract has superceded his old one. Even if he his new contract does not start until after the old one finishes, if he is sacked under old contract the terms of his new contract will still apply from the date of its commencement. So the Pies would still be liable for terms of the new contract. So I doubt sacking him is either legally sensible or commercially responsible.

He has recently signed a new contract with Collingwood so he won't going to the PSD this year. They cannot sack him unless his actions represent a breach of the new contract which I understand does not have any behavioural conditions. And if they did sack him, the Pies would have salary cap issues. If they are going to get rid of him (I doubt that) they will trade him to another Club.

The fact is he did miss it and has done so before. TJ's disposal has gone off in the past couple of years. Although Jack has not played a game, the decision to trade TJ was correct and should have been done 2 to 3 years earlier. He has done little at the Lions to suggest that he is a winner for them. Unfortunately, TJ appears to be more of what they have in surplus in the Lions. Players that front run the game and are not prepared to be accountable and work hard on defensive pressure.

Concur with that. Yze signed a 3 yr contract at the end of 2005. This is the last year of the contract.

This is not a big time game for Geelong this week. And I dont know what you expect Geelong proves by beating us. If they win by less than 6 goals, it will be meritous loss for MFC on the scoreboard. If they beat us by more it was expected. After flogging their nearest rivals Hawthorn and Western Bulldogs with key players missing, i think the competition realises that lasy years premiers at 17 and 1 are good.....very good. If MFC get close to them then Geelong are not trying their hardest.

Regardless of why the Club wanted him to go, Heffernan did not want to go. He was pushed. And he played like that at MFC. Ferguson should have been pushed as well. For a person who has made claims on this site that premierships aren't important and that the MFC was in a position to seriously challenge at the start of this year you really are celebration of mediocrity. Rogue was smart enough to see what my argument was and that your point did not address it. You just itched the chip on your shoulder to make an irrelevant point. Underwhelming to say the least.

The point I made was that Sheedy pushed to Heff to move when he did not want to go. And it was done to compare why we did not do the same with Ferg. Whether Essendon had salary cap problems was neither here nor there to issue at hand. Nor was the issue of what they got. Keep nitpicking the small stuff Mo. Its your strength. BTW, I am still waiting your game plan we should have been playing at the start of the year that suited our list. Come on champ have you got it in you?

They got a first round trade pick at a point in time when he had value and had been mediocre for the Bombers in the proceeding years. At the end of 2002, Essendon were still challenging in the 8. Three years later the arse had fallen out of Essendon and Heff was a stocking filler footballer and was picked up in the PSD and the Bombers paid nicks for it.