deanox

What about: Introduce a "college AFL" as suggested, "under 22's" OR a unified, nation wide 2nd tier comp, where players are "part time" but get paid sufficient ~$50-100 K Keep the draft age as is. Cut the lists to 32. Any players not drafted can play and develop in the "tier 2" competition. Clubs can place injured players on "long term injury list" (say 6 weeks) and sign any replacement from tier 2 at any time. (Some details are obviously needed).

So any news? Are we getting 33 or what? Personally I want a bit more. 33 and an upgrade of a later pick maybe? 33 and a fringe player Roos thinks can have an impact.?

Collingwoods culture is poor. Harry may be from left field bit at least good bakes are high. I believe he and Roos are great fits. Our "culture" isn't too fragile for Harry. It's too fragile for Dane Swan or Dustin Martin.

IF the song changes. It needs to happen organically. Not because the club thinks it's a good marketing move. Our that they don't like the old one. I'd the adopters tally want change, they'll push for change. But any change coming from the top will feel horribly commercial. The "it's Melbourne's grand old flag" suggestions are terrible. It doesn't fit right and will feel forced every time.

Easy fix. Draftees get 2 year contracts with club option to hold them for an extra 2. Free agency for all players after 4 years when out of contract, or whenever any contact expires. But, a transfer fee system needs to be developed. That is, "buying" clubs will pay a transfer fee to the "selling" clubs in the form of a draft pick, salary cap space etc. Players lose the right to veto trades at any time while under contract (that is, it is up to the club, not the player). The is now an open market. The biggest problem to restriction of trades isn't clubs not paying, but other clubs requiring too much.

Someone needs to point out that front loading was the only sensible option we had. At the time of that contact there was no such thing as free agency so we could not have foreseen the difference the final year of his contact would make. The AFL impose a salary cap minimum which meant we HAD to front load so we would meet the cap despite having a crap playing list. Until the start of this year, the MFC believed that Frawley would be a RSA as the system would average his contract. His age alone should ensure we get band 1, as he is only half way through his career.

The reason why I think the AFL should either: reduce lists to 30ish players and throw lots of money into a quality, independent, second tier competition for development; or Increase list sizes to 55ish and throw lots of money at a quality, "reserve" division. There are 404 players running around the AFL every week, and at least 25% are there either based on "potential", because better players who have reached their ceiling have been moved on. A better quality second tier competition means that the best will play the best each week.

We have put on offer on the table for Frawley, presumably higher than what the Hawks have offered. Surely this too should be taken into account when determining his "value".

I agree that the two picks could be great and I'm the first to admit I have no idea if this day is like 2001 or 2003. I'm not sure if drafting science and scouting is good enough for us to predict truly which it will be either. But in the balance, the chance of scoring big with both players is unlikely. The chance of a journeymen solid player with one and a bust with the other is the most likely scenario imo. And given our poor track record of developing players and our known deficiency of senior leaders, I feel like this is what our club needs. As part of the fresh start we need to rebuild the playing list which means we need to add pays like Dangerfield if we want to improve them. I think we need immediate success. Not necessarily a premiership but strong improvement to give hope to the passing group and supporters. To give Hogan a reason to stay. To give other players a reason to join us. If the are two deals available like the Tyson deal, well maybe that is a better option. Get four players in, 2 immediate impact. But those deals have their own risks. Tyson exceeded expectations but this year's options may not; there is a reason such deals are cheaper than the PD deal. At the end, I'd hope for something back from Adelaide along with PD. I think Adelaide may believe pick 10 may be overs. Maybe pick 29? Maybe Lyons? Maybe Lyons and pick 47? Maybe the deal is: 2+3+46 for PD+29 or 10 ? I'd personally rather Toumpas + 3 for Dangerfield, not that I want to move Toumpas, but I'd like to try and do another "Tyson deal" with pick 2. At the end of the day, I hope Roos plans on bringing 4 experienced players to the MFC who will play round 1. Harry L, a KPD Roos event (i.e. Frost) and two mids. That means 20% change in our starting team. If one of those mids is Dangerfield we will be a very different team on the park.

Dangerfield or: McLean and Sylvia? Scully and Trengove? Or maybe we'd get lucky with 2 and 3 and get Watts and Natanui? I am quite comfortable trading 2 and 3 for Dangerfield. He is worth it. And until we get good quality senior players on our list, the younger kids will continue to struggle.

It sounds to me like WADA outlined a whole bunch of reasons that will definitely not apply to the EFC players as the reasons it won't appeal. This suggests to me that if similar bands are handed down to EFC players WADA will appeal. Expect proper sanctions.

Argh. The bidding is done before trades.

This talk of "premiership window" is premature imo. We need to build to be competitive asap and to challenge finals. Once we have become competitive and have established and ingrained a football department culture which is of the standard required then we build for a premiership. That is when we can develop players we draft. That is when we worry about "premiership window". It may well be that we are ready at the end of next year. But until then the focus is on improving the list to make us competitive and to change the culture. Which is why I'm happy to pay over the odds with top picks on a proven performer and leader.

The "show cause" notice is exactly that: "ASADA believes you have taken a banned substance. Please tell us why we shouldn't charge you." The players can, and should, respond to this by saying: "We do not believe we took any banned substances. At our request, all substances taken were reviewed and checked off by our club doctor and this was provided in writing to us. We believe these substances (x, y, z) were used and have no reason to believe otherwise." Then ASADA presents evidence and recommends that they get off lightly because they were duped. They really don't understand the process.

If they are doing it right, Essendon will have a registered charity to fund the football department or similar, that donations too are tax deductible. Melbourne has a similar "Foundation". Little will dump money into that and get the tax break. The club will pay the legal costs itself but he will finance the footy dept. Alternatively, the legal team will be partially employed by toll holdings, rather than the club.

Can anyone advise what is the likely occurrence if they do appeal? Will show cause notices be suspended again, or could the court allow the processes to occur parallel?

Does the actual amount of "costs" get published?

They can appeal, add the system allows them too, but surely they will be allowed to issue show cause notices in the mean time?

Again:The Age: "By 1 Feb 2013, both ASADA and AFL had agreed to investigate Essendon, and had concluded that ASADA should use AFL powers." AFL.com: "Based on evidence, conclude by Feb 1 ASADA and Essendon had agreed to investigate Essendon"

AFL.com says "concluded that Andruska was under pressure from ASADA and Essendon to come to a quick decision" theage.com says "I have concluded that Andruska was under some pressure from the then federal government and the AFL" So which did he say? Pressure from the AFL or pressure from Essendon? Selective reporting from the AFLs media department?

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-17/adelaide-crows-sack-brenton-sanderson/5751500 wonder what effect this will have? Unless they have a new coach lined up and ready? Are they going to bring Goodwin home before he signs with us?

When I said it is not about building for a flag what I meant was: Good teams trying win a flag can afford to try and buy a star player, or can often afford to be patient developing a high rated skilled young draft pick which has high risk and high reward. Teams trying to win flags might not be interested in a Harry O or a Gwilt, and instead would only look for a Goddard. But players like that may improve us cheaply. If we can build from "utterly non competitive rubbish with rubbish culture" to "regularly competitive with good culture" across 3 years, we might not have a the poor talent to win a flag but we will have build the foundations on which to build for one.

Why not avoid a compromised draft by making FA a "forced trade" scenario. Re-define the compo bands to align with draft order (1st round, 2nd round, 3rd round, no compo). Then all "free agents" can be signed by anyone but the formula that awards the compensation is used to identify which pick must be traded. Clubs could agree to an alternative trade if they prefer (other picks, players or a combination) but otherwise the club's have to pay. No club can then double dip and sign free agents as well as get the best young talent. All clubs get equal access each year. To ensure the lowest clubs aren't disadvantaged (I.e have to give up pick 1 while the premier gives up pick 18), the first picks of all non-finals teams are excluded. So "band 1" is actually pick 11 through to 29, and so. That is surely the most equal way of providing a free agency mechanism without benefiting the top teams?

Regarding the OPs 2nd point, I think the key is we aren't rebuilding for a premiership. We are building a club for the next 5 years, a club that will be competitive again. The one we are back on board with culture and competitiveness, we will start the "rebuild" for a premiership using youth and free agency to build a premiership list. That's how far away we are. But it is the only way we can progress. We've seen that drafting raw talent into our club hasn't been working.

He is an AFL standard player, and we don't have many of those on our list. If we can bring in another 3 players who have an immediate impact this preseason, Watts will be a much better player for it. Personally, I'd only trade him for a player, not a pick, and that player would need to have good skills and be an upgrade in terms of attack on the football. I doubt we'd get a trade like that for him, so he is a keep.