deanox

Freddy you are right. The fact is over the past 7 years there has been no evidence in my mind that any of the players have improved fitness or skills through their training regimes. Year to year pre season does not seem to make any difference. They should announce that preseason training is the a big PR exercise for them to tell us how they are training the house down and keep in the media during cricket season and scrap the preseason entirely.The other fact in my mind is that last year we often would lose a game and then lose again the next week (Sometimes we'd be worse!) Which shows that our usual training isn't working, so I think we should scrap all of our current training sessions and just let the boys play on the weekend after having the week off.

RE Rookie lists etc. I think we are really seeing the problems associated with not having a genuine 2nd XXII competition anywhere in the country. The AFL is the top level, and its a combination of the best of the best, and those with the highest potential over 18 teams. The 'best of the rest', arguably players who would fit anywhere between player 15 and player 38 on the current 18 lists are spread across 30+ teams in the VFL, SANFL, WAFL and potentially others. There is clearly a conflict between playing the best players and playing players to develop across the league. If we could somehow have a genuine 2nds competition there is potentially a lot more potential players who may develop late, and be able to step up to the big leagues, and arguably it would be much better for the draftees to develop in a competition with a much higher concentration of quality players. One solution I can see is expanding lists to 60 (which may include an AFL list of 35 and a 2nd XXII list of 25, which can be drawn on in a similar fashion to the Rookie list currently, perhaps with a long term injury reduced to 4 or 5 weeks to promote someone). Turn over each year won't be much different to now; clubs will still only draft 3-6 players and bring a couple of others in via trade/free agency, maybe make some minor changes to the 2nd XXII squad. Maybe you can draft into either list? Or maybe draftees go onto a list with a maximum of 12 players but after year two need to be promoted to either the 1st or 2nd squads (which have a min/max numbers such as 30/35 and 18/25, respectively)? 2nd XXII squad members could have their individual pay limited, so you either have to promote kids or get rid of them once they reach a certain level. This would promote the AFL being the best 22 versus the best 22 each week, instead of the best 18 plus 4 development players. It would promote the standard of AFL, and lower level football, because everyone on the list is making a living out of football, and playing with serious hours. Maybe the 2nd list would be 50% part time, still more serious than the current 2nd tier competitions. These players will then be fitter, stronger, better coached, and potentially more ready to step up to, or better developed to make it at, AFL level, as a mature age player. Good players won't be list to the system, they will have the chance to become very good players. RE Rookies, they get paid stuff all. It is a labour of love. We're talking $35k per year in 2011, for a pretty hard, full time slog. Compare that to a 1st year, 1st round draftee in 2011 ($59k) or a 3rd round draftee in 2011 (51k), who both also get ~$2,500 match fees per game, it isn't a great deal.

You're probably right, but as punishment for 'bringing the game into disrepute' surely they could ban him from attending any AFL matches as well as banning him from coaching? (Same as they can ban fans who behave inappropriately) Could work in the media, but not attend games to comment etc.

I believe Hird is not allowed contact with any club staff or players etc, or allowed to be at the club. This may be hard to police to since extent and I'm not sure what the AFLs stance on social contact is!To be honest I'd think it would be to hard to try and be involved in coaching without being allowed around the place. Any involvement would just be a pain for everyone. Might be a lot of emails from [email protected] to [email protected] next year. I was surprised he was allowed to be at Essendon games or that he would be allowed to work in footy ie commentating.

Also an Essendon premiership player with a successful career in the AFL...

It is coming along great Webber, and will back back to see you as soon as in back in town (travelling with work); I think I'm a little bit passed my next planned appointment!

could you advise which players on our list would have been trade options if out of contact?

Try reading again. They aren't official terms, they are the conversation. They are the verbal agreement of how it will be at Melbourne. He doesn't have to put up with a minder but he promises not to bring certain people to the club. We tell him we are treating him like an adult not a kid, but expect certain responsible behaviour in return. We are telling him, he will get top dollar for two years but of he acts irresponsibly there is no guarantee it will be extended. We explain what the ground rules will be and what the freedom will be. We offer to give him more freedom than Richmond but make it clear there are some non-negotiable areas regarding preparation and recovery (similar to what a couple of recent Brownlow medalists have been afforded).The only terms mentioned are the agreed money amount and the contact length. The same as for any player. The PSD or 3rd rounder isn't a term either. It is a statement of what we are willing to give up for him; we will give him the money he wants, but won't give up picks. The rest of the conversation is part of the convincing, explaining why we aren't willing to trade pick 2 etc. How would you go about it?

check with WYL. He was making a donation this week on the back of that promise wasn't he?

They are all elite organisations in the field of coaching Junior footy

If Martins response to enquiries is that is money is his issue at Richmond and that he is willing to come to Melbourne for the right money, I would approach it like this: Tell him rumours of his current off field behaviour make him too high a risk to invest in. We need our picks to be 10 year players. Tell him that our aim is to be successful and win a flag, and that to do that we need the best players we can get. Tell him we are interested because he is a good player and has the potential to be a great player; Roos wants to make him a great player. We can match his money requirements, or even exceed slightly, on the following conditions: -We can draft him in the PSD, pick 2 -We can trade with Richmond for our 3rd(?) round pick or player we are prepared to lose. -Two year deal with option for third negotiated of he is interested This is because a) currently he is to risky to use pick 2 on, but more importantly, b) if he wants finals and flag as well as money, we need to have those picks available to draft the best players to play around Martin which means our first two picks. Give him some freedom back (if I was 21 and had a minder I'd want to push back at every opportunity too) but: Require him to stay on the straight during key times (prep and recovery) and while at the club. Also stress that his playing and training is not impacted by outside activities. Require any contact with unsavoury types to be external of the club ie don't bring them to functions. Get Roos to identify a mentor - Everitt, Hall, or other 'bad boy' who had a good career - may he may respond to this sort of character because they have credibility. If he wants the money he will come, and if he goes off the rails, he cost nothing but cap space. A kid with good character won't walk to PSD unless their club is being unreasonable; they feel like they owe their clubs, and fair enough too. Martin isn't good character, we can pay to his selfishness and try and get him for nothing.

Disappointed I'll be missing this one guys but despite having completed ankle rehab - including my (traditional MFC) moon boot phase - in preparation for this match, I will be bush, on a mini bus on day 3 of a mates bucks. If I'm still alive for the next match I will be back for sure!

I thought the role of these three was pretty much to be line coaches at Casey, to ensure that the messages the head coach and the assistants were passing along regarding game plan, and individual player requirements, we're being enforced at Casey, and to provide direct feedback about a players performance at Casey. We have a squad of 40+ players including Rookies. The squad trains together all summer, and some sessions during the season. Other sessions are just the match squad for that week plus or minus a few for injuries back ups etc. The head coach and his assistants would develop a game plan and would prepare development plans for all players on the squad. These assistants would enforce that and ensure the message is heard when not with the main group. All are experienced working with young players, would probably be paid half that of the regular assistant coaches and it is unlikely that an experienced AFL assistant coach is going to go back to a role as a VFL line coach or take the pay cut. The idea is sound, and it is something we've all been calling for: a second XVIII that plays and is coached like or firsts, and our deception players to play in the second in their position to develop for AFL. Can anyone tell me how these coaches performed at the above role? Maybe KC can, but unless you are heavily involved in Casey I doubt you can assess their work.

I'd also be happy for him to espouse a desire to see players stick it out at clubs, develop loyalty to encourage fans to get on board with their favourite players and help maintain the club community environment that had been such a strength of the AFL over years. And then point out that this applies to Lance Franklin and Daisy Thomas and Colin Sylvia and Jack Watts as well.

How about the heavy weights of media influence? It doesn't matter if they are right, it is the issues they give air time to that become the public issues.

And yet even then Jack, assuming they do slip further, the saints will have played off in 7 of the previous 11 finals series, and 4 of the past 7, which is significantly better than our record over any comparable period.

It is probably the only reason that is semi logical, but it is also the only reason that the AFL can't actually adjudicate. Unfortunately it is also the only one that has already come to pass. We have already put an application in. It is public knowledge. Therefore the reason is now invalid. The interesting thing is that PJ and Roos, both highly respected outsiders, brought in to repair our club and Our culture are both pro priority pick. I think it is important to note that a priority pick had nothing to do with pride or club culture. Deliberately losing, or giving the players the feeling that we are deliberately losing, is what sets the poor culture, not the pick. Regardless, we didn't deliberately lose this year or last and we were still crap. We didn't deliberately lose any time in the last 7 years officially, and even the strongest believers in tanking would only suggest it was limited to one or two games. The playing group and the public are aware that under the current regime this will no longer happen. There is no stain that will associate with it except for media heavy weights wanting to throw mid to make a story and other clubs supporters whinging because they want one. I'd whinge too if it was them getting one, because they want to win flags and the best way to do that is have us remain crap.

Cheers. I'm happy to hear anyone's arguments, I just haven't heard one with good logic yet. All arguments I've heard against the PP are easily rebutted and are met with a quiet scoff and a tsk tsk. "But you already tanked once" - we may have but the AFL found us not guilty, it can't be used as a reason. Plus it was under a different regime. "You've had enough picks" - no more than most, less than Carlton. "AFL has bailed out Melbourne with cash off field, that is enough" - this doesn't improve our list. But it was a decision made by the AFL to put an immediate halt to downward spiral we were on. "Is your own fault you are crap; poor drafting, poor development." - which club is not at fault for their crapness? When would a PP be granted of not for 7 years of tripe? "PA and WCE bounced back quick, so can Melbourne" - we don't have their midfield or their veterans to assist this, it won't happen. "WB and Saints are nearly as bad as Melbourne" - have a look back over the past 3 years, 5 years and 7 years and tell me that again. 13 years since we were genuinely any good, and even then we were never a genuine contender. All other arguments seen to centre on pride or on improving our culture by not getting handouts, which I don't think are real reasons being used by anyone in the know. Regardless, we have already asked for it, it can't be retracted, therefore these arguments are now invalid. If anyone has another argument against the PP let me know, I'm interested to know if there is a valid one.

RE your first paragraph, I think this may be the case too, but if after years 7 years of sucking, the AFL doesn't give a PP but after 8 years they do, I'd be amazed. The decision on PP has to be made on on field performance, not on anything else. Off field Staff, money, etc. should not be factored in. Our terrible performances over 7 years covers 3 head coaches, and 3 care taker coaches. 3 distinct football departments. Will one more make a difference? Maybe. Especially long term we hope. But the list problems are well documented. We don't have PAs midfield or WCEs veterans to help us bounce back up the ladder. We have had 7 years of shizen. The list is crap. Footy dept ball outs don't fix the list.

I'll cop that whack Rhino, it was the last paragraph of a long post and it was poorly articulated. What I was trying to illustrate was that despite our incompetence in drafting and development, there are differentials between us and other clubs. Not all clubs have the advantage of Collingwood cash to pay for recruiters and coaches and developers, but we have also not had much luck with father sons, we have struggled financially for a number of reasons many of which relate to the AFLs money making plans, we have had sub standard facilities for longer than many other clubs, and others. I think these reasons should be taken into consideration when other clubs say "Melbourne have had the same chances of every other club", because although we have had the same number of picks, we have been disadvantaged in the football department side of things for a long time. No disagreement with the rest of my post?

My biggest gripe at the moment is "journalists" using "Melbourne have had x number of picks on the top 10 (or 15 or 26 or whatever suits them) in the past y years" as justification for us not receiving a PP. All clubs have received the same number of first round picks, with the exception of those who got 1st round PPs (Melbourne, Carlton, Hawthorn, St Kilda, Bulldogs) and those who were given extra picks (GC and GWS). That's 7 of 18 teams to have extra first round picks. The other additional picks we've had have been either compensation picks (i.e. Scully) no different that what Adelaide, Geelong, Brisbane etc got, or picks we've traded for i.e. Brock and Travis. Every time a "journalist" tries this argument, they a) fail to mention any of the above to balance the argument, and b) fit stats to show their point i.e. "Melbourne has had more picks inside the top 14 than any other club" instead of stats that are a fair comparison. Top 14 fits us because we traded players for pick 14 and we're always finishing low enough during the compromised draft seasons to have a top 14 pick. They are also keen to say "we traded first round picks for Hogan or Mitch Clark, so bad luck, but they count the picks we got from trading out players as opportunities. Compare the number of priority picks per club and we aren't leading the list. Compare "first round picks" minus number of players lost (either traded, or free agent, or compensation) so that you can see that we have had virtually the same chances as any other club. Maybe our picks are on average a few places higher, but number of picks can only be 1 more, because we've only had 1 first round PP. We have done a terrible job at drafting and developing in the last 12 or so years, but there are many reasons for that. Lack of of field financial success is the main driver and that is the AFLs fault regarding equalisation.

stuie, you're doing yourself no favours mate. As explained above many of us have an affinity with 'land and 'ology based on long term involvement in the community. Many people are also concerned about actions of people in how they represent the MFC and how they treat other members of these communities, both in real life and on the boards. If you don't care or have any interest that is fine. There is only one thread on 'land about this. Now that you know what it is about, don't open it again. You don't need to read it, and arguing with people who care is just trolling.

I would think the biggest aspect of bringing the game into disrepute would be the club's who are saying things like "they just got fined for tanking and note they want more handouts" when we clearly were found not guilty of any tanking offences and the AFL stated what we did with list management was no different to what freo have done repeatably in Final rounds.

I was thinking that the 4 days has stretched to 2 weeks for him thus feels slow?

only been coach for a fortnight? Seriously, time must move really slowly for the author of that article.