Beats

I think your assessment is around the mark. I've done this a million times at home after terrible losses, our list is bad. On my last leave I started piecing together a 'FIFA' style profile for each of our players. For those who haven't seen the game it breaks a players attributes in to 3 categories (skills, physical and mental) and gives them a current and potential rating out of 99, with 99 being the highest ever seen (eg. Howe would be 99 in speccies... if it was a category), it also gives them ratings for attributes like work rate, weak foot, X factor etc. I got through about 10 MFC players and 10 non MFC players before giving up due to it being a lengthy process, but thought that it was worth revisiting in the future... link to example profile here - http://www.futhead.com/14/career-mode/players/344/cristiano-ronaldo/

I don't disagree, love JV and for the most part his disposal is 'neat', but he isn't a great kick (especially to leading forwards). IMO though, If there was 1 spot left to fill on the team sheet and we had no particular needs I'd be picking Watts because he is more damaging when on song.

Mmm, my thoughts are that in times of free agency (and especially with the new rolling salary cap rule coming in) that there shouldn't be any allowances for Veterans. I didn't realise the 400k mark had been set, but to me that's a major issue. The veterans list was created to ensure that senior players were paid an amount close to market value as changing teams was difficult for players, now that free agency is in place they have the option to change teams and be paid at market value. Example: Scott Pendlebury will be 28 in 2016 and will likely still be at the top of his powers. We offer him $1mil per year, which will fall under our salary cap. If Collingwood have no other Veterans they can offer him $1mil a year, but 400k of his salary would fall outside the cap. This would allow them to bring in a good young player on that 400k or so per year difference. It's essentially rewarding teams for the good luck of having a player play 10+ years at the club.

The list was my opinion, If I had to pick which name would go on the team sheet first it would be Watts... just, although you could squeeze him in to the 'on a level' bracket with Grimes, Jones and Pedersen. Love Viney and the way he plays, but his kicking is a liability - no penetration and not reliable =/

You have to pay between 95% (was raised from 92.5% a couple of years ago) and 100% of the salary cap each year. The salary cap is set to be $10.071 million in 2015, this includes all guaranteed base payments and any performance incentives (games played and other KPI's) for the 40 main list players and the 4-6 rookie list players. For each veteran on your list (10+ years) you get an extra 1.23% (~$115,000) on the salary cap and there are concessions available for the inclusion of rookie players (up to 50% of a players wage) based on the number of rookies you have. They average wage for a current AFL player is approx $230,000. They are set to introduce a new rule stating that if a team pays under the salary cap for 2 consecutive years, they can then pay overs in the following year equivalent to the amount not spent or 5% - eg. you spend 98% 2 years in a row you can spend 104% in the third year, you spend 95% 2 years in a row you can spend 105%. This has been introduced to make lower teams more competitive in FA, as they can throw more money at players if they haven't paid the full salary cap in previous years. Players who have been taken in the National or Rookie drafts and who have not played AFL before are on guaranteed contracts with the $ value set by the AFL, based on where you are taken in the draft. Players in the first 2 years also have pretty decent KPI's based on games played (approx $2,500 per game played) allowing them to earn very good money ($150,000+) in their second year. There are a large number of variables involved with player contracts (such as performance payments and trigger clauses), however to simplify it players are given a set amount over a set period of years (the numbers reported in papers are generally based on the player achieving all KPI's). For example, Mitch Clark was reportedly on 750-800k, this included approx 100-150k based on him playing a set number of games, as he didn't play the required amount he will be paid approx 600-650k this year. The list manager does a bunch of calculations on how likely it is that players will hit their KPI's, after this they will have a rough idea of what the Total Player Payments are and how much $$ we will have left to play with. You have to pay the minimum cap of 95%, if after KPI's have been taken in to account there is $$ left, they will typically look to front/ back end a contract, paying a player a larger amount this year (and lesser amounts in subsequent years) to ensure that we meet the minimum payments, eg. in 2011 we had a pretty turd list and needed to front-end a large amount of cash to make the minimum payment, James Frawley signed a new 4 year deal and had a fair chunk of it front loaded in the first year to ensure we met the cap. Hopefully that's gives you a basic overview of the salary cap/ list management.

As a midfielder he probably is, but neither of those players get significant time in the midfield. Zac Jones has been playing as a small defender/ tagger and Brandon Jack has been playing as a forward (and he has bucket loads of pace).

Valid point re: Dunn, Interesting to note that Watts and Dunn have very similar career stats. Very interesting to note that based on those very similar stats, a large number of people were calling for Dunn to be delisted and yet based on the same stats, Watts is considered to probably be in the top 6-10 players at the club. IMO Watts is the 9th to 13th best player at the club: N.Jones Tyson Vince Dawes Dunn Mcdonald Frawley Howe M.Jones Grimes Pedersen

Definitely a vegetarian at minimum, believe that he is a vegan but cbf looking through the club videos to find reference to it. As you say, his diet won't overly affect his performance. As he's a vegetarian his diet would have had to have been ticked off by the club dietitians.

Max Gawn to improve by 100% when he shaves the beard off.

Watts has had 26 or more disposals 4 times in his 89 game career. Watts has had 20 or more disposals 18 times in his career, which is every 1 in 9 games. He should definitely be considered as tradeable. In a better team where he gets more space/ protection/ time he will be a star, but those aren't things we can give him for at least another 2-3 years. If we're offered anything under pick 20 we should be taking it... because at the moment he's nothing but a good kick and there's every likelihood that at that pick there will be an outside mid with an elite kick, capable of getting 20+ possessions at a better rate than 1/9 games.

Yeah he is, think he might even be a vegan - he cops a bit about it from the other players in the club videos

Everyone is ignoring the blatant issue regarding Grimes, a few people have alluded to it through comments about his strength/ size etc and although I have not conducted extensive research, I believe that this is it: He's a vegan. Now I'll be waiting for someone to prove me wrong, but I believe that this was a change he made in the last few years - I don't believe he was a vegan when he started with us. 15 bananas a day? That's the reason for all the clangers right there.

The umpires hold internal reviews after every round, they get dropped based on form, just as players do. There's normally some form of discussion during the week on SEN with Wayne Campbell about the umpiring reviews. If you want to make the umpiring reviews transparent they need to be paid (danger money) full time wages. Because seriously, who's going to want to be an umpire for $50,000 p.a. (approx 30 hour week incl weekends) when you get your name dragged through the mud on the front and back pages of every paper, have no supporters and a million haters (big difference to the players who at least have the support of their fans). All it does is make it easier for the drugged up bogan to identify you and have a serious dig at you while you're walking down the street. Keep the rules consistent and easy to umpire and the majority of umpiring errors will be removed from the game.

My facts weren't wrong as nothing was quoted as fact, purely opinion, lose the sanctimonious attitude and read the comment properly. I said that he put on mass which IMO wasn't needed.

Only just joined this post now and cbf reading through 33 pages of comments to see whether my issue has been raised. Issue is, are we being screwed by the AFL in Frawley being an unrestricted free agent or is this just another example of how bad our club administration was? This is his 8th year at the club, which would make him a restricted free agent, however as he is not in the top 25% (top 9-10 players) for highest guaranteed salaries at the club he is an unrestricted free agent. My issue is that Frawley signed a 4 year deal that was heavily front-loaded prior to the implementation of free agency. Specifically, the free agency rules were implemented at the start of 2012, Frawley re-signed for 4 more years in 2010. His contract was heavily front loaded at that point because we had massive salary cap space to fill. The AFL site states that the rules for free agency were agreed on by the clubs in February 2010, prior to Frawley signing the contract. In essence my question is, did the previous club administration make a massive oversight in front loading Frawley's contract or did the AFL change the rules regarding FA after Frawley signed?

Unfortunate, but he looks like it'll be a case of poor (inept) player management ruining his career. Watching him through juniors he played the lead up half forward/ part time mid role well. He'd find the ball in a bit of space 60-80 out and bomb it long to the top of the square/ for a goal, his clearance work was pretty good then as well - did it similar to Moloney, grab it and bomb it 55m+ forwards. However, I don't think he transitioned to AFL in the manner he should've. Upon joining the AFL, despite having an AFL grade body, he managed to put on more muscle - he should've been reigned in and done nothing but running. He doesn't have the speed or tricks to get in to the same sort of space he had in juniors, which in turn affects his kicking as he doesn't have the time to look long. To me the rumours of 'Bailey letting the players do what they want' make me think of Tapscott (along with Moloney and Sylvia). Spent too much time in the gym improving his bod for the beach, rather than doing the hard yards running.

The two players mentioned have been getting games because they play different roles/ have more strings to their bows - their midfield time has been very limited. Brandon Jack can play as a small forward and has pace, Zac Jones can play as a small back/ defensive mid. Agree that he's worth chasing though.

4 and 5 for Dangerfield is spot on. He's a top 10 player in the competition. Assuming we finish somewhere between 15 and 12 and that Frawley leaves we will have 2 picks in the 4-8 range. Players picked between 4-8: 2008: Hartlett, Hurley, Yarran, Rich, Vickery 2007: Morton, Grant, Myers, Palmer, Henderson 2006: Leuenberger, Boak, Thorp, Selwood, B.Reid 2005: J.Kennedy, Pendlebury, Dowler, Ryder, Oakleigh-Nicholls 2004: Tambling, Franklin, Williams, Lewis, Meesen 2003: Ray, Mclean, Bradley, Tenace, R.Clarke Of the players listed above there is 1/30 (Pendlebury) that is better than Dangerfield and you can make the argument for 3 others (Selwood, Boak, Franklin). Of the remaining players there are 16 players I would describe as average (at best) players: Vickery, Morton, Grant, Myers, Leuenberger, Thorp, Dowler, Oakleigh-Nicholls, Tambling, Williams, Meesen, Ray, Mclean, Bradley, Tenace, R.Clarke. **Sure some of them have been injured/ had other issues, but at the end of the day they still haven't produced a big output. The remaining 10 being: Hartlett, Hurley, Yarran, Rich, Palmer, Henderson, B.Reid, J.Kennedy, Ryder, Lewis. Based on those numbers, from the 2 picks you'll get a player who won't make it (or will have minimal impact at AFL level) and a good to (potential) star level AFL player. Would you trade Pendlebury and Vickery for Dangerfield? No. Would you trade Yarran and Beau Dowler for Dangerfield? Every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

I've done a bit of thinking on a potential (my dream) list management scenario for the end of year: We're paying 95% or so of the cap atm (not sure how mitch Clarks payout effects that...), so call it $9,600,000 in TPP prior to Mitch Clarks payout. I'm predicting we will delist the following players at a minimum: Byrnes, Clark, Strauss, Tapscott, Fitzpatrick, Evans. Between them I guesstimate that they earn $1,250,000 to $1,350,000. The majority of that sum is made up of Clark ($650,000+) and Byrnes ($150,000 to $200,000), the remaining 4 on an average of $100,000 - $125,000. *I have factored Frawley in at $650,000 (however, I'm predicting he'll stay so haven't included him in that sum). I assume we will upgrade Jetta, leaving 5 spaces on the senior list. We must make a minimum of 2 draft picks plus Jetta, I'm predicting we will make 3. I'm estimating that the remaining senior playing list + Jetta + 3 Draftees will earn a combined $8,700,000, with the higher paid players ($350,000+) being: Hogan, Jones, Watts, Dawes, Frawley, Dunn, Vince, Grimes, Howe. Based on the workings above that leaves us with 2 spots to fill, a minimum spend of $850,000 (approx.) and a max spend of $1,350,000 (approx.). TLDR; Although I'm unsure on their contract situations I would throw stupid amounts of money at Luke Breust and Luke Parker - $500,000 to $650,000 each. Their salaries would skyrocket compared to what they will be paid at their respective clubs next year and we can sell the idea of joining a young talented team on the rise, with 2 years (hopefully) of being coached by Paul Roos. *Hannebery would be my next preference.

The company doing the ad is Melbourne Airport Parking. Before this shizen campaign they were responsible for the 'raelene and robbo, cheap flight from tulla to dubbo' ads. The only ads I've heard on SEN that annoy me more were the 'shhh don't tell anyone, turn your radio down' ads for St Kilda Road towers...

Pretty much this, we might be bad but our top 6 are still better than the bottom 6 at pretty much any team. The OP asked which of our players are premiership quality, I responded (with reasoning) saying that 5 of our players would make their best 22, 7 would make their best 25. I didn't suggest a merger, I listed the players I think would be swapped in and how they would fit in to the last premiership team.

The 2013 premiership winning team was: B: Stratton, Lake, Birchall HB: Burgoyne, Gibson, Hill C: Smith, Mitchell, Lewis HF: Breust, Franklin, Rioli F: Puopolo, Roughead, Gunston R: Bailey, Sewell, Hodge INT: Hale, Shiels, Guerra, Simpkin + the following players who had season ending injuries to round out their top 25. Injured (season): schoenmakers, suckling, whitecross I would swap the following players: Howe - Puopolo - Different players but same position. Based on their last season Howe had more shots on goal (44-21) and marks (+3.5 p.g.), while Puopolo had more tackles (+3.1) and more effective disposals (+2.2 p.g). Would take Howe based on the shots on goals difference. Frawley - Stratton - Similar players, Frawley is better. Garland - Hill - Different players same position. Pretty similar statwise, however Garland probably plays better defensively on smalls than Hill and is definitely better at overall defence. Clark - Hale - Similar players, Clark is better. Grimes - Guerra - Similar roles, Guerra is a better kick but Grimes is a better all round player. Jones - Simpkin - Similar players, Jones is better. Mcdonald - Schoenmakers - Similar players, Mcdonald is better. Would come in as depth with the considerable KPD talent. To make this team: B: Lake, Frawley, Birchall HB: Suckling, Gibson, Garland C: Smith, Mitchell, Lewis HF: Whitecross, Franklin, Rioli F: Breust, Roughead, Clark R: Bailey, Sewell, Hodge INT: Gunston, Jones, Grimes, Burgoyne EMG: McDonald, Shiels, Howe By my count 7 demons players would make Hawthorns best 25, albeit only 3 starting on the field, with 2 on the bench and 2 as emergencies. Cases can be made for Vince/ Viney to replace Shiels and one of our ruckmen to replace Bailey, but I see the players on even levels so stuck with the Hawthorn pair. In regards to the captain not being a best 22 player, I'd be happy with any of the 5 I believe would have made the Hawthorn best 22 as captain next year.

Neither will walk off at a moments notice, but neither is in it for the long term. Previously the mantra has been short term pain for long term gain. As long as these appointments aren't short term gain, long term pain I'm happy for both to depart in their own time.

Politics, entertainers (singers/ TV hosts etc.), CEO's of large corporations. Anyone who fills a position that draws large amounts of public attention. In regards to Neeld's tenure, he did his role as well as he could, he simply didn't have the skills to perform the role at an acceptable level and that is as much an indictment on those who appointed him (looking at you Gary Lyon) than the man himself. When you look at the volume of negative situations that he had to deal with I'm not sure there are many current coaches who would have fared better (would the blonde psychopath still be around if Essendon had a few more crisis' to deal with?). It has been touched on before, but whether or not there was 'an agenda to remove the man from day dot' (paraphrased) he still suffered from a lack of board stability and support. It's hard to look forward when you're watching your back and he was clearly counting the days until a knife was planted there. From the outside looking in he was placed in a role that few could handle and he lacked the experience and skills to make a go of it. I hold nothing against him for his time because I believe that at the time, we were unable to attract anyone more capable. As another poster said, rating his tenure on a scale of 1-10 he scores a 1.