titan_uranus

This is a take I don’t agree with. What if we avoid trips to Brisbane and GWS? They were the two strongest interstate sides this year. We have to play interstate games so we can’t just get West Coast 5 times.

Yep this sucks. I want to go but a Thurs night makes it so much harder for Melbourne fans. I accept the same argument applies for all four games but therein lies the rub of Thursday night games - they fail the game’s most important stakeholder, the fans.

I hate Thursday nights. If we’re playing it’s tough enough to watch it on TV, let alone get there if it’s in Melbourne. I’m sure ratings were solid, there’s nothing else to watch, but the question IMO is whether fans like it when their own club plays on a Thursday.

The article says that our NT game has been locked in until 2026, so that’s a further three years of it.

Let’s wait and see what it all looks like. Could be good if it counts as one of our away games. Plus it’s a more “normal” match up than getting a Vic side. But more likely is in addition to the rest of our fixture and will mean an extra away game compared to most of our rivals.

This is so out of touch with reality. The CBA requires players to be available. Sponsorship requires players and coaches to be available. Media rights require players to be available. We are always going to have players commenting in the media. Your suggestions here are never going to happen, nor should they.

Fair enough. Initially it sounded worse than it actually is I guess. Although I reckon some players will feel aggrieved by not being part of a club environment or getting the chance to play and try to secure a new contract.

Colts, Titans, Falcons

I was one who didn’t know this. Can players be delisted with anything more than one year left on their contract? I’m interested as to how/why the AFLPA at some point allowed this.

Bucs, Colts, Giants

Tough week? They’re all tough!

Eagles, Chiefs, Ravens Surely this week I break my duck...surely...

I'm not sure where I sit on our offer. On paper it reads like massive overs. But the mail on Reid is such that he appears as likely as any draftee to be a 200-game player. If we think 6 and 11 aren't going to produce that sort of quality, then I'm not necessarily against trading them. What I am sure about, though, is that there's no reason for West Coast to agree until closer to draft night. Hold out, make us sweat, make North up their offer, let clubs bid against each other, get a firmer read on the likelihood of Curtain being available at 6. No need at all to do that deal now and if they are interested, they'll talk to us closer to the night.

Jaguars, Raiders, Bills

F3 with them paying some is a good deal IMO. Only upside to this.

In all seriousness, what does it signify?

I agree. For this reason alone, I think Billings could be a good pick up (on the assumption, as appears to be the case, that we don't spend much draft capital and get St Kilda chipping in some of his salary).

Not against this provided we don’t pay anything meaningful by way of picks and assuming St Kilda carry some of his salary.

Yeah, that interview was no good. Really poor that he was able to say that stuff (not prepared by manager/the club, or just not aware of how bad that sounds). I’ll put it in the basket of “player not good at media says something dumb” but can understand why some others might be pessimistic about his future intentions.

I have been of the view for a while that our depth is poor, particularly in our midfield. So in that regard, I agree with you and others. However, I don't believe losing the depth players of Jordon, Harmes and Dunstan sets us back, precisely because of my view of our depth this year - they weren't good enough. Your post was well-written but the above is something I don't necessarily agree with - none of them were really doing what you're suggesting here, in terms of adhering to structure, filling gaps and keeping the team ticking. Dunstan wasn't getting games to begin with, whilst for all the good things Harmes gave us, there were parts of his game that were not great. I'm therefore not convinced that replacing them with kids sets us back as far as you've suggested. I'm also not convinced that we are going to draft three mids to replace them with no other changes. There's still 1.5 days left of the trade period, plus a DFA window, plus an SSP window.

I like the idea. I like getting one of our road games done in Round 1, and I like getting some good prime time exposure. The article suggests that we’d play again in the second week, which sounds odd - won’t be a “split round” if we play twice in it.

That’s not correct though, is it? We can’t delist them and just pay them, not without their consent. If they want a list spot, that’s the end of the debate.

As always, it’s neither one or the other. It’s both. You don’t need the best top 6 in the league, but if your top 6 aren’t quality you will struggle. That seems fairly obvious. IMO, you also need a competitive bottom 6. The stars can’t do everything and having a week bottom 6 can break down scoring chains, zones, pressure, etc. Our issue IMO is that our bottom 6 isn’t good enough - in other words, we have poor depth.

If you’re happy with mediocre forwards, sure.