Lord Nev

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cam_McCarthy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mal_Michael https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Watson A few examples of why you don't do this kind of thing. And we're not in a position to waste a million dollars, because that's what that one year would cost us. Not sure why you bothered though when you finish by saying we won't take him.

Wouldn't call it intel as such, but have heard people say we initiated contact in July this year.

Fair enough, can see where you're coming from. I just wouldn't be risking a million dollars on a player who could very well pull a Cam McCarthy on us and leave us with a huge bill and nothing to show for it. And that's before you take into account the fact we've said we don't want someone who doesn't want to play for us. A club that will (likely) announce a very very poor financial result for the year would be irresponsible to turn around and spend a million dollars in this way IMO.

I like your optimism mate, but we've taken different things from that article. I can't see us paying a million dollars to a player who could very well demand a trade end of next season, and the fact that he won't even meet us tells you how much interest he has in being at MFC and what that means for their decision.

He hasn't even met with us. Not once. Won't be happening.

Pretty immature reaction. Don't think someone setting his wage requirements and preferred place of employment, which he is within his rights to do in this circumstance, requires strangers to make personal comments about him on the internet. But welcome to 2019 I guess.

It's not a million per year mate, just a million for the first year on what would be a heavily front loaded contract to ward off potential suitors.

Has put his contract demands at 5 years, $1mil for the first year. We haven't even met with him.

Not sure on official AFL confirmation, but this was reported back in July: "The AFL is set to close the academy draft loophole which Sydney exploited to "park" picks at other clubs, in a move that is likely to have ramifications for Greater Western Sydney this year. The Swans created a stir last year when they manipulated the league's points bidding system to acquire academy graduate Nick Blakey at No.10 for picks 34, 39 and 40 – a price which was widely accepted as a bargain. The Swans achieved this by trading pick 26 to West Coast for the Eagles' future third-round selection. Then after drafting Blakey, they made another deal with the Eagles to get pick 22 for a future second-round pick. This meant they were able to use lower picks for the points needed to secure Blakey. The manoeuvre allowed them to get back into the second round of last year's draft and pick up James Rowbottom, whom the club has been highly impressed with in his debut season. Though the league approved of Sydney's move last year, they have informally notified list managers this week at the Gold Coast that they will not be able to employ the same strategy during this year's draft." AFL to make changes to academy draft rules

IMO rookie or supplemental is more likely, especially given there's always the chance we end up with more draft picks than we do currently and it changes our balance between senior and rookie spots.

There's nowhere to go for a run overseas? They've all got programs from Burgess they're doing.

Reckon it's pretty rare for that to happen in the rookie draft, only speaking anecdotally though. We see teams re-draft their delisted players as rookies pretty much on a yearly basis, so IMO it's very unlikely he gets randomly taken by a team he hasn't expressed any interest in.

Why? Rookies don't need to be elevated to play anymore. Has just as much chance of playing senior games either way.

Disagree. The only 'tangible evidence' is ladder positions, not some meaningless 'talent rating'. Edit - But let me add, I very much appreciate the work you put into that post, even if I don't agree with what you're saying. Thanks for going to the trouble.

Hang on, didn't the AFL appoint Peter Jackson for us and then back up the cash truck so we could get Roos? Also, Carlton with their apparent fantastic rebuild have finished 18th, 14th, 16th, 18th, 16th over the last 5 years. Melbourne have gone 13th, 11th, 9th, 4th and of course 17th. To imply Carlton have done it better is to ignore facts as they stand and to make a prediction based on opinion, not a statement based on tangible evidence. Seems you might be riding the 'Teague train' a bit too hard DS.

Seems more likely we'd take him as a rookie, which I assume means we have to take him in the rookie draft? Not sure how that works with DFAs.

Kicking coach! Hallelujah!

Thanks mate! Did you happen to spot either vandenBerg or Viney by any chance? Cheers.

Not very familiar with soccer tbh, but heard a very similar thing albeit was told it was a French club that VERY nearly won him over. That's one of the reasons I'm concerned he seems to only be signed for 1 year. Not sure how much I buy the 'reluctant' part given he's started his work much earlier than he had to though.

Legend, thanks kev! Really appreciate the effort and info. With Petty, he got pretty banged up as the year went on, had both concussion leg issues later in the year, so would think maybe the leg problems means he's potentially in rehab and left early or may have even been inside on a bike or something. Just a guess, but would make sense.

I'd be just as concerned if 'not wanting a small forward' was given any weight tbh mate. Best available, no exceptions.

I don't think kids these days call it "a" coke...

While I agree that 'draft for talent' is the mantra for all AFL recruiters, I don't think that means you exclude certain positions. If a small forward (or ruck) is the best talent at our picks then we should draft them. I'm not sure I can agree that AA selection is the best criteria for small forwards either as very few end up even being chosen given the selectors preference for picking about 18 mids every year. The other bit I can't agree on is that we should be looking for a draftee that will improve us next year, great if that happens, but that reeks of desperation as much, if not more, than drafting for needs. In short, 'draft for talent' has to be absolute. You can't say 'draft for talent - unless they're a small forward or ruck'.

I'm not sure if it is just 1 year, but can't find any information about the contract term anywhere and all the language in the articles says things like "signed for the 2020 season".