Lord Nev

Massively appreciate the work you put in mate, even if I don't always agree with some of your views. Just wanted to say I couldn't agree more with this point of yours. We've had a handful of our own blokes this year either take or break or cancel their social media all together, all in the same year they were ridiculed for trying to raise awareness about these issues (banner run through), so hopefully that effort will be part of a journey towards changing some of that language and viciousness aimed at young men and women playing footy.

Also had some concussion issues apparently, so potentially that could factor into no contact training at this stage, but only guessing.

Wing. Make or break. Obviously behind Langdon and Tomlinson (who I suspect may spend some time forward or rucking). He would need to spend a fair bit of time working on his decision making and disposal of course, but I feel like the way our backline has been reshaped somewhat to be more 'safe' that Hunt isn't currently in the plans there (IMO). Forward still possible, but I'm hoping we are looking at cleaning up everything about the forward line and the delivery to it, and part of that may involve less leading type players, which is what I think Hunt is as a forward.

Could see him as a high half forward type, but doesn't have the speed, tricks or agility to be a small forward like we need IMO.

Players have to give an incredibly detailed whereabouts schedule to ASADA every quarter. It includes a specific hour and location every single day that they must be at. It would be VERY easy to not be able to maintain the requirements that exist. From my understanding, it's not a "we don't know where they are" type of thing, it's more about providing that information for the quarter within the required time frame. The AFL monitor (and possibly collect on behalf of ASADA) that information, and the AFL are the ones who impose fines, not ASADA.

Trying to have faith, but this doesn't seem ideal.

ASADA have nothing to do with the fine.

Thanks mate! Yeah that rules of the game one was the one I kept finding at first. This is super handy, appreciate you tracking it down.

That's how most footy fans react on the internet. Every player is either a superstar or a complete dud, there is no in between apparently.

Yep, that's from the PDF from 2017 I read. Do you have a link to the 2019 you saw just for interest sake?

Yep, I thought it had changed late in 2017, but the most recent rule book I can find is from just before then and states it as you have put it above pretty much. In saying that, there's still the opportunity to take Brown as a DFA. Should we take him, then Bennell as a rookie (as has been mentioned in media reports), it still leaves us with the mandatory 3 draft picks/spots.

I will need to look further, but I have a feeling the total list number is no longer set at 44 and is variable. So potentially another 5 senior players and 2 rookies, making a total of 47 including our 1 cat B. Edit - Just to clarify, you're quite likely right, just saying I will look into it more so I can be accurate going forward.

It's 47 (maximum, flexible within) these days as far as I've found, so the break down goes: AFL RULES 38 - 40 senior listed players 4 - 6 rookies Up to 3 cat B rookies Maximum total list size of 47 players MFC CURRENTLY 35 Senior Listed Players 4 Rookies 1 Cat B Rookie TOTAL = 40

The numbers are flexible these days though, potentially we can add another 5 senior listed players, as well as another 2 rookies, one of which would possibly be Bennell.

Melbourne have emerged as a potential suitor for delisted Essendon forward Mitch Brown. The Bombers declined to offer Brown a new contract for 2020 despite the versatile tall kicking 21 goals from 16 AFL games this year, including a match-winning haul of four away to Adelaide in round 18. Industry sources have told The Age that Melbourne have shown interest in recruiting Brown. Melbourne show interest in Mitch Brown

How many times has Jack Martin made a difference in a final?

Don't believe I said anywhere you can't discuss it mate. Me having a contrary view to yours doesn't preclude you from being able to comment.

List requirement is: 38 - 40 senior listed players 4 - 6 rookies Up to 3 cat B rookies Maximum total list size of 47 players We currently have: 35 Senior Listed Players 4 Rookies 1 Cat B Rookie TOTAL = 40

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.