rpfc

I can understand that - in the NBA a Cleveland GM was so awful with his trading of picks that they brought in the rule that teams cannot trade consecutive 1st round picks. For example, because we traded Pick 2 at the end of 2013, we could not have traded Pick 2 at the end of 2014. A rule like that could be looked at. As a side note - Schwab would not worry me in this instance as much as Roos would - he would be trading away the next 5 years of picks if he could (not that I wouldn't like to see it happen). And there's the rub - for well-run clubs, they can help you get back and going, for poorly run clubs, they will set you back.

I have to agree with TDI here - he is a midfielder that is having a go at his first year of AFL life and calling him mature age is probably doing him a disservice here as we think they are all ready to go but someone like Michie is near Vandenberg's age but has been in this environment for 5 years. Sometimes you can be thrown in too early and also in the wrong position - he's a mid, he's not a forward, he's a go-and-get-it mid and I hope they have patience with him if they do ask him to play in 2015 and in a foreign position.

Giving up on Toumpas after 2 years... Jeez.

Continual reform is required to any large piece of contentious legislation. The AFLPA is always going to fight for more rights but unlike previously the AFL has to push back on a few things to make it functional in our (purportedly) equalised league. I actually don't mind the idea that players receive FA regardless of a recent trade, so a player like Cross should be a FA after this year and not when he is 37 - that is a tad ridiculous. But that would have to be coupled with a small concession from the players; a requirement that they will be Restricted FAs rather then UFAs. Or something like that to protect the investment of that trade. To remove compensation or to shorten the years of FA qualification - that would have to have a nuanced compromise where the players give a lot more than they seem willing to give. Perhaps top 4 teams would be barred from FA (as in the NFL), top 8 teams would have to lose a FA to gain one (NFL), teams would have the ability to pay more or give longer contracts than other teams (NBA), tag a player as an important player and keep them at a market accepted rate for one more year (NFL). Other initiatives like trading a player without their consent, trading during the draft, and trading future picks would also help clubs deal with this new landscape. I think that compensation should stay but should only be for premium FAs (based on salary) and only be for the first two rounds. Top 4 clubs should have to lose a Premium FA to gain one. The AFL should tell the clubs what the threshold is for the Premium FAs so that clubs like Melbourne can target non-Premium FAs without the threat of losing the pick we would get for a Premium FA like Frawley. Compensation should be right behind the clubs pick in either round to act as a inbuilt equalisation measure. Trading of soon-to-be FAs is normal practice for clubs in the US and we should be able to do that too - the player should not lose that opportunity to be FA as I said before but shouldn't be able to nix the trade as they can now. Greasing those wheels should involve a later trade time when the players are back for Pre Season training - the draft being a perfect time for that - couple that with the ability to trade picks during the draft night and clubs would be able to better prepare themselves for the year and the decisions of the next 12 months.

Find another one. Minimum 3 delistings.

Death, taxes, and at least 3 delistings. It's fine to discuss who may make way at the end of the year. You don't have to put up with it if you are not comfortable however.

You mean the kind of deal that will never be offered? Or the kind of deal we will never offer?

And a few others... When fans say 'anyone is tradeable' or 'everyone is on notice' my eyes roll. Their list would be smaller if they thought about it for 5 mins.

We only want what is best for the club - explaining that a Thursday mid-afternoon is a bad time for an advertised intra club is constructive.

Absolutely, but that really is not going to be affected by moving the intra club back or forward a few days, having it at Gosch's, and having the players stick around for an hour after.

What a missed opportunity... The only positive from such an inward looking, misguided, and low key effort is it kept a lid on Hogan Hype ©...

So while form is difficult to take from matches such as these, there are a few things we can take from it - new positions for players, positions for players, and possible projects. Positions Garlett as FP. Hogan as CHF. Salem as HBF. Lumumba as backman/wing. Frost as tall defender. Projects Frost swingman? Salem as HBF... What else?

Yeah, I am not suggesting it is a good idea. The money would be better spent trying to get people to come and watch us play good footy. The club rung me up last week and asked me if I wanted to donate my 'Free Young Demon Membership' (or whatever it is) to an underprivileged kid. So he can go to the footy, and so we might cultivate a prospective Demon supporter. That is effective use of money. Well done to the club for making this simple decision to ask those that haven't given their 'FYDM' out to give them to kids and get some good PR, and try to cultivate a direct relationships with people. Spend money on initiatives like this. Talk to people. Get them to the footy. Get them watching decent footy. Higher ROI than a money sinking shop in the city or shallow advertising.

Pretty effing small advertisement... Why don't you spend that waste of money on actual advertisements then? A shop in the heart of the city to sit there and literally 'look pretty' and nothing else. Keep working on the Online Shop - more and more people buy online anyway and have a look into a cost effective way to advertise and get the awareness of the club out there. But all of that is moot if your team stinks...just stinks...57 losses in three years? Only idiots and diehards follow this club at the moment.

Yeah, losing by a point when you have kicked 15 goals 10 because someone has 5 goals 2 is a bit silly.

DE% would be good instead of Goal Accuracy or whatever that one is.

...and those who post benign opinions.

Keep playing over byes. Makes it interesting. Can get you back in the game if you are switched on.

3 pts for HBs. Yeah, whatever. I am ambivalent. Like the idea of spoils as the best defenders in the game would be relevant in a game they are irrelevant in. But understand if it is too hard basket stuff.

He had an excellent rookie year, the second year blues seem to affect a great number of players but if he keeps it simple he should do well this year. Would love for him to develop as a forward who spends time on a wing this year but he is just a boy still.

Hogan re-signed until the end of 2017 so let's lose our minds over something else...

Double grabbing is a confidence issue. When you are confident in your timing and strength - you meet the footy at the 'right time' constantly - when you are unsure of your ability to get your fingers and thumbs in the right spot and meet it in the air at the right time - you will double grab it.

I am happy if they went with no first year players but form and availability may put pay to that. Of course, I would like to see Vandenberg given a chance but sometimes chances come at the wrong times for individuals to capitalise on them - I wouldn't 'ear mark' any first year player for Rd 1.

Yes, I find myself a bit callous about it; "he wouldn't have been much use this year so if it had to happen, better to do it now." ACLs aren't the end of the world they used to be.

Trengove's injury already meant a rookie could play Rd 1. Now two rookies can play... Yay...