rpfc

It's my cardboard stalker... You are not quoting me are you, as you admitted you are quoting a paraphrased post from Deestroy All. But if you don't think that the relationship between club and player has changed, just look at the recent article on the afl website about Trengove realising more than ever before it is a business. Has the relationship changed irrevocably? No. But we were trying to offload him a ND he wanted to go and that is quite the rubicon.

If this report on Newton is correct, we will have to delist and promise to rookie one player to use ND40. Using ND53 is something that the club will be weighing up now, as the argument can be made (as GRRM just showed) for taking that speculative player at RD2 instead of ND53. You may still get one of the players you were targeting and you are not burdened by an automatic two year contract. I think they will delist and rookie Evans or Trengove, and Tapscott will be forgotten about and they will have the one live selection at RD2. If they make the strategic decision to honour all contracts then ND40 will not be used and Tapscott will be rookied. But, again, if the Newton report is correct.

Yes, but at some point real soon we are going to have to give these blokes time to 'do a Jetta' and pull their collective fingers out. And my point is more that keeping Evans on a for a year may be more benficial if you don't want to give some kid at ND53 a 2 year contract. Take a similar talent at RD2 and you can jettison him after a year - I don't like it but I would maximise the use of it.

List at 1st Lodgement.

...or back. It's not about quantity of changes, it's about quality of changes. If you lose a B- player and replace him with a C player - your list gets worse. We have had a recent history of doing exactly that. From 2008 to 2012 we brought in John Meesen and Joel MacDonald, as experienced AFL players - that means all the experience we lost from the Daniher years were replaced by kids - kids that didn't make it. And because we didn't bring in any players with exposed form we not only didn't have any stars of the game from our top picks, we struggled to even find good players through middle range draft picks.

2015 Trengove, Jamar (UFA), Garland (RFA), McKenzie, Howe, N Jones (RFA), Evans, Gawn, Fitzpatrick, Toumpas, Pedersen, Salem, Kennedy-Harris, Hunt, Cross, Bail, Riley, Harmes ®, King ® Trengove, Jamar, McKenzie, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Hunt, Cross, Bail and Riley would be a chance to be moved on for a variety of reasons. But each player has their own story and if Trengove recovers, Jamar is kept for depth, Hunt is given more time, Cross maintains his body, Bail keeps his form, and Riley cements a rotation role, then that leaves only McKenzie, Pedersen, and Fitzpatrick to be moved on...

Well, I'm convinced...

ht, I get the desire to take a ruck/forward at ND3. But the time it takes for him to come on would be better spent scouring the second tier leagues for a 22-24 year old, or trade for a known AFL commodity, who we know can contribute right away. If predicting the future of 18 year old small player is troublesome and haphazard - predicting the future of an 18 year old ruckman is a Demilitarised Zone, patrolled at night to keep people out of. If Roos allowed this selection, I would be stunned.

They are 'penalising' teams by having them play us at the G - just not with us as the home team. I understand the desire to not play irrelevant teams but that is the curse of football codes that are run well - they will have some games that are not the best spectacle or be the biggest draw, have the biggest stage. I didn't have this much of a whinge after our 2012 and 2013 debacle but this isn't just something I want for the MFC - but the AFL. Equalisation, if it ever occurs, must include the fixture.

We are in a position to pick any two players after the player St Kilda picks. If the club 'reached' and chose Dangerfield over Morton - would this place have gone into meltdown? Yes. Would it have been a ridiculous, pointless, and wrong reaction? Yes.

...in 6 years time.

I can see us only using ND40, but I agree that we should be using at least one of ND53/DFA/PSD2. Ideally, we should use ND40 and ND53 for two promising kids and PSD2 for an out of contract emerging player. But if the club doesn't see a promising kid at 53 (a promising kid that is much better than one in the rookie draft) or a good enough player at PSD2 then ND40 might be all they want. The kid taken at ND53 is given an automatic 2 year contract, the kid taken at RD2 is given a one-year contract at a reduced rate. The club may prefer the flexibility of having a few out of contract next year...

Who is talking about conspiracies? We understand the reasons for our terrible fixture - we disagree with them. Most of what I would say - Macca has already mentioned, but I will add that equalisation is not something that is easy, it is not something that goes hand-in-hand with making 'The Most Amount of Money' - it has to be a holistic approach for any league that wants to ensure its future by galvanising the clubs and supporter bases of ALL clubs. Everything is connected and the fixture is a big cog in the crusade for equalisation. It affects crowd numbers, members, marketability, sponsor exposure, and, indirectly, anything that flows out those aspects, including the most important - player retention, recruitment, revenue, and support. I don't disagree with the fixture because it is 'trying to make the most amount of money and bums on seats' - I disagree with the fixture because that's the wrong, short term perspective.

There is another list lodgement before the ND after the October 31 Lodgement on the 13 November. Players can still be delisted at that point.

Canberra.

Then kick us out of the league and then make it a fair draw, while you are at it - kick St Kilda, NM, WB, BL, GC, and GWS out of the comp - and then make it a fair draw. Why bother at all? I want equalisation and it involves the fixture. I know why it is created the way it is - I am saying that they are missing a chance to equalise the league with the way they maximise crowds. Aside from Collingwood on QB - we have no home game against any other high drawing Victorian teams. How is that so easy to accept?

No, it's not 'rocket science' to deliver an even draw for teams to make money. We have had to sell games to another area of the country, otherwise we would have two games that we would make some decent coin out of. 30k isn't making money, praha - it's purely keeping heads above water. A fixture of a well run league should be 'fairer' - a club should not have to earn 'fairness' with performance, equalisation of the AFL can't stop at beverages, but it seems to have.

“The fixture is reflective of where we are at as a club.” What a terrible effing fixture from a commercial standpoint. The PA and WCE games in NT are never more necessary - they, and the games against Coll on QB and Syd on Sat Night in Womens Round are the only games we will make money from. Perhaps we will come out for the GC game on Sat in Rd 1, but the other 6 home games are ALL on Sunday (Rd 23 v GWS is destined for that timeslot). Those Sunday games are against all low drawing teams - WB, St K, NM, Freo, BL, and GWS. I hope the 'spin' about this fixture being 'for the fans' is found out - it's 'for the fans of the high drawing teams' and that is it.

To be perfectly honest with you, h_h, I don't mind your posts. Occasionally, it's as if you don't filter them internally, but it's all a bit of fun isn't it? You are not here constantly harping on a few subjects while haranguing anyone that dares question the few certain things that you have personal involvement in over the last decade. You don't hold pointless grudges toward people who - in no way - was involved in what you were so passionately against. You are a Demon who is a fan of some back and forth and can move on to other subjects without the need to pompously drone about the misremembered views of others from years ago. And, what's more h_h, you have been good value on here of late. So, to the hatchet, it's deep in the soil. The power of the Prince...

What the [censored] is going on here?!?

If there is one, it's reflected on all...

I think it is time for you to get over your preoccupation with me. If you feel so strongly about h_h's rude impatience as mistaken joke then that is your opinion. I referred to one of your asides as 'disappointingly personal' because you implied that me, and Demons that think like me, would lead to the ruination of the club. The fact that I replied with those two words when I inferred the above is a testament to my patience - the fact that you seem to bring it up every few months is a testament to your obstinance.

They have contracts for next year, so it's faux shock.

Two home games we usually lose money from. So we have so far home games at the G against Gold Coast (Sat Afternoon) and Sydney (Sat Night) and two interstate teams in NT. Commercially speaking - so far, so good... Just waiting for the rest to be a hot mess of Sundays.

Very interesting. Tapscott would be close to be delisted in the next two days but can be delisted for the next lodgement before the draft. I will buy nothing more than a couple of weeks. They may be looking at the Rookie List. Evans (Pickles) might survive due to an inability to get someone in the PSD and also the fact that he is contracted for next year.