rpfc

Read the article, not just the headline. The Yankees are an attraction in and of themselves when you go to NY. That's what he is talking about.

Success won't build us into a powerhouse, but it will consolidate what we have and stop the bleeding. What will not make a dent is worrying about the logo and the song and having more of a presence in Collins St... I want to see tangible ideas and plans for the future. If that means getting 'Melbourne' front and centre then great - but what does that involve? What is the return? If Casey isn't where we should be searching for members, then where? And how? This was a mistake this 'interview' with Wilson. He should leave it to Jackson - who was the one, by the way, that said that the MFC should stick to football. Allowing Wilson to throw all this out there into the ether just puts pressure on himself and the club - remember Neeld grandiose statement? Well, here is another... And the thing is - you can't get anyone to begin to follow you unless, you guessed it - you start winning games of footy.

It was cruel. You have been watching too much GoT. The Roos let Tigers fans think they had a good team for a quarter and then the Roos quartered them. It was sadistic.

He played a half for Casey so he could play tomorrow if someone is a late withdrawal.

Win footy games. That is what I would say to anyone from the club who is thinking along the same lines as Bartlett here. That story just had a mish-mash of different image devices that don't do anything bar scratch the surface of our issues; no region to call our own, a dwindling and aging supporter base, and, up to two months ago, a terrible outlook for the foreseeable future. The emblem is a distraction. If you are going to change it, do it, don't talk about how it signifies a change in anything other than the letterhead on press releases. The song featuring the word 'Melbourne' is such an interesting aside but any money and time spent on this in our current predicament is bordering on insane. Let Demonland start a thread and work the word in - save you a few hundred thousand dollars... The desire for a presence in Collins St brings a word to bear - why? Hardly anyone lives there. I won't discuss this any further as 'presence' could mean anything from where he wants the boardroom to where he wants a billboard... The statement that Casey 'is not our heartland' is ironic, well it would be if it weren't so sad, we have no heartland - that's the point; we grew out of a stadium. We have shed so many supporters in the last 49 years. We have no 'heartland.' We are trying to build one out east. If we are not going to bother with Casey anymore the players will be happy they don't have to trek out there but they better have a bloody good business case. Nothing in that impressed me. Winning footy games will impress me, and it might impress a few others - if you really want to be the New York Yankees - you better win.

I think it would be pre-determined.

Neil Craig would not have been there. It sounds a hell of a lot like Todd Viney from what I know of him. But its all just speculation. What isn't is the honest truths that were given to Cam that let him know 'where he stood' as BB excellently referenced from Moneyball above. He has done the hard work and Roos and co. have given him some confidence but there is nothing wrong with some honesty. I have heard that Roos was very honest up in Sydney. Very honest. Having played and captained and now coached teams - all blokes want is an honest appraisal and their self belief intact. It's a balance, and it is a part of what makes some coaches better than others.

It looks like the club has rewarded him for his selfless act of playing injured. And I don't think the club forces anyone to play injured. It's that kind of team first attitude that Roos has instilled and rewards.

It's ok, I'll take my word for it.

My post was in two parts - the first three lines were about your worries, the rest was about the damnation of Frawley by posters. It will not be as simple as a 'farm for better clubs' and with any model - if you don't draft well you're stuffed.

He's trying to sell him down because we have to bid for him and it will cost a 2nd or 3rd round pick.

No it won't. As long as there is a cap there will be chances for talent to move in both directions. And players holding out for their value is good for the competition. Clubs getting players to stay on smaller contracts is bad for the competition. In the US, it is extremely rare for teams to re-sign players outside of the offseason and even outside of the offseason that they are off-contract. I am sorry, calm down and get used to it. It is their job and future and Frawley taking his time doesn't faze me at all. We either keep him or we have a top 6 pick and a spare $700k. Clubs dither on players and see their options - players have every right to do the same. It's not a failure of leadership.

Yes, you would. What a tagger...

His change in form is noticeable to those of us who have been watching him since he kicked three goals against Geelong one Friday Night about 8 years ago. He has been tried as a forward, as a mid, as a tagger, and a couple times as a defender. In 2013 he nailed what has been so elusive and he worked on his on field discipline and, as he mentioned in that article announcing his deal, his leadership. He is a different player and as I said above he has himself and hard work and persistence to thank for that. But it also the patience of a few coaching groups and personnel managers to thank too. Players improve. We have seen it with Dunn, we have seen it with the work-in-progress Watts, we are seeing it with Pedersen and with Jetta and with Matt Jones. The best example is Nathan Jones. What a player he is! He has come on from what he showed in his first 6 years. Subjective analysis is just that and Demonland is full of it, and sometimes so are posters... Lynden has left the faux bravado and the jumper punching behind and he is the better player for it.

It allowed Geelong to extend their run as they kept so many of their stars. We will never see something like Geelong again as the three drafts where they got their best players 1999-2001 meant that they were all around the same age and when the entered Vets status a few years ago Geelong were able to the each $120k outside the cap. That meant that they had an extra $1m to give to some very good players. I can fully understand why the AFL is doing away with it. We may see a return to some form of it but they have a couple years to think of something.

Yes, and he deserves his contract but it is as depth. His start to the year was good, and his desire and acceptance to play injured until Jamar came back was selfless and admirable but Gawn is streeting past him as the second ruck option. If Spencer is 'Jamar insurance' that is smart, but that is all I see right now.

Yes, it did, especially for clubs like us who don't pay the whole cap. We can carry over as much as 5% of the cap ~$500k into the next season(s) on top of the cap.

Most of you said goodbye to Watts after his appearance on the footy show. FA has brought a new world, get used to players re-signing later and later.

So he wants to change policy now and then he will change his mind and lobby for the old policy in a few years time? I don't think you give enough credit to Jackson and those interested in an equalised league. The NFL shares revenues and different teams, and smaller teams, can, and do, compete for the title. It isn't the answer, but it is a part of the answer.

The eloquence is in the paraphrasing by Peter Ryan... As for your bolded sentence - there is a big IF that comes after that isn't there? IF there is sharing of match day revenues. On the question of whether Jackson would like to share match day revenues into the future - he has already seen the top with Essendon and the bottom with Melbourne and he thinks there should be sharing of gate receipts and match day revenue. I would be surprised if he was being insincere now.

The salary cap next year will be over $10m. Do the people that are throwing arbitrary numbers out and extolling that someone "shouldn't be paid that" have a reference point? Unfortunately, we don't have a open source where all the salaries of players are known. So the comparison of who should be paid what is very tough. The cap has increased from $8m to $10m in 4 years. So in real terms - if a player earning $400k in 2010 his exact equivalent would be earning $500k this year. Someone earning $800k in 2015 will be earning approx. $950k if given the equivalent salary 4 years later. To simplify - wages goin' up.

I would hope Jackson continues his fight for equalisation that he eloquently stated here: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-02-26/share-the-wealth-jackson And the reality is - due to the inequities of the draw - we are going to get a bump in our distribution from the AFL. If the draw stays the way it is now with the bigger clubs getting their desires met and the odd good team getting some Prime Time games - then the sharing of the wealth as Jackson says in that article is essential. So what I would say to that question is Jackson wants to make it moot - in that article he wants gate receipts and match day revenue shared across the clubs. This is how the NFL helps to achieve its standing as the league with the most parity.

The fixture rewards teams that pull crowds - not teams that win games. This is the problem. And 'fighting a doomed equalisation argument'? The irony is that today an equalisation document was released that noted and accepted the inequities of the draw. There is nothing wrong with the desire to have a fair fixture.

This is one of those times when Dunn has the persistence of others, aswell as himself, to thank for his success. 2005 was his first year and 2013 was the first time he turned into a solid pro who cemented himself in the best 22. I am glad we don't have to worry about a very capable third tall down back with excellent skills for three years. Well done!

Where are you getting this Freo nonsense from?