rpfc

Restraint of trade legislation in the last few decades has changed sport all over the world. In Europe the 'Bosman ruling' basically freed up all players to move clubs after their contract was up without any reimbursement to their club. Obviously, there is no draft in European football and the same clubs win in each country every year. The US established equalisation so well that we take these institutions for granted. If not for US precedent there would be no draft, there would be no salary cap, and there would be no expansion to new markets (some of you would prefer the isolation but I am sorry the growth of the game has made it a fantastic spectacle). There is nothing to fear in Free Agency if you are a well run club. I agree that the rules need to be massaged but I would open it up even more. The AFL's limited Free Agency is the failure. They gave the player what they wanted but, as with a great number of things, the AFL didn't take the time to think through the hidden and obscure consequences. I can go into greater detail later but the introduction of more trading (and FA signing) periods, an ability to trade a players against their will, more transparency with salaries across the AFL, extended rookie contracts at the pointy end of the draft, restrictions on the max salary a club can give, the ability of a club to give more money and years to 'their' free agents, and guaranteed and non-guaranteed money in contracts will all - to varying degrees - help make Free Agency work to equalise the game more and allow teams to get better or worse quicker.

Hexed! I will believe it when they are running around in the AFL dropping chest marks...

Tassie Bid 'The Premier's office will discuss it, amongst other things, in a few weeks with a consultant but at this stage it is not a high priority. Much easier to push for more Hawks games.' That is the latest news. That will have to get their arse in gear if they want anything done. For those interested I will attempt to update this after that meeting.

And my point from a millennium ago that you misconstrued and jumped down my throat on was there is not one person or body who can make that decision for us. It is not as simple as revoking our licence or sending us on our way. The paranoia about this is more worrisome than any 'heads in the sand' on the possibility it could happen down the track. The water that will have to go under this hypothetical bridge is immeasurable, and also will not have a timeline that suits the next roll out of the CBA which is why the AFL likes pure 'expansion' teams - because you can plan for the year without the variables of member votes, court action, et al And I will accept your implicit apology?

And you describe me as uppity again, perhaps with 'pedantic qualities?' You really should take your own advice, and the graveyard of Demonland is filled with my buried hatchets. I can be arrogant and dismissive and I apologise with my last one with regard to the proposed Tasmanian team. You will have to excuse me on this issue - this is one rare subject with which I have inside knowledge on the status of their bid. Having to hear about the closeness of this team to eventuate has done my head in on here for a few years now because I am related to the consultant used by the Tasmanian government to lobby the AFL for a team. It was effectively abandoned when the GWS decision was made, and then the earth was salted when they re-upped their deal with Hawthorn for 2012-2016 at $18.3m for the 5 years. The Hawks saying goodbye to that money is one of the many obstacles that a revived Tassie bid will have to overcome. And the government will have to make moves pretty soon if they want to revive it.

The only thing I am really worried about while we have these injured players is the draining of confidence from the group in the interim. They have to stay bubbly and upbeat and ready for the challenge of the season - in that respect I think that Roos miscalculated with his mention of a 'dossier' being compiled on the players. That will work to get players to focus on areas he wants them to improve on, but it may have an impact on their confidence to know they are being evaluated in that way. It really is pathetic that I would handle the players with such 'kid gloves' but the have the resilience of paper mache. Their confidence off field is juxtaposed by a withering stare of fear and mistrust in themselves and teammates onfield.

A 'cherry picked' 5 minute video? I am sorry but any team each week will have some level of 'incrimating' vision. I saw a team play, they are just not very good and they don't think they themselves are very good.

And you resort to your own little chestnut... Why don't you move on past your own inaccurate and dismissive recollections of my views and your snide dislike for me as a poster and stick to the arguments. Tassie is nowhere. Cheery little articles of state pride notwithstanding - they should not have re-upped with Hawthorn and they are nowhere.

The Tassie chestnut...groan. I will let you know when Tassie are anywhere in their bid - I am related to a consultant hired for their last failed bid. They are already a tapped market and they have the Hawks and NMFC 'tapping their arse' - they are not getting a club in the foreseeable future.

New boss same as the old boss? Hardly. The team remains the same - and its issues. And maybe the puerile references to Neeld can now be moved on from? Wilson makes a very good point - what is his vision for his own involvement with this club? It is not a question he has to answer soon, or even this year, but when he decides who is to be his successor (whenever that may be) he has got to also announce in what capacity he is going help that successor once he takes over. We are going through a transition period to say the least - we are not situated to do a 'Port Adelaide' - there are too many question marks on key players to be able to do what Port did. Clark, Dawes, Gawn, Frawley, Dunn, and Jamar are in footballing limbo for various reasons. And while we have some great young talent in Hogan, Viney, and Tyson - there are too many question marks on the list in addition to the 6 above*: Byrnes, McKenzie, Clisby, Blease, Cross, Strauss, Pedersen, Nicholson, Evans, Riley, Tapscott, Spencer, Bail, Jones, Terlich, Jetta, Georgiou and Fitzpatrick. That is 24 players on the list that are either in limbo for 2014, near the end of their careers, or simply not good enough unless their form changes radically. I don't believe Port Adelaide had that base before last year. Roos should have been told that by Jackson coming in but, if not, he better know it now. *Salem, JKH, Michie, Kent, Toumpas, Hunt, Harmes, King and Barry get a reprieve as they are starting their careers.

The worst thing is he worked incredibly hard to get into that position to take that simple chest mark. He gets lazy on the most easiest of things and we have baked him for it mercilessly. Frankly, I can't see the vision at work so I won't comment on what Roos said but the reaction here is 'same old, same old - getting flogged in every facet of the game.' That is simply not the case, we are up there in every contest and almost every measured area of the game, but our errors are catastrophic and I mentioned this after the Richmond game in the NAB Challenge - we are going to have these monumental errors because of the game style that Roos wants to play. Robinson is right - this 'bunch' is not suited to possession footy with a low margin, and tolerance, of error. Now, Roos has had to have thought about this and come to the conclusion that it is best for the 15 players who we will keep long term to play this style and develop good habits and execution even if it means that a great number of the current list cannot implement the game style effectively. I heartily agree with this, but I know it means that the players will be challenged immeasurably and they may struggle to cope and keep (build) their confidence. Fans screaming at their supposed 'lack of heart' isn't helping - there was plenty of heart in the 22 on Sunday - just not enough talent.

We were solid in the clinches but made poor decisions and this was related to the fact that our forward line is being asked to do far more than the individuals are capable of.

Frawley joked at a presser that if Roos re-signs so will he. Is he not allowed to see whether we are the same basket case we have been his entire career? If members can hold out on giving a few hundred to see if we are worth it without being damned - should employees be afforded the same patience? Perhaps I have more rigid interpretation of the crime of ransom.

We're on a whining streak!

I have heard that if you score one or more points than the opposition it's called 'winning' (I hope I pronounced that correctly). Win again next week and that's called 'a winning streak' - it has happened before. (Apologies to Major League)

The last two games illustrate the difference between three well drilled sides - quality. Moving past the pleasure of saying the MFC was well drilled (we looked like a team - hallelujah), the Saints have a star player still enjoying his prime - neither we or the Giants have that just yet. The hubris on here before the Saints game was startling - especially considering where we are coming from. As Bernie Vince said last week - we need everyone on the ground pulling int the same direction at near capacity to win games because we don't have those few 'star' quality players that exist in our league. Whatever you wish to call them - there are about 40 of these players every year (maybe less?) and in close games they are the ones shaping the result to their side. Roos can get us well drilled but in games that can go either way - we are going to struggle.

That has already begun. Some are already expecting a flogging and have a few choice cuts to sink their teeth into if it happens. Byrnes, Bail, Toumpas, Watts, Frawley, Grimes, Trengove, and Pedersen. Never mind our injury list and our lack of talent - let's rip these [censored]ers to shreds for having the temerity for playing for our club.

lol Damning. Or maybe he was getting a few of his touches inside the 50?

When learned people discuss the failings of the MFC at the Draft over the past decade - this Wines/Toumpas pablam doesn't even rate a mention.

Ransom demands? Players re-signing midseason or even pre-season before they reach FA is a prehistoric notion in professional sports. Those contracts will be signed later and later until I think that the league will stipulate that all Pending FAs wait until October before re-signing. Frawley is not holding anyone to ransom.

That's all well and good to get this from the horses mouth of the balanced 12 year vet but what about the frustrated kid with an injury he has never dealt with before or the bloke whose messed up soft tissues and personal issues leave his vocation and life at the crossroads? Do you get them on DeeTV too?

I think his point was the year before (2012) when it meant very little when they were here.

All I want is someone to take his spot, right now all I see is a bunch a blokes with their hand out looking for yet another game gifted to them. Culture is hard to define but giving guys games over others when they aren't pushing the proverbial door down is a cause (or symptom, probably both) of bad culture and it is a lesson I have learned watching the Dees over the last few years and in my own team as we have gone through our own little renew and rebuild. Byrnes' game wasn't great, but my opinion that he was 'useful' isn't a stretch at all. List decisions come later in the season than Rd 2...

It's not that they didn't rate him, it's what they knew we were willing to pay. We would have paid with Pick 3, but thankfully we got into the Hogan deal which got us a bookend and secured Viney.

Are you epicly saying: tell us better injury return times? It's frustrating as hell but I see it as more a confluence of badly managed events surrounding strategically important players than some sort of determined and destructive failure of communication: Dawes evidently has a nagging calf complaint and others have alluded to management of a knee issue he has had for most of his career. BUT the club could tell us whether there is a degenerative knee issue. Whether they should confirm that is another question. Clark's foot issue is well known, with his latest soft tissue injury coinciding with, and compounding, his personal issues of late. BUT the club could tell us a thorough timeline of his failed recovery and how they are going to manage it from the point he returns to the club. If he doesn't return, there is no way to manage that well in the interim. Hogan copped a knock before the Geelong game, played in that game, and made it worse. The club is managing a huge investment as it should. BUT the club didn't explicitly tell us when that hit came - they let the false belief that it came in the Geelong game perpetuate. Gawn has bad knees as we know. He has bad hammies as a result. He has obviously had another setback. BUT nothing, he was set to play and didn't pull up well. That is pure footy. And it sucks for all involved. So if you got through all of that - I don't think it is a window into our badly run club, I think it is just a few tough situations that we can't be fully truthful about for various reasons relating to the welfare of the player in question, and the protection of that player and the staff to play when perhaps they should not have. That's just footy. And as Danners said... Footy sucks sometimes.