rpfc

So no-one wants to be at a club until they sign on the dotted line? We are talking about intent, not a concrete assurance he will re-sign. And also, that the rumours are bullsh!t, and I hope ADC and a few others should be contrite today.

Well said. rpfc endorses this view.

I have the same bigger picture. I've said it before, finishing 6th and going out in the first week doesn't interest me - I also would like to prepare for three years ahead. What I am saying is that you're process in relation to the coach is off the mark. You're basing his extension on games won, or making finals, where you don't believe it is a great measure as you only care about winning flags in few years time.

So you want to develop kids but also win 10 games and even then he only gets another year? Or if we get in the finals, he gets 2 years? Hard and fast rules when your long term focal points have played an average of 16 games is foolhardy. I expect us to push all teams with our best team, and I expect to lower the amount of Inside 50s we concede, and give games to our talent. Everything else is on the periphery for me.

A waste of money.

The reverse would be the Saints stars outlplayed their Collingwood counterparts... I stand by the sentiment that Hayes, Montagna, Riewoldt, Dal Santo, and Fisher were way down on their performance and that is where they lost the game. You need your best players playing well in the first week of October...

You may require 'back-ups in every position' but you cannot afford good enough backups to every position - we aren't Chelsea or Man City. If you want to waste your money getting 30 average to good players then go for it. I am just saying that it seems to me the top 4 teams are dominated by 6-8 stars of the game surrounded by disciplined role players. Having decent depth may keep you (slightly more) competitive than playing kids but it is the stars that win flags. Ergo - depth is not important to winning flags.

This is worth a thread on its own. Collingwood's best players played far better than their counterparts in the second granny. It's the stars that separate sides.

Don't sight an effing pertinent example?! Eh, ok. (resigned) Who do you think is propagating these rumours? There is no downside to nodding and winking at reporters and letting them write the 'whispers are' and 'some sources close say.' Let's fracking hope not. Let's hope the nuff-nuffs don't see him in the street, hmm? We will see. A lot of people are convincing themselves that Tom is lying and/or scheming and if they believe their own nonsense it may lead to some embarrassment.

Maybe they don't have a functioning forward line? It's just how the comp is set-up. You can't afford to have a team of stars, and you need role players but we have never had the stars. Run-of-the-mill players are easy to get, it's the stars that you need to find...

His first two seasons were quite good. I'm not sure what you were expecting from a teenage 6"4 stick figure midfielder...

Depth isn't important. They don't win you games of footy. They are role players that do a job. I'm being blunt but we have to develop 6-8 stars/very good/A grade/whatever players and have role players around them. You don't win games with depth, you don't win friends with salad.

I don't think it is purely that. ADC is not only inferring from the rumours, he is also intimating that everyone who isn't inferring the same conclusion is an Ostrich with their head in the ground. So the sadness is with ADC. My argument is, with two sides of the same rumour coin, I will take the 19 year old on face value and believe that he hasn't yet signed with GWS and that he will be living with his sister in a flat in East Malvern well into 2012. My rider argument is MFC supporters go negative to get themselves ready for the worst. And I don't think it is healthy.

One year extensions are for old people and drunken louts... No you don't. And the following sentence(s) makes little sense. If he even doesn't want a one-year extension, which presumably no-one has offered, he is off to GWS??? Huh? I guess if he has never been offered it, he would find it difficult to accept it so, yeah, it's all coming together now...

...but they are not in 'the team.' How can something be important to a whole they don't belong to? And only reside in if others abdicate? Prepared for injuries... You cannot replace your best players. Warnock is not Frawley, and without Frawley it wouldn't matter if it was Warnock or Davis - our structure would be hurt immeasurably. Maybe you should address it? Think it over. Why is so fantastic to have a 27th player on your list that could possibly take the 18th best players position in the 21? If we want to win flags it is all about the best 6-8 players and keeping them fit. Look no further than our depth from 2004-2006; we were thereabouts but never in the hunt in August/Sept, but Sandringham won a hattrick of flags. Depth is as depth does.

I wonder what your reaction will be this Saturday to Scully? Will you boo him? Will you slag him off as he is coming off the ground? When do we say "he is a MFC player wearing our jumper and we are not going to let rumours turn us on each other?" We are being played by Gubby Allan...

You have said that all (except Maric) improved last year and they are not facing 'crunch' years. I am saying that they may have shown improvement but you cannot carve a career out of one season that was better than the adequate seasons before it. Petterd, Wonna, Bate, Dunn, and Batram in their best form are pushing for best 21 selection, but they have had their issues in the past and 2011 is important for their careers.

How can you be an 'important part of the team' of your presence in the team is reliant on one of two people being injured. Surely he is 'important to the back-up team.' And arguing about the importance of depth is pointless because you can't replace your best players.

Leadership does mean you are ensconced in the 21. I doubt you would think that way - "if you are in the leadership group, you are in the best 21". Brad Miller will tell you you can be dropped and be a leader.

You want to confront Tom. You want to confront Tom. You think he is gone. You don't like reason given by player manager. You want to confront Tom. You want to confront Tom. You want to confront Tom. You want to confront Tom. You want to confront Tom. We get it. Apparently, we have already done that through Jim Stynes talking to the kid. He has not signed yet, he has no obligation to do so with a third of his current contract left. Mike Sheahans nervous (Gubby Allan inspired and manipulated) ramblings aside - we have not lost him yet, but we could if we act like we will. We are casting aspersions of Tom on here and I don't like it. I am seriously, for the first time since Byron Pickett lined up for us, wondering what reaction a Dees player will get from his own fans...

Yes, all players don't want to be at their clubs until they have signed new contracts 8 months in advance...

Please. He's acting like a nervous, hand-wringing Melbourne Supporter whose belief that Melbourne is always destined for failure is an inherent and unavoidable truth.

And you have no problem extrapolating from the 'hints' of a 'rumour'? But please mention a large flightless bird or the actions of a baby/toddler... Anything else in the armory?

He couldn't go in three years unless he went through the draft. FA would only kick in after 7 years IIRC, and even then we could match the offer.

I said for various reasons. As Y said - Petterd has been injured more than he has been fit, Dunn has played half a season of good footy, Batram has to continue his good form because of his deficiencies when he has the ball, and Jones needs to find a place in our best 22 that doesn't leave him vulnerable to one of Blease, Gysberts et al. They all have their plusses but none have established themselves in the 4, 6, 5, and 5 years they have been at the club.