rpfc

He's a pro. Whoever picks him will get a committed player. I don't like his attitude. I understand it though. It is up to BP and TH now, I don't care if Luke Ball doesn't want to come here, I care about what is best for my club - if the boys think he's the best value at 11 or 18 then take him, give him a shirt, and tell him 'that's life.'

"This is 100% Bailey's fault." Just thought I would repeat that for people who missed Lil' Steven Tingay's idea on who is to blame that we haven't been able to convince the best player on the ground at half time in the most recent Grand Final to come to back-to-back wooden spooners. Anyone else harbouring thoughts like this and plan to make it into a post? I ask because I want to block you for a short while. What a waste of internet... Al Gore would be turning in his grave if he knew Internet like this was going on.

No. Unless Newton or Meesen can convince another club to put them on their PL, which is unlikely, to say the least...

Ugh.

I don't see much in the way of deserving application from Newton. He's still connected to the club, and that's, arguably, more than he deserves.

A lot of us were.

I guess we will accept your resignation. I don't want any List Manager that doesn't want to here. I know you're 25 and a leader, and the rules allow us to keep you on but if you don't want to be here...

I believe that was changed a few years ago. Same in both drafts.

It's another $100k. $400k to go. We could give Scully and Trengove another year and a pay rise, or we could put MacDonald or Thorp on a frontloaded contract.

Because it is tacit acceptance that those doing the termination erred when they recruited said player or extended the contract of said player.

The rule changed under our feet, and although it's a minor change, it serves to validate this 'demotion with contract maintenance' nonsense. What an awful bump. That's got to be worth a few weeks....

Bloody strange industry.

Reverse the names and you might be right. Thorpe will probably nominate for the ND, and we should know today.

That is right. From an MFC point of view this is perfect - two fringe (at best) players removed from the PL with the promise of a Rookie Listing and their contract intact. As an aside - I'm not certain there is an incentive from a players perspective to do this but maybe they were told that they would be delisted and paid out anyway so they may aswell take the guarantee of a spot in the AFL system. It's a strange bloody system I think we can all agree. There won't be much at 50 but whoever it is - they will be more value than Newton. And with GC17 taking the first 5 rookies, Pick 50 becomes the last prospect to be picked up, assuming MacDonald or Thorpe are taken in the PSD. Very smart list management. Now all they have to do is pick the right kids...

'Game theory' requires all parties to make reasonable and rational decisions. This is not a rational decision by Ball and his entourage, and it might lead to an unreasonable conclusion. Sydney should spend 14 on him, PA should spend 16 on him, MFC should spend 18 on him, NM should spend 21 or 25 on him, Essendon should spend 24 or 26 on him, the Lions should spend 27 on him, and Collingwood should never get near him. I am not saying we will spend 18 on him, but he represents a good value return for all those clubs I mentioned. As I have said before - Luke Ball owes us nothing, but there is little doubt that he thinks that playing for us is akin to retirement and we should be wary.

He's a smart player, no doubt. Being 2nd in assists to Davey is a great effort. But he covers a lot of ground, and this is where I see him playing a role for the MFC when Watts and Jurrah are starving other forwards. He'll be the lead up target about 70-80 out swinging around and kicking an ungainly kick to the advantage of LJ or JW.

Riewoldt on his searching leads 'doesn't play tall' but that is an important part of his game (IMO the defining part of his game). Riewoldt 'plays tall' when he hits packs and takes contested grabs. Bate does the first part but not the second. Does that make him a KPF? I don't know, and we are destined for another pointless semantical argument. But I will say this - he can do the job of a CHF outside of crashing a pack. Does that make him a flanker? I really don't think so. (Apologies for the rhetorical questions - it's bloody hot.)

I posted "when your talent isn't big." Emphasis on 'your.' The Dogs couldn't fashion Hall out of thin air during the season - go with a fwd line that utilises what you have, not what you wish you had. Bate can be a lead up CHF. He can't crash packs but if he can build on what he did in 2009 he will be an important marking component to our forward line.

Good player.

Ugh.

That looks like a good balanced team. Not too big in the fwd line, but when your talent isn't big, why go big?

Cricket sucks. Just played in 33 degree heat and it was awful - 60 0vers in the field, and came off feeling we lost even though we won the week before and I got a decent score. That's a 2-Day game for you. Dehydration and awful smelling bag of expensive crap - that's all you get from cricket.

If Jones isn't in the 22 - who is going to get the clearances? Brock had glacial movement and missed targets but he averaged over 5 clearances a game from memory. Scully and Trengove won't be at the bottom of the packs in 2010, and nor should they have that burden.

Ugh.

I would let BP trust his eye on each pick. But with Affirmative Action for taller players...