rpfc

I think you'll find recruiters saying that ahead of any draft. I personally don't feel we will go for anyone at 51/52 this year and even 35/36 will be iffy. Remember, they are 4th and 3rd round picks respectively but will be our 5th and 4th player taken in a shallow draft. We will see...

A place where AFL was played at the time the contract was signed. So both I guess. And don't wink at me...

You guys set a date? Just kidding. Has a high ball drop in my opinion but his two banana goals this year illustrate the skills are there. Really interested to see who, if anyone, the GC goes for at the Dees. We probably have already attempted to push those we wish to keep out of contact in 2010 to an extension. Do we have to keep a certain number out of contact? Because this exercise, considering they are not allowed to negotiate deals until Oct next year, may mean the equivalent of having the first 12 picks of the Pre-Season Draft - with the caveat of only being able to take one player from a particular team. One thing is for sure: player managers will be pushing back contract signings next year as long as they can...

I don't know if many Demonlanders would have the contract handy, but it is my understanding... AFL cannot be played at a new venue in Melbourne. When it was written Princes/Visy Park was an AFL venue, Victoria Park may also have been one (?). The government is wasting a $1m on a study of the Showgrounds. The million will probably be given to whoever tells Brumby the clause in the AFL-Docklands contract. The AFL believe there is a clause in their contract that says no other code can get a better deal than the AFL. And with the Victory deal they believe the clubs are owed a sh!tload of money. I don't know about the AFL not being able to play 'another' ground owned by the AFL. They don't even own Docklands yet. 2025 can not come quick enough for the Kangas, Dogs, and Saints. Which, if I recall correctly, will be a hundred years in the VFL/AFL for the Dogs and Kangas. And, finally, Ian Collins is one of the slimiest businessmen around. Shafted the Blues aswell so he doesn't play favourites. I guess if someone has a bias they have to have human emotions, something Collins doesn't have to worry about...

He still has to agree. He spent the first 11 years of his life in Tassie and has more family there. I think we rate him, and I think he knows we rate him. I reckon he'll stay.

I think a 32 year old needs more than two games to completely recover his form following injury. A bit early to say whether Macca has one more year left or that's it. The issue with Valenti not seeing a contract that I see has been the MFC judiciously using the Rookie List rule that you can have a bloke for two years before a decision either way has to be made. This is his second year if I am not mistaken. If Valenti was elevated last year we would not have been able to draft one of Jetta or Jurrah. I don't think it is an indictment on how the MFC see Shane, I think it is how the Dees are looking at list planning. Personally, I think it is very smart. With the shallow drafts coming up, Shane is a better bet than a third round pick, and I think the club is thinking along the same lines. And the LTI candidates were not so clear cut a couple of weeks ago compared to what they are now; Garland and a short term stay for Jamar meant that only Spencer was given the chance. Now with Garland, Blease, and Meesen out for the season there is room for 3 elevations for the entire season.

Only problem is 75% of our most loyal followers are MCC members that don't travel well. I was there the last time we had a home game there: Craig Ellis played a really good game, just over 9,000 were there and we were laughed at for a few weeks. It wasn't much fun. Won the game though...

I was under the impression that the Bulldogs get only $30 000 whether they get 5000 to a game or 50000. Again, could be wrong but I recall Smorgon saying that on the radio one day.

I could have sworn that two elevations because of LTI's was the limit. But with Spencer, Valenti, and McKenzie on the list I must be wrong... Good luck to all 3, I am guessing at least one will play this week.

Deal with the MCC ends 2032. So no Casey AFL games. Although, surely individual clubs should be able to negotiate a better deal. No reason for the MCC to give us a better deal other than wishy-washy ones I'm afraid...

Yeah, they should leave the rules alone for a couple of years. Your argument is fine and valid, but Kennett just jumped on your bandwagon to make himself the victim and have all of you tbecome his proxies. Don't let him do it. The umpires are still the excuse of the lazy and the dim-witted. Umpirng has been a subjective exercise since its inception, there are going to be incosistencies.

Don't mistake his holier-than-thou reaction to the fine, and is after-the-fact reasons for his comments as anything other than a politician doing what they do best: obfuscating and confusing the truth. He said that some of the umpires thought that they were bigger than the game and his proof was the fact that they are miked up so everyone can hear their thoughts. That is a long way from blaming the AFL for numerous rule changes. And officials are officials, and respect is respect - their universal.

I think you're reading him wrong. He was saying "Yeah, I kicked an off-balance banana with my left... what of it? I'm just going to point to the crowd and show them that that was just Jack Watts being Jack Watts." Remember: mere mortals get excited when they fluke an extraordinary outcome, others just expect it and react accordingly.

Saw the same thing. I hope no-one uses that rubbish for betting. Bet on winners, who are in form, with their best players playing well, otherwise forget it.

Therefore you must change the gameplan. No, you don't. Bailey should run the program that he knows - that he was hired on. He has time to build a list to perform his gameplan well, and those here can adapt. Moloney has, and Jones and McLean are getting better. For those who cannot adapt, we wish a fond farewell. You may say that an altered gameplan would give us some improvement, some modicum of success, I would say that that minor improvement is pointless. Or perhaps it's very pointed; it could be the difference between 4 wins and 5 wins. And we all know what that means...

You're presuming there is something inherently wrong with umpiring. This is a nothing argument created by the Collingwood hierarchy to deflect blame onto a witless foil - the umpires. Kennett was arrogant and patronising and deserved to pay a fine. We should aim to get to Rugby Unions' level of respect for those who officiate - and you're not going to get there with the comments that Kennett and Malthouse have given.

The thing that frustrates me the most with Newton is that there is no definition in his arms, he could have an imposing physique that would help him play better footy. But he doesn't put the work in the gym that Miller does. Even Bate, who spent most of his time as a mid, has more muscle definition.

Will the mods catch on that this disgustingly named poster is Yze Magic?! YM, Bruce is a great player for the MFC. So [censored] off already.

The reality is that Bruce will find it difficult to get another contract, but it is also important to note that he is playing well enough to warrant selection right now. The entire team doesn't have to be kids - the team last week had a 32 yr old, a 30 yr old, and 29 yr old, and the rest were 25 and younger. With 13 of them 23 yrs old or younger. The fact is Bruce has a contract for next season, the three you mentioned do not.

Bolded are those that I think are a chance to be moved on, and OOC, but... Junior is the captain and still doing a job. PJ and Jamar are ruckmen, poor ones I know, but unlikely to get rid of both if either. McNamara might be one to come from nowhere like Garland did last year, was impressive against Coburg. Bate has a contract and Buckley will not be moved on. Robbo looks over his injury to me, looked very good against Scarlett. Whelan, Wheatley, Dunn, and Bell are, at this stage, relatively easy decisions. That's only 4.

Bruce has been kicking helicoptors throughout the 'Naughties. Some people are creating their own reality to bash Bruce, because they think it's time to move him on. The bloke would be running about 4th in the Bluey at the minute and is contracted for next year. As somsone else eluded, I am much more concerned with the non-progress of PJ, Dunn, and, of the last three weeks, Bate.

I will remind everyone that this conversation at this time last year would have seen the end of Garland and Warnock. That has to be a sobering thought for a few of you. And, again, Bate, Meesen, Bruce, and Newton are contracted for next year. My very early prediction for deletions would look like this: Whelan, Wheatley, Bell, Dunn, and, possibly, one of Jamar and PJ. But not entirely sure about the contract status of either. And CS (you really should reconsider your name, I might be a PC thug but it is disgusting nevertheless) Jurrah is on the list. No need to elevate.

Name the possibles. Extremely difficult. Especially considering those that are contracted for 2010.

I really think the culling should end, for two reasons: the next few drafts starting with this one coming up are compromised, and we already have such a young list. Bate, Newton, Meesen, and PJ (I think PJ) are contracted for next year. Wheatley, Whelan, Bell, and Dunn will find it difficult to get contracts. After that it is difficult to move people on. That leaves Picks 1, 2, 18, and 34 with possible elevations of Spencer and Valenti. I really think that pick 34 should be forgotten (because the change in age has pushed a lot of talent into the 2010 pool) and the space on the list used to elevate a rookie. So what I'm trying to say is that there is a lot less deadwood than you would imagine and a large clearout this year is not wise.

The one thing I think we should take from this is that instead of using pick 35 we might be better off elevating Spencer or Valenti. Very little depth this year...