old55

Sources say Lever's preparation and track work are 2nd to none and he will set a great example and standard there.

Mahoney has a great trading record - I'm backing him!

Welcome to the club Jake! It's a good trade and the value is very similar to 10 + 27 which everyone seemed happy with. 10 + 12(?) + 66(?) for Lever + 35 + 53(?)

That looks about right - it's a good upgrade for the Crows on 10 + next years 2nd - 18 into our next years 2nd 10 + 12 (2018) + 29 (from Port) for Lever + 18 If we could get 52 back too then it would be similar to 10 + next years 2nd. I'd do those deals.

I agree if they are offering 29 or 33, that's the market value in the circumstances, but if they are offering 49 or 51 they are taking the [censored].

I agree it shouldn't be a surprise, but what if it is despite all the coaching that has gone on? Coaching is a two way street. Some people cannot or will not be coached.

I don't necessarily agree. If Jack still didn't get the message in the exit interview, it's very possible that's what tipped the FD over to the trade decision when they reviewed how it went. The exit interview is a 2 way communication.

Almost all

Melksham and Hibberd return the salutation

Roos is all about Roos' legacy. I'm very grateful for the side-effect benefits that has had on our club.

I don't think MFC has handled this poorly at all. It's a challenging situation. The message in the media is for MFC members to understand the reasons why Jack is being traded and judging by the response here there is a great demand for reasons from Jack's many fans - and many remain unsatified. The "lack of professional preparation" reason is not a character assassination and it's one that some other clubs probably believe they can turn around. AFAIK there has not been a word about "the contest". Clubs understand the capabilities and shortcomings of all players on AFL lists and don't take any notice of what is said in the media when forming their list management strategy. It's clear that MFC wants to trade Jack and it's no use pretending otherwise. He has the opportunity to seek out his preferred destination. MFC will execute a trade to get that done and it's fair enough too, for the loyal service Jack has given. Absolute maximum value may not be squeezed out but I'm confident a reasonable value will be negotiated. Almost all clubs these days want to maintain a reputation as reasonable traders - they know the boot will be on the other foot soon enough. It IS sad that Jack is leaving but we're in the business of fearless football.

I think you are being naive. This is a culture decision. The club values preparation ond the contest and Jack falls short on both. It's about whole club performance

Where is Stringer's 1st choice? And how do you know this information?

Are we still "up to our necks" in the Stringer trade?

Jack has great mental toughness in goal kicking and general field kicking where other players go to water under the pressure and I've stood up for him on this. But the problem is in GFs like the last 2 he just wont get his hands on it to execute those great skills.

Very hard to see how that could happen when GC already have 2, 19, 22, 24, 33 and 37. I doubt they are interested in 27. Maybe 2 + 37 for 10 + Watts + 27. We'd need something coming back in 2 for Lever - either 34 or 50.

It's fine. 15 + 17 for Lever. Same ball park as the 3 I proposed above, probably better for us.

Picks are over-valued. I'd prefer to keep Hogan and Brayshaw than speculate in the 2018 1st round.

I think there is another trade in addition to Lever in the works. There's not a lot of difference between: Lever for 10 + 27 Lever + 34 for 10 + 2018 1st rounder MFC prefer the 1st option and Adelaide prefer the 2ndBut MFC have another trade that needs a 1st rounder, that's the problem.A possible solution that is a small upgrade to Adelaide on both these deals is: Lever + 16 for 10 + 2018 1st rounder + 27 Gives MFC 16 + Watts for a further trade.

It'd be a 9 News exclusive if it was Collingwood

There's definitely a big gap between Goodwin and Jones saying that Jack knows exactly what is expected of him and what Jack is saying. That doesn't augur well.

Hopefully he can get his body right. Will be a force if he can.

I'm on board with Simon Goodwin. I think he's got a vision, appears to have good relations with players and coaches and produced a good result under very difficult conditions with injuries this year. I like his calm demeanour in the box and in the media. I was bitterly disappointed in the R23 result and other poor losses to North x2, Freo and Hawthorn and it shows we have some way to go in "the journey" - but we are on the way. I've bought into the contest being the key to winning premierships and the last 2 GFs vindicate this where contested ball stats - Richmond 170 v Adelaide 140 and Dogs 172 v Swans 149 - the less talented but more competitive team won both times. We are decent at contested ground balls but we are pathetic at the aerial contest - we were outpointed countless times this season down the line. Recruiting Lever and getting Hogan back will go some way to address this. But we must generally improve across the board in this area. The residual concern I have is about our turnovers going forward outside defensive 50. Far too many times we missed easy open targets or kicked 15m half-volleys to open players who were then under pressure for the next disposal. When we turn it over, we have to work extremely hard back the other way and this saps our competitive energy. It doesn't seem like "ball movement" is a priority to the FD - maybe we can't have everything - it will be interesting to see how it plays out next year.

FWIW I agree with @Leoncelli_36 about Lily Mithen and Troy Chaplin - overt display of support for another club is just not on. Heart beats true!

Organisations have fundamental values that must be embraced by all and Jack is unable to embrace the fundamental appetite for the contest. Yeah Jeremy Howe is flourishing at a team which finished 13th - he represents their model.