old55

Richmond is not the dire destination people paint. 70k members, play at the MCG in front of big crowds, middle of the road list that could go either way.

It's fascinating. To get better we need to take some risks in trade and they won't always work out e.g. Dawes, Lumumba and sometimes they will e.g. Vince, Tyson. But if we're not prepared to take a risk we won't achieve anything. Vickery, Vardy, Clarke - there's risk there but big reward too.

I think our recent list management strategy has been very good. People were calling for Josh Mahoney's head half way through last trade period "do something", by the end the same people were saying he was a genius with the pick upgrade deals. I think we don't leak and that is good.

Gray

BF says Carlton bound

I have no argument against the charge that Whitfield (and Allan and Lambert) may have broken the rules they contracted for and should feel the full weight of the consequences.

If the drug is performance enhancing then the AFL should worry about it the according to the WADA code, e.g I do think cocaine and methamphetamine on match day are likely to be. Outside of PE it's not AFL business. BTW, I used to break the law too but I hardly ever do now

I'd be very keen to see some concrete evidence that use of illegal drugs causes incidents in the AFL to justify invasion of player privacy by enforcing drug tests. You have a "vibe" that there is such a risk and apparently that's sufficient. Agree let's move on.

Where did I say that illicit drug taking is OK? I said it's not the AFL's business to police it, any more than it is the AFL's business to police speeding. The AFL should strictly police PEDs according to the WADA code, I'm 100% in favour of that. It's pretty simple really.

It's not a crazy hypothetical. If, as you assert, drug related incidents were actually a real risk then the consequences would be player actions that result in citing before the MRP. These incidents are the most severe and outside the rules of the game. Surely if drug addled violence is a problem then this is the first place to look for it. If they aren't the incidents you're worried about then what are - you're jumping at shadows.

Illicit drug use is no more AFL business to police than is speeding. Speeding is probably more dangerous. Hope you've never done it?

You're the one who raised OH&S risk from drug intoxicated players. Surely the MRP cases are the pointy end of this? Or are you thinking that players may push someone in the back after smoking dope?

Do you think the AFL should install devices in all players cars to make sure they don't break any road laws? Have 24x7 surveillance to make sure they don't cause public nuisance or commit any assaults? Is the AFL responsible for this?

Next minute you'll be suggesting that all players cited at the MRP are tested immediately for illicit drugs.

Agree, the AFL should not be testing for illicit drugs, just for performance enhancing drugs. It's very a long bow to draw that illicit drugs in the AFL are an OH&S risk like in mining etc. There are various police forces and courts to enforce the illicit drug laws. It's not the AFL's jurisdiction.

Fine, pick 3 this year plus pick 2 next year then

No I disagree - he needs to make a decision before the trade period. He'll be out of contract next year so we'll have far less bargaining power because there's only 2 teams in WA. And Freo, if that's his destination will finish higher, with Fyfe, Bennell and McCarthy etc available. They weren't trying to win in 2016 - the R22 result is a pointer to what's to come. It could be pick 3, 2017 pick 10, plus, this year. Next year - just pick 10 take it or leave it. It's business. I'd far prefer he stays and far prefer him to any of these players, but if he wants to go then pick 3 puts us right in the frame for Mitchell, O'Meara, Prestia etc.

We need him to make a decision this year before the trade period, while Fremantle has pick 3 - they wont have that next year. It shouldn't be that hard.

He HAS to play fwd-ruck, he's not coming as a back-up 1st ruck, we've got Spencer in that role and he's as good as we'll get. In fact he may be off elsewhere in 2018 looking for AFL opportunity. The knock on Clarke from Freo supporters is his intensity and his knee issues - maybe we can address both those with development (e.g. Watts) and medical assessment. It might be that he hates Ross, Sandi, Perth or all three and a fresh start would see him invigorated. There's not going to be a perfect option. As I posted in the Butcher thread - Jacobs and Jenkins were "spuds" traded cheaply a few years ago.

Well that settles it. A comprehensive analysis of his deficiencies. Just out of interest how many times have you seen Zac Clarke play live since his break-out season in 2014? Once?

I'm not an advocate for John Butcher but people need to realise that a fwd-ruck available to us will have some defects or doubts and that's why they're available. So players like Clarke and Vardy should be seriously considered and yes maybe even Butcher. It wasn't so long ago that both Sam Jacobs and Josh Jenkins were "spuds" available for trade. We've got to back our new development program.

Is that the sound of a bell? You seem to be only able to comprehend "attractiveness" as a binary concept - not attractive or attractive, vacuum or black hole. But attractiveness is a graduated interval scale. It is clear that Simon Goodwin's peanut butter on toast is more attractive than Mark Neeld's [censored] sandwich even if Patrick Dangerfield prefers crayfish on brioche served by Moggs Creek mermaids and wont eat either of them. [censored] sandwich - Peanut butter toast - Crayfish on brioche. Get it? Anyway, you wont be the last dueler whose hand was blown off and face was blackened by the back-fire of his own malfunctioning ill-maintained muscat. No, the fact that Jesse Hogan has not yet re-signed does not refute my argument that we are now more attractive. In fact it's quite possibly the reverse - that he'd already be gone if we weren't. The indisputable, uncontradictable, empirical evidence of this that you're looking for is that Jack Watts and his father both said that he would have left and not re-signed if things hadn't improved at MFC. Apparently Michael Hibberd likes peanut butter.

I said "we improved our attractiveness", I didn't say that "we are a preferred destination for a high profile player". Are you seriously suggesting that we are not now more attractive than we were at 2 wins and 50%? News report of Collingwood interest in O'Meara apparently passes your stringent evidence based approach though? I said "WE improved OUR attractiveness" i.e. relative to our previous unattractiveness, not relative to Essendon or Richmond.

10 wins 90+% is more attractive than 2 wins 50% - I'm keen to hear your argument against this? We don't have a 1st round pick, our 2nd round pick is destined for the Hibberd trade and we don't have any players with obvious value that we'd be prepared to trade, therefore we don't have a lot of currency to trade.