old55

Nice one! And as an aside - we've got to get our own standalone 2nds team so we can't play our fringe players either.

Healy / Sheahan / McLean / Tanking conspiracy to get him sacked worked well.

Award the flag to Hawthorn and let's get into it already!

That's definitely a possibility there's only 82 points difference in For and Against which could easily be made up. The only fly in that ointment is that North might beat GWS by more than Freo beat us and end up 6th.

it'd have to be a good deal.

It goes for 3 weeks! It'll be madness. 3x madder than usual

No you don't - Sheedy is not risking Whitfield by nominating Viney - we'll take him at 3 if necessary.

I don't think you understand. We are going to take Jack Viney at whatever pick required - we need to give THAT pick to GWS - we need to offer them pick 3 and they won't nominate Jack Viney. Hogan, pick 4, pick 13, Viney - it's a big win for us and a big win for GWS who will have 1, 2 and 3 in the ND. It effectively means we're getting Hogan for a 2nd round pick.

Mark Neeld's doing a good job now?

Here's my prediction: Viney at 3 OR Viney in the 2nd round and a substantial trade deal with GWS following

Bluey

We're not in a position to do the same things better than other more well resourced clubs. I agree with Hardnut that we need to think outside the box and be daring. that's what recruiting Cloke is about. We can recruit him using our TPP gap AND bolster our midfield using our draft advantages this year. We should do both.

Look I understand your position perfectly ... You're questioning the value of two key forwards in today's football when the top 7 teams on the ladder all have this structure and you're open to recruiting Cloke but you don't want to pay more than the offer he already refused at Collingwood. You can't be a little bit pregnant, we're either going for Cloke or we're not - 5 years x $1M with a substantial part front-loaded gets us in the game. Otherwise you're wasting your time.

Look I'll try to break it down for you ... Hardnut goes to an auction. Auctioneer: What am I bid for this fine property? Man in black and white jumper: 750 Auctioneer: I've got a bid of 750, The property is not yet on the market, what are you offering? Hardnut: 750 Auctioneer: I've already got a bid of 750 from the man in black and white Hardnut: that's all I'm willing to pay

How about the five teams currently at the top of the ladder for a start off? Sydney: Goodes, LRT Adelaide: Tippett, Walker Hawthorn: Franklin, Roughead Collingwood: Cloke, Dawes West Coast: Kennedy, Lynch

No, Collingwood offered him what you want to offer him (your "MFC terms") - he might end up taking that at Colingwood but you'll HAVE to offer him more to move - therefore you've effectively said you don't want him

I stopped reading there.

Collingwood offered him a 5 year contract with performance clauses and that's what he won't sign! You just said "I don't want him".

I only care because I want us to be able to pay 100% of the TPP without the need to resort to special fundraising from generous members. Yes, as posted by diesel "we could" make cuts elsewhere to do so in the absence of such fundraising, but would we? We can't win a flag without paying 100% and I'd like us to be funding this from recurring revenue not from discretional donations from generous members. Apologies if this is hard to understand ....

That's a fact is it? OK.

As I posted - all power to the foundation heroes - they truly are heroes and are the ones who have saved our club and given us a chance. But if it was my money (if I could afford it) I'd want to know what it's really for. What posters are really saying is "everyone knows it's not really about the TPP but everyone's happier if we say it is", that just doesn't wash for me, but maybe that's just me.

Not for me it's not. If we didn't raise money last night would we have been unable to pay 100% of the TPP? Do we need a similar fundraiser next year and the year after to pay 100% of TPP? They're pretty simple questions.

Yeah, I've no doubt he could work out the question - but what's the answer? We either need the special funds to pay 100% TPP as advertised OR it's covered from regular revenue and the 100% TPP message is marketing for funds to be used for less essential purposes. Got an answer?

I don't see anyone denigrating fundraising or the foundation heroes - more power to them! The point Fan appears to be making is that we're raising special funds to pay 100% of the TPP - surely that should be the first thing budgetted for. We're screwed if we have to have special fundraising every year to pay 100% TPP. Extra fundraising is vital for FD expenditure etc so we keep pace in these areas, e.g. overseas training venture etc. I guess it's simpler, more tangible and more attractive to package it up as "get more like Mitch Clark" to the club. But 100% of the TPP should come out of regular revenue.

GC with ND2 is in the box seat for MD1/Martin if they him. We'd then be looking at ND3 for MD2/Hogan. That would land Viney in the 2nd round and give GWS ND1, 2, and 3. If we rate Hogan I'd be up for this. ND3: Hogan ND4 + 13: Caddy + ND7 ND7: best young talent ND25+: Viney