old55

The rookie list has to be cut by 2 next year. Nicholson, Evans, Magner, Couch, Lawrence, Sheahan, Williams. Nicholson is elevate and Evans, Magner, Sheahan and Williams are retains. Lawrence probably delist. Couch should get a run to see whether he's worth retaining, otherwise see Fisher and Valenti.

It doesn't really mean that - they could still have bid for multiple F/S under the old system, they would have just had to do it in turn as each F/S came up for consideration. Under the old system if Daniher is up first, they bid for him, Essendon says they'll take him. Next player up is Viney and they can bid for him. The change is to stop Essendon or Melbourne successfully bidding for another club's F/S before their's comes up and therefore using the pick they would otherwise need to use on their own F/S when he does come up. Stewart comes up before Daniher - Essendon bids their 1st rounder 15 - Collingwood doesn't want to use their 1st rounder 20 so Essendon gets Stewart at 15. Daniher comes up next, GWS bid pick 1, Essendon says we'll take him - their next available pick is Round 2 at 33. That's what it's stopping. Yet another thread becomes a Viney thread - sorry ....

OK great thanks for that - agreed it's what rpfc said: Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-overhauls-fatherson-bidding-20120627-212vm.html#ixzz1zhpt9ItS

I think that would affect his acceleration and power, even if as you say only psychologically. It can't be affected if you don't have any ;-)

Are you 100% sure that's how it works? I agree that's a likely process, but it's equally possible that each team only gets one swing at a F/S nomination and if they're trumped then it moves on to the next club.

I caution anyone offering an answer to this.

Link to where you posted this please.

Pick 12 which we on traded to Geelong for Brent Moloney. Geelong bundled that pick 12 with something like pick 15 for Brad Ottens.

Yes some nice logic and reasoning, but as BB points out at least 6 have to go. I think half-way through a season of such big change is too early to make a definitive call but there's a long list of candidates, particularly those who can't crack a regular game.

Maybe the apocryphal Petterd to Qld trade?

Take it to PMs you two.

I think he'll stay and Reid is their next priority. Then Beams may be squeezed out if we offer him double what Collingwood does, but Collingwood will demand the highest pick we have - they'll want pick 4 or they'll say "into the draft son"

Suggested elsewhere - 4 + 13 for Boak + 7 is a win-win deal for Port if he wants to leave and us if we really want him - assuming Port finish above the Dogs. Pick 7 should still deliver a decent mid.

Looking at the fixture I think there's an opportunity to play Cook - from R17 it's Port, North, GC, Saints, GWS - that could be a good 5 week stretch for him to get the feel. I think Davis in for McDonald. Jamar and Jones in are no-brainers if they're fit. Jamar and Martin to split time in the forward 50 - they're very poor man's Clark but they're the best option we have. I'd stick with Rivers and Garland forward, we'd particularly want them there if Cook comes in.

They may have said this to squeeze a deal out of us. That's exactly what I would do if I was them - tell everyone "we'll bid for Viney" and then do a secret deal with MFC to not bid - that guarantees them a benefit they wouldn't otherwise get.

Agree - it's one or the other with GWS. We can get out in public and say we may not take him at 3 - that works a a smokescreen for any draft tampering allegations associated with a GWS deal - we weren't going to take him anyway if the value isn't there.

Then he must be running under it on purpose.

Maybe because GC isn't run by psychos like GWS is. As I've posted - I think we should be proactive and try to strike a deal to get Viney in the 2nd round. If GWS does nominate him we should declare war on their list and go out of our way to make things difficult for them in future.

I want a stable back six - I don't want Martin coming out of there to ruck and you couldn't have Martin anad Sellar both down there. If Martin is back, he's permanent back in place of Sellar. That job in the backline is to nullify the gorilla - there's not too much "reading" required which suits Martuin's limitations - he's big, fast and dumb (in football terms) - you can add other adjectives in private to suit your tastes. We're in a bind - we need another fwd/2nd ruck at least while Clark is injured. If he's good enough then Clark can play permanent fwd when he comes back. If we can't find that solution then we need another marking fwd - IMO that's Rivers until Cook forces him out. Right now our best solution is Martin fwd/ruck and I acknowledge the limitations.

Agree that's exactly what happens if you're in charge.

Don't take a job involving negotiation - you'll starve.

We just have to give less than we gain and in this case it should be straightforward because GWS and GC just have to lose less than they gain and effectively they're losing nothing except hurting us so while we stand to gain a lot pick 3 v pick 25, we really only have to beat nothing to achieve it.

rpfc's approach is direct action, billy's is indirect action and hope (or possibly no action because it all got too hard) - I know which I prefer. in rpfc's scenario, yes we have to give something to get Viney at 25, but it just has to be less than the difference between pick 3 and pick 25 which should be pretty easy - that's a big difference.

BH's posting approach is entirely consistent with the attributes he admires in footballers.