old55

Can't see Geelong's vaunted depth and smooth transition to replace their veterans in that group, but it's true that I'm not very familiar with them. Sure they've got plenty of their youth into their 1sts but they've still got plenty of veterans in the twilight of their careers. Our side looks much stronger - result will be fascinating.

Maybe we should saw one of Jack's legs off - that might create enough doubt in club's minds whether we'd take him at 3.

Correct decision

Passed it through the google Swahili converter but nup ...

It's definitely an improvent over the current system - I'd leave ladder positions based on win-loss not conference standings even though this favours weaker conference teams it's less complex. I'd also go for permanent conferences to retain derbies and blockbusters: East: Brisbane, GC, Sydney, GWS, Collingwood, Carlton (having the Pies and Blues fixtured twice would accelerate game development up north) West: WC, Freo, Adelaide, Port, Geelong, Western Bulldogs South: Essendon, Hawthorn, St.Kilda, North, Richmond, Melbourne Each team plays their conference teams twice H&A, teams outside their conference alternate H&A each season, that way for example we play Freo away/WC at home, Adelaide away/Port at home, Sydney away/GWS at home, Brisbane away/GC at home one year and vice versa the next. It's a bit more travel for the Victorian teams in the East and West conference but they could live with that - alternatively split the WA and SA teams across conferences with 4 Victorian teams in each. East: Brisbane, GC, Sydney, GWS, Collingwood, Carlton West: WC, Freo, Geelong, Western Bulldogs, Richmond, Melbourne South: Adelaide, Port, Essendon, Hawthorn, St.Kilda, North Anzac day, QB, Dreamtime etc could be retained with this plan.

They want to trade him for Ferg?

Do tell the tune you hear?

Watts efforts last Saturday night were a significant move in the wrong direction, highlighted by the efforts of his team-mates in the right direction. Any progress he may have shown in the first four weeks was completely negated for me.

It's pick 2 to GWS which is massively valuable, they'd have 1 & 2 2 & 23 is quite possibly better than 5 & 6 which is the absolute best alternative they could get.

That's pretty good - nice work, would take some topping, I think everybody wins big.

Suggest some actual scenarios rather than the hypothetical generic gobbledegook ... Which free agent? Which "right" player for which picks? Which "non-kids"?

Which ruckman are you suggesting we trade and for what?

Good thinking - there's a few kinks - GC gets too good a deal - I think they get the U17 pick for free. One of the hurdles in coming up with a good fair deal is that GWS, GC and MFC have specific picks and to get the trade mix right is not always easy. The fair value might be a half a round upgrade but if you don't have those picks then you can't do the deal. Working the U17 picks in gives another dimension. BTW, it's great to see you suggest a practical a scenario ...

Yes, skin. Although they've got an extended list there's still a limit to the number of players they can have and it reduces each year back to the standard number - list spots on their list will be at a premium, they can't fill them with players they don't really want. We'll need to offer them quality players they want or picks.

Looks like the 8 is going to be very tight this year - Adelaide, Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Fremantle, Geelong, Hawthorn, North Melbourne, Richmond, St.Kilda, Sydney, West Coast - 12 into 8 won't go.

I think the MRP is generally better than the previous system - having a systematic way of deciding the penalty is by far preferable. The discount offer removes the farcical tribunal hearings where a player with a black eye says nothing happened. But in this case the MRP have got it seriously, badly wrong by not enforcing their own formula.

Yeah no-one would've asked us what we're going to do and no-one would've noticed him training with the club.

This has been thrashed on the Viney thread but I can't let this post through to the keeper. You'd rather break our contract with the son of a club legend than do a deal with GWS and GC. And you're "totally amazed that I am in the minority on this subject" OK ...

Cale is showing some positive signs recently, he was right in the contest on a tough night on Saturday.

Watts has never played convincingly as a tall. He was woeful. That goal he kicked was for all the wrong reasons

It's immaterial where he rated in the 1st round - we're committed to taking him and GWS can force us to do so at pick 3. It's all about us upgrading pick 25 to pick 3.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/expert-opinion/gws-could-ruin-melbournes-jack-viney-draft-plans/story-fncqi979-1226338135854 "I cannot imagine any condition which would cause a ship to founder. I cannot conceive of any vital disaster happening to this vessel. Modern ship building has gone beyond that." -Captain Smith, Commander of Titanic

''That's a good start. And it will be interesting to call out Jack's name, for sure. I'm not sure it's ever happened before, so it will be a nice moment. But for him, it just gets started after that.'' Read more: http://www.theage.co...l#ixzz1sdb8iTiy There's no risk from their side - we'll take him with pick 3 if we're forced to - we know that, they know that, but apparently some here don't know that.

You're living in dream land if you think we won't take Viney with whatever pick we're forced to, and that Sheedy and Allen won't force us to use pick 3 unless we give them a reason otherwise. btw, I can even think and chew gum at the same time!