old55

It's an exciting change. We must be hitting a new record for least games played in the 22. BRFE?

I think it's impossible to have too many good kicks in the backline. Small and medium backs also need to be able to win the contested ball, have some pace and agility, not be exposed in the air and have some defensive attributes (or be as good as Johncock to make up for it). Bartram and Macdonald don't have all these bases covered and they're probably very near their ceiling - but they have to be unseated. Grimes is superior but he's a bit too injury prone - will his body stand up to AFL - back stress fractures and foot hot-spot are not good signs. Strauss has an opportunity to stake a claim and Bailey is giving him a chance. Rivers is not a lock for me but Bailey clearly loves him.

Really? Macdonald is in that mix too. He's great competitor and has been a really good PSD pick-up but he has limitations. I'd back Tapscott and Strauss to be in our next premiership team ahead of him.

Bartram is a good decision maker - he knows his kicking limitations and kicks within them - that's why his efficiency is high. He still kicks clangers but they're usually when he's pressured to reach for a target that's beyond his capacity. The key problem is his short kicks to another unmarked defender who is also a poor kick doesn't help us clear D50. If Rivers, Macdonald, Bartram and Warnock start kicking it round to each other it's time to head for refreshments or relief. It'll be interesting to see Nicholson's progress - he's showing something but it's early yet - Bartram's first year was really great.

There needs to be a definition of eligible revenue - this would be excluded, as would government grants for facilities and other categories. But overall I think it's fair particularly if it comes with guarantees to boost the payments to the bottom end paid players.

There's no link between growing popularity and your post frequency.

rpfc is fighting the good fight hosing down destructive rumours like "Tom has signed with GWS" or "Tom is going to Richmond". They are the weapons of GWS and other forces hostile to MFC and are designed to cause discontent in the MFC supporter base to try to drive a wedge between us and Tom. The reverse is what will make him stay - our unconditional support. You've posted that supporters cannot make a difference to his decision, but I disagree, we can make a positive difference and we can definitely make a negative difference.

There is content in there: - Contracted and uncontracted players not getting an opportunity in the AFL may seek an opportunity at another club. - If a player has a contract his club can command a higher draft price than if he's uncontracted. - MFC might have an excess of medium forwards. - A pick upgrade trade can be very helpful. Probably doesn't directly relate to the topic title - but is this the first thread that's strayed a little? I would like to see Blease get a go this week.

Yep too much acid I reckon.

The players are working with artificial contraints - draft and salary cap. There's been talk about what leverage they might have short of strike action - which they've ruled out. Threat of attack on the draft which is restraint of trade is a powerful weapon.

Too much acid - that's the only reasonable explanation.

Take a specific player in a specific draft that wants to be traded, that the club wants to trade and that one or more clubs want to trade for - if the player is contracted he will achieve a higher price than if he's uncontracted. Yes that price may vary from draft to draft and player to player. Sometimes contracted players don't get traded and that's because their trade price is higher than if they were uncontracted.

That's [censored]. The fact that they were both contracted meant we got a better trade deal in terms of pick (pick 12 and pick 14) than if they were uncontracted and we couldn't agree to new terms with them - see Cameron Bruce this year! The fact that you can pay some of their salary is a lever to get a better trade deal and doesn't hurt you if it doesn't push you over the salary cap - which it wont because if you don't trade them you have to pay it anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Olarenshaw OMG! Extra strong HP sauce! Don't think this is Velocity Sports ... http://www.essentiallygroup.com/Home/The_Team/default.aspx

The AFL Player Rules are on the AFLPA site at: http://aflpa.com.au/sites/all/files/AFL%20Player%20Rules%20-%20February%202011.pdf Nominated Rookies are discussed in 21.10 p.106

Newton is a nominated rookie. He's permanently available for selection this year but he's still a rookie. Warnock is out of contract - he wasn't out of contract last year and there's no way he was on a 3 year deal.

He's reaching with that avatar.

Not for the first time you would have thought wrong - there's 640 listed AFL players in and out of contract not currently on the MFC list, there is no way that Tim Harrington has contacted their player managers and inquired about every one of those 640 players.

Yes deals have to be win-win. The strength of the draft may have an impact on the relative trade value of a player across the two drafts but it has nothing to do with the relative trade value of a player in that draft - if a club wants a contracted player they will have to pay more than if the player is uncontracted because they can't use getting him in the draft as a lever. See Luke Ball, if he was contracted, Collingwood would have needed to offer St.Kilda more than they did to get him, they could cap their offer because they knew they could get him in the draft if St.Kilda wouldn't deal. Darren Jolly was contracted so Collingwood had to offer a fair trade price.

Where did I mention GWS? A contracted player has more trade value to the club he's contracted to, the club that wants him has to pay more - if he's uncontracted he has the option of going into the draft therefore driving his trade value down.

That's exactly what you said above in your quotes - no surprise you are trying to back away from such a scurrilous and unfounded rumour now that I have called you on it. You're free to come up with some convoluted explanation of what you really meant or hide behind some mysterious gobbledegook. But Occam's Razor - every reasonable reader on this site knows what you said.

I think the Cheney trade for a pick upgrade from 66 to 52 was a win-win. MFC traded a player that was surplus to needs in a position in which we have a lot of depth and young players coming through, Cheney got an opportunity he warrants, Hawthorn filled a need with Campbell Brown leaving and MFC got a pick upgrade that secured a very promising talent in Tom McDonald who could easily have been snapped up in the 14 picks we advanced by. How many medium forwards do we need? We've got Jurrah, Green, Sylvia, Howe, Petterd, Dunn, Bate. If a player wants to leave your club for more opportunities elsewhere and there's a club or clubs interested, then his trade value is higher if he's contracted than if he's uncontracted. If he's uncontracted he has the option of going into the draft therefore diminishing his value, if he's contracted there's the option of paying part of his contract to receive a higher pick.