old55

ditto

You disappoint me - I thought we could have some fun. I'm St.Kilda - our flag window is passed. I'll trade Brendan Goddard to you. Two options: 1. Any player on your list OR 2. Your first rounder (say pick 16) + any player outside your top 3 (as protected by you) I'm Geelong - our flag window has passed too (appearances can be deceiving). I'll trade James Kelly to you. For your first rounder (say about pick 16) + any player outside your top 10 (as protected by you)

Sure you would - our first rounder and Jack Trengove?

You don't say! And I imagine you wouldn't bang Liza Minelli but Beyonce would be a different matter (if the price was right) Would you trade for Brendan Goddard or James Kelly?

Don't think KPBs are our priority - we've got Frawley, Rivers, Garland. Martin can play there. We've got McDonald and Davis in the hopper. Warnock can't get a game. Clubs with much greater need like Hawthorn and Carlton would drive the price up. I think outside mids and a small forward are probably our current greatest need - possibly available at a reasonable cost in trade too.

My RFC sauce says Miller plays 2nd ruck and Vickery KPF.

That is correct. * If an uncontracted player goes to GWS the AFL provides compensation draft picks out of a pool - GWS don't give up anything. * If that player wants to go to a specific other club then a trade involving picks and players has to be arranged and they come from that club. * If the trade can't be agreed then the player can go into the draft and put a contract price on their head (think Luke Ball) but GWS has the first pick(s) in the National, Pre-season and Rookie drafts and heaps of salary cap space - but MFC would not get any compensation.

Looking at that data, the contested possession differential is a pretty good indicator I reckon. When you consider our effort in R1 against the Swans who are a top 6 team it was very good and also pretty good against St.Kilda, whereas against North and West Coast we were well down on what we could expect. No surprise that Collingwood, Carlton and Hawthorn out compete us at this stage of our development. The contested possession differential against Richmond will be a strong indicatior of the result.

11 contested possessions.

Was drinking ORANGE Powerade in the rooms - it's an INDICATOR!

No, he says quite clearly in the article it was so he could &*#4 Annette Allison.

Paranoia will destroya. So for cultural reasons Tom's going to go to the club whose president started the lies that he's signed with GWS?

Agreed - credibility zero all round. Now if he said he went to the Mountain Spew on the corner of High St Road and Springvale Road Glen Waverley after the match ...

Yep, and the way to ward off GWS poaching Tom Scully is for the club and supporters to remain calm, consistent, confident and supportive and to resist hysterical ultimatums, hair-tearing and hand-wringing. Get it straight - YOU can drive Tom away from our club with weak-minded pessimism or YOU can influence him to stay by hanging tough.

"Decision" OMG is it a sign? That's what he's said all along - not that he's signed with GWS, not that he will sign with MFC, that he's putting off a decision until the end of the season. As hardtack points out that perfectly reasonable. The hypocrisy and double standards in this thread are breath-taking - MFC is putting off making contract decisions on Dean Bailey, Matthew Warnock and Addam Maric until the end of the year. Tom is going to make a decision at the end of the year and panic-merchants, cry-babies and doom-sayers are not helping him make the right decision.

I've posted this before but here goes again - I'm struggling to see why people think it's more unfair that Tom Scully can be targeted than it is that Marc Murphy can be targeted? From Carlton's perspective they've invested more in Murphy and are just starting to reap the rewards. If there was a service limit on GC/GWS targets it would need to be pretty long - like the free agency 8 years and that probably doesn't give them sufficient advantage. The fact is they need decent concessions and we're potentially collateral damage - the only way out is a fair compensation deal. I don't think Geelong got that with Ablett - he's worth more that 2 mid 1st rounders and so would Brendan Goddard, Marc Murphy and Tom Scully be. My second observation is that Demetriou has a reputation for holding a grudge and getting even - I think he retains a special place in his heart for MFC from when he was a lone voice saying that tanking doesn't occur despite significant circumstantial evidence. I'm not expecting any special favours.

Tom Scully will sign with Melbourne. Follow this and you'll be right.

He's not very bright?

I couldn't disagree more. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by accepting that he's going to GWS unless it's an undeniable fact. That isn't the case. There is everything to gain from accepting Tom at his word and absolutely nothing to lose. He said he hasn't signed anything with GWS and he can't sign anything now. He may be in the process of making up his mind what he's going to do. In that case all the support he gets from us is positive. rpfc's been saying this for ages. Do you think Paddy who was mentioned in the Sunday Age article is helping? http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/loyalty-must-have-rewards-20110611-1fyca.html

I'm with you there bub

I like Schwab's plan because of the inter division matches - that means blockbusters are retained. The idea I'd been considering just had the teams playing other teams within their divisions which would not be good if say WC and Freo were in separate divisions for 3 years in a row and never played each other - those derbies are great no mater the relative positions on the ladder. I think his plan could be tweaked regarding who gets relegated and promoted. I think the Div 2 top team should automatically be promoted and the 7th, 8th and 9th team in Div 1 and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th team in Div 2 should play off for a two further vacancies in Div 1 - the two best teams of that series gets them. That means a minimum of 1 up and 1 down and potentially 3 up and 3 down. I think it's better to give teams the opportunity to play for Div 1 postions. That finals series would be nearly as interesting as the flag battle. It's not exactly clear in the Schwab article how many teams (in addition to the 2 mandatory) go up and down as a result of the play-offs.

Yes the restricted FA only applies to the top 10 players who are the ones who count. I actually think it's a pretty fair deal and could've been much worse for us.

8-9 seasons restricted FA (26-27 year olds), 10+ seasons unrestricted FA (28+ year olds)

When was the last time a team went from 10th or lower to win the flag the next year? Sponsorship, TV audiences and crowds will be up for 2nd tier matches because there will be massive interest in the outcomes. There'll be 80K at the promotion-relegation play-offs between Melbourne clubs.

Restricted FA I agree, but IA will be big with unrestricted FA.