old55

He's out of contract and out of the 22 - that's not a good hand.

We do have to make at least 3 spots on the list available, that means someone has go, and pick upgrades for them are better than nothing. If you want to keep Warnock, Dunn and Bate which 3 are you letting go and for what?

I don't agree with your doomsday prediction. The AFL can help the SA clubs become independent while growing the game nationally. But they don't want to fight too many wars on too many fronts. I think Demetriou is crazy not to agree to the players collective bargaining proposal - he's getting a great deal there. The players were very smart to suggest that they involve Fair Work Australia in the discussions - no surprise Demetriou doesn't like that idea. "Now just explain this draft thing to me again and how a player comes to be playing at a club". Despite the media reports that the AFL is "smashing" the AFLPA I read it completely the opposite way. The AFL must retain the draft and salary cap. Doesn't belong in the Scully thread.

Wait for it though ...

I believe that is incorrect - it should be red - scores against, higher than average are undesirable. Contested ball is tracking with match outcome.

Good work out for Max Gawn against Hamish McIntosh. North have Hansen and Tarrant in the VFL but apparently Jack Watts took a long time to come on ...

Good post - I agree.

I totally agree with that - he said he's going to make a decision at the end of the season and one possible outcome is that he receives an offer too good to refuse from GWS. I will be bitterly disappointed but I wont hold that against him. Football is a dangerous occupation - look at Daniel Bell - Tom needs to think very seriously about his future. I hope we can provide other incentives to get him to stay. He and his management have shown great forsight to insist that the decision be put off until the end of the year, knowing that a possible outcome is that he goes to GWS. If he was forced to make the decision now and elected for the GWS option the outcry would be deafening throughout the season. Why cause that? The real outcome is the same if he makes the decision at the end of the year.

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