old55

I didn't "equate" them. The new rules mean only one tap ruckman can play. By the time we're challenging for the flag Spencer will have improved further and I expect him to be adequate back-up for Jamar. Then there's Gawn coming through as well. The thread is "must-sign".

It's a conundrum - the full press may not be our game style but to practice against it we need to implement it at training.

We're on the same track and if those lists are right then Grimes joins Watts, Frawley and Davey as safe. My list is just a little tighter - I really rate Jamar but in the long run I think Spencer provides cover. Garland is on the brink but then so are Morton and McKenzie for me. It's just where you rule the "must" line - mine has Scully, Sylvia, Jurrah and Trengove.

There's a set of players who are "must-sign" premiership core that we're building a flag team arouind and need to protect from GWS and free agency. It will prove difficult to protect every player on our list and there's a vital core. There's currently 8 on my must-sign list: Scully, Frawley, Watts, Sylvia, Davey, Jurrah, Trengove, Grimes. I think Frawley, Watts and Davey contracts make them safe from GWS at least but we really need to focus on signing the rest. There's other very good players like Garland, Morton and McKenzie who are close to must-sign and could join it. Jamar could easily be on it but I think that Spencer provides depth in that role. I expect a few more to put their hands up and join that list e.g. Jack Viney and some current development players.

I'm not saying Watts can't play - he's among my key players to win a flag. I'm not saying he won't develop the body size required to play KP - he's shown a great trend so far. I'm not saying he can't win the contested ball - I think he can win it. I'm not questioning his courage. I am saying that he doesn't naturally attack the contest like Frawley does. In the backline Watts will be lead to the contest, where his great speed and skill will enable him to contest very well. Frawley will attack the contest in the forward line and provide us with a better target. Watts is a better kick than Frawley, a better kick than pretty much any player his size, and that's more useful in the backline the way we play. When he has the ball in defence he can attack even better than Frawley does now which is saying something. I'm not suggesting a temporary change. Although if Lucas Cook developed in 3-4 years the switch back would be on. That's a big if and a long time.

Graet work - you're 1,000,000x better than the other Robbo!

More good stuff from Healy: http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/melbourne-demons-must-overhaul-their-defensive-structure-ahead-of-2011-afl-premiership-season/story-e6frf3e3-1226012075391

Interesting (but probably not surprising) that many think it's more important for a forward to be a better kick than a back and that kicking goals between a 7m gap that goes all the way up to heaven is somehow harder than hitting a man in the opposition zone.

The sooner we get our flag line-up settled the better. I think we should consider swapping Jack Watts and James Frawley roles. Frawley has the imposing body size, attack on the ball and pace to dominate as a KPF - think David Neitz. Watts has the closing speed, height and kicking skills to be an extremely damaging KPB - think Chris Tarrant. My observation is that Jack just doesn't naturally attack the ball, as a KPD he'll be lead to the contest and his great pace, decision making and kicking will be an huge asset down back.

Good work nutbean! The argument against the FA restrictions are that they didn't apply to GC17. Let's look at their uncontracted players re the FA rules 7 years service or less: not eligible for FA Krakouer - draft 2006 Harbrow draft 2006 Rischitelli draft 2003 8 or 9 years service and top 10 paid player: restricted FA, club has the right to match offer Bock - rookie elevation 2002 Brennan - draft 2002 Ablett - draft 2001 Brown - draft 2001 10+ years: unrestricted FA Fraser - draft 1999 So it's only Krakouer, Harbrow and Rischitelli that wouldn't have been eligible.

It was a pretty disappointing night. Essendon played with far more intensity - more clearances and contested ball, and got far more numbers to the contest. This is where the NAB Cup factor offers some solace. Their structure was good - their numbers at the contest gave them handball options in space whereas we were shut down and often forced to handball very short. Their press was excellent and our defence often had nowhere to go. I think Sean Wellmann would have had a big influence on attacking us. Last night really highlighted our problem in defence with kicking (see Gerard Healy thread). Bartram and Macdonald - both are great one-on-one but their kicking is just too poor, Bartram knows his limitations and kicks to an unmannned player but it's destructive to momentum and if that player is Warnock, Macdonald, Rivers and even Grimes whose kicking is also flaky - uh-oh! It's another good call/bad call - both Bartram and Macdonald can't play in the premiership side IMO. We need to persevere with Strauss who is a really great kick and it sounds like Blease is training with the backs too, maybe Tapscott is also an option. Frawley will replace Warnock and that will help. I could talk about the mids and forwards another time ...

My understanding is that the committee I listed, including Cam Schwab, worked out the draft rules, uncontracted player and compensation tiers. The "panel" you speak of decides which tier the players who move fit in. I think the AFL devised "secret" rules which the panel uses so the clubs can't manipulate the rules.

Why not argue for the eligibility to be the same as the Free Agency rules they're bringing in in 2012, it would at least be consistent (heaven forbid that to happen at the AFL - see tribunal!) - you can find them here: http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=89809 http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=89810 That would give GWS a crack one year earlier than everyone else and they have the advantage of the extra $s. As HT and RPFC say - give them that.

Agree. Overall you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs, let's try to prevent them being our eggs.

You can argue that the Tier 1 compensation is not enough for Ablett, Murphy or Scully but it's a bit late for that. The committee set original compensation and when it was apparent that Ablett was in the frame they re-visited and increased the compensation for elite players and that's what Geelong got for Ablett - the revised increased compensation - horse, gate, bolted.

The fact that MFC hasn't had the star players on it's list that Geelong and Carlton have had is not relevant to the comparison. I said that if MFC loses Tom Scully it would seriously impact our ability to win a flag - losing Gary Ablett has seriously impacted Geelong's ability to win a flag and if Carlton lost Marc Murphy it would seriously impact their ability to win a flag. Ablett is a proven super-star with at least 5 years left in the game - given the choice between Ablett and Scully today more than half the current clubs would choose Ablett. Marc Murphy has served his apprenticeship and is hitting his prime right at the time Carlton begins to challenge for the flag while Judd is still capable of his best, it would be a huge body blow to Carlton to lose him. James Frawley was drafted the year after Tom - would Tom warrant more compensation that Chip? I say no. I hope Tom can be an even better player than Marc but it's just hope. The view that he's more valuable and a greater loss than either of these two is parochial and based on unrealised potential.

Here's my 2c worth on all this: - The AFL strategy to expand in NSW and Qld and have a match there every week is sound - The AFL is justified in wanting to give GC and GWS a massive leg up for this strategy to succeed - IMO Tom Scully is the most guaranteed star we've had at the club since Robert Flower and to lose him to GWS would have a significant impact on our ability to win the flag we all covet - Our CEO (who I think is doing a superb job) was on the committee who framed the rules so those MFC supporters bleating about them when one of our players gets caught up in it, don't have a leg to stand on - To suggest that Tom Scully warrants more compensation than Gary Ablett or Marc Murphy is laughable. - Andrew Demetriou was forced to publicly defend the indefensible wrt to our "alleged" tanking in 2009 and I suspect we privately lost AFL sympathy associated with our acquisition of Tom and I don't expect any special assistance - GWS has $1M extra in the TPP which makes $9M but they are limited to $70K per 1st year player so even if they have 40 of them that leaves $6M to spend on uncontracted players - I find it completely believable that they'd pitch a 6 year $6M deal to Tom with many of those millions front loaded in the first year or two, then he'll be on a more equitable salary in later years and GWS will put the initial payment to him (and GWS team-mates) as a "sign-on" bonus necessary to get him across. - Football is not a "normal" job and footballers aren't motivated just by money - We need to do everything reasonable and within the rules to retain Tom but that doesn't mean trying to match or even nearly match the GWS $ offer because it will have a big negative impact on our ability to remunerate other players fairly. - We need to pitch mateship, premiership success, the MCG, living in Victoria and career after football playing days to Tom - And John Worsforld said, a few round here need to: "Harden up princess!"

What can I say? Cameron Schwab was on the AFL sub-committee that formed the rules. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/compo-backflip/story-e6frf9jf-1225848254060

OK, finally found a link - ironically on the MFC site: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/tabid/7415/default.aspx?newsid=107374 Six interchange players and two substitute players (as per 2010) · Clubs will be required to identify on the team sheet up to six interchange players and two substitutes · Substitutes can be introduced at any time of the match and for any reason · A substituted player cannot return to the field for the remainder of the match · This rule will also apply in the NAB Challenge. So that's 26 = 18 + 6 I/C + 2 subs 29 = 26 + 3 emergencies 3 in that list wont make the cut and will be emergencies

How many can we play? I think that list is 29 - surely it's less than that? 26 = 18 + 6 I/C + 2 subs? 24 = 18 + 4 I/C + 2 subs?

I agree with Sid, Nasher. Articles on the AFL site support the AFL position - find an article on there critical of the AFL. We all agree that it's an absolute shitter that Scully is in range of the GWS concessions but we're unintended collateral damage. This situation wasn't anticipated when WE helped draw up the rules. Where's the cut-off age - see the Marc Murphy example? Maybe they should've made the rules the same as the free agency rules, but consistency is not one of the AFL's strong points and the cat is out of the bag now because GCS didn't have those rules. The only way Tom could come out of GWS's scope is if the AFL had a quiet word in their ear and said "lay off" - but reading that article it doesn't seem likely to happen.

There's something wrong with this argument: Fev could make a massive effort to turn his life around and prove that he's a reformed character so that a club might be convinced to pick him up on minimum contract. His AFL career is finished.

I think the forum would really benefit from a Player discussion forum where there's a thread per player. Players develop over time and it's interesting to see the comment as they progress. A continuous Jamar thread would be fascinating and I think a Morton one would be too. Posters opinions vary over time too, this woulld also be a source of interest. The recent Joel Macdonald thread is a good example where it would be great to have continuity in the duscussion over the years forward.

Ricky Nixon shouldn't have been in a hotel room alone with the SKSG - his reputation and career are destroyed by that. From there on it just gets worse for him all the way up to the accusation of criminal behaviour.

Kicking is the reaason we'd like to get Strauss in there.