torpedo

Well his average has gone down by 1 disposal per season for the last 4, so if he averages 21 touches next year he hasn't gone that far backwards has he?

Do you think the fact we're talking to him about sports science says he's also still pretty fit?

Do you think you get more or less stats when there's other good mids around you?

How many of those 100 midfielders who average over 20 touches play for MFC? I'll tell you, 1. Nathan Jones.

Get over the stats!

Has this type of trade worked before with midfielders entering the twilight of their careers? It certainly works with rucks and sometimes with key position players, who are brought it in to fill a hole for 1-2 years. I cannot recall too many 31 year old inside mids stepping into inferior midfields and having an impact. I am happy to be proven wrong though!

What role? He's an inside mid with stats as good as Nathan Jones this year.

His role is to play most games for the next 2 years while Viney, Toumpas, Evans, Trengove, M.Jones, and this years draftees all develop PROPERLY without the pressure to carry the team.

The stats are meaningless. Brock McLean's 2013 stats are also comparable to 2013 Nat's stats, there are over 100 midfielders that get 20+ a week, it tells you very little about the player.

At the Doggies, Cross played 13 games surrounded by Griffen, Boyd, Cooney & Libba.

At the MFC you want him to play 22 games surrounded by kids? Is he capable of doing that and making a meaningful contribution, given his form & fitness is going backwards?

Good points regarding 1 year v 2 year contract. Are Rookie List players also given 2 year contracts?

But I would question whether or not we do really know what role Cross is capable of playing in Melbourne's midfield, given it is such a different environment to the Doggies.

I am not sold on Cross. The examples of these types of acquisitions working are pretty thin. They only seem to have a high success rate with ruckman, who come to clubs as mentors as well making handy back-ups.

If Cross' form dips, which is likely given he will be 31, be adapting to new structures and have less on-field support, he will simply become another list clogger like Rodan or Byrnes. May be I am underestimating their contributions behind the scenes but I fail to see how those blokes running around looking like washed up hacks every 3rd week provided any leadership value whatsoever.

If we want mature bodies, surely there are some inside mids floating around the second tier comps that are worth a punt? If that comes off, you get 5-10 years service as opposed to 1 year. I think Cross is just a big a risk as a mature age rookie but with significantly less upside.

Geez I hope to god its not Kirk, great player and possibly a good development coach but I do not believe he would have the tactical nous & innovation to be a head coach.

What if we got both Burns and Simpson to the club on the proviso that either one of them (performance based) would become our senior coach after Paul Roos left, and that the other would be free to leave if not selected?

Would either of them go for that, in the knowledge that whatever happened they would be in the box-seat to coach any club that was looking for a new coach by then?

I don't think that would be a particularly appealing prospect for either of them.

As it is, they are both in the box-seat to coach clubs now. If they come to MFC and miss out that may paint them in a lesser light.

I also doubt we could afford to pay them what they are worth right now and I don't think they would agree to take a pay cut just so MFC can mull over their livelihood for 12 months+.

The arguement that our culture is bad therefore we dont deserve a pick is ridiculous.

A team with a better culture wins more games and deserves one? Makes no sense

You could just as easily say that the argument that a culture that has been eroded by the pursuit of Priority Picks can be improved by the provision of another Priority Pick is ridiculous.

This fantastic MS Paint job could also be applied to all the supporters that believe the MFC is where it is because of a few bad eggs in the FD that couldn’t develop players and that it has nothing at all to do with a club culture eroded by the pursuit of Priority Picks

Who has "blind faith in high draft picks"? Maybe you?

We wasted them with poor selection and poor development.

That is not relevant now.

The entire footy department has been replaced since.

It's not about whingeing about what we've done in the past.

It's where we are now, and what assistance is fair to get us competitive again.

I dare say, some posters has been totally sucked in by blowhards like Barrett and other clubs.

I'm a little embarrassed for them, that they are so feeble-minded.

Why do you respond to posts with personal insults? The purpose of this forum to discuss different views.

Picking poorly was counter-productive too...

A counting Scully's Pick 1 AND the comp picks we got for him as you did and Ryan has done is misleading.

We have had 1 pre draft comp pick since 2007 when we fell of a cliff into oblivion. And because we were investigated (and exonerated) people think we shouldn't get help?

We all want to move up the ladder and stop having these conversations, but as a fan, I have put up with enough nonsense from this club without rejecting the draft assistance that a club in our lowly position should be given.

Did we pick poorly or did we destroy them with our blind faith in high draft picks?

And no, listing the picks we got without acknowledging whether or not any were compensation picks would be misleading. I simply listed the draft picks we have received each year, specifically acknowledging any PPs or CPs.

I have a lot of issue with the bolded sentence.

It's the sort of ignorant bullsh*t I'd expect from an opposition supporter that knows nothing about the club.

Since 2003 we've had a total of 2 priority picks. 2. Picks 1 & 17.

Hawthorn had picks 2 & 3 as priorities, as a comparison.

High draft picks are not some extra "reward" for finishing lower.

They are our draft position for having to put up with a rubbish bottom 4 team year after year.

We get 1st round draft picks just like every other team in the competition, who by your logic must have been stockpiling them too.

Compensation picks are fair compensation in return for losing assets.

They haven't come in without us losing something valuable in return.

It's inflammatory language to make a redundant and ill-considered point.

Since 2007 we have had picks 1, 1 (PP), 2, 3, 4, 4 (CP), 11, 12, 12, 13 (CP), 14, 17 (PP) & 18 inside the 1^st round.

Since 2007 we have finished 14, 16, 16, 12, 13, 16 & 17.

Which part of the statement that we have been stockpiling high draft picks, Priority Picks and compensation picks for years and we have gotten worse is ignorant [censored]?

Clearly, whether by default or otherwise, we have stockpiled high draft picks. Clearly, we have gotten worse. They are the facts.

I do not understand the Hawthorn comparisons. Hawthorn utilised Priority Picks to their advantage. Melbourne have not, on the contrary, the club’s belief that high draft picks were the magic solution to on-field success crippled the club.

I do not doubt that on form alone, if anyone deserves a Priority Pick, we do. I am simply opening it up to consideration that pursuing another Priority Pick may be counter-productive to MFC’s pursuit of a winning culture, as that has certainly been our experience in the last 6 years.

To be honest, I understand where people are coming from when they say 'MFC does not need handouts, MFC needs to stand on its own two feet.'

We have been stockpiling high draft picks, Priority Picks and compensation picks for years and we have gotten worse.

Our race to the bottom in 2009 clearly had an adverse effect on our club's culture, whether or not it is tanking is beside the point. MFC's naive reliance on draft picks in place of hard work is a major reason why we find ourselves where we do in 2013.

MFC must create a winning culture. Will another Priority Pick assist with this or will it simply continue the cycle of our playing list & club relying on others for success?

At the start of the game there was about 25 odd players sitting together around N56 or N57, plus all the assorted hangers on, it seemed like quite a social affair.

By the beginning of the 3rd Quarter that number had halved.

By the 10:00 minute mark it had halved again, down to a pultry 5 or so sitting around having a laugh at their iPhones without even paying any attention to the game.

I doubt it would have anything to do with the VFL, 3 of the players still there in Q4 are named to play tomorrow and a lot of those that had left were not even available to play.

From a workplace perspective, surely the match itself is the most important meeting of the week and requires nothing short of 100% attention?

As a supporter, it feels like these kids are just taking the complete [censored]... we stick fat through thick and thin and turn up for 120 minutes week in, week out, yet as soon as the game blows out they find something better to do like bored tweens.

Worst of all, as a footy club, its just weak... any player at any club at any level has a responsibility towards their club to hang around and support their team mates at other levels wherever possible.

I think its a bloody disgrace and reflective of what is being played out in front us.

• Ricky Petterd looked really sharp with his skills as did JB

Excuse my ignorance, whose JB?

• James Sellar did a lot of the kicking out in the match simulation and I reckon he will play round 1

Seems strange to have one of our biggest marking targets taking kick-ins. Does he have a lethal boot?

Surely Nicholson, proven performer at AFL level.

Yeah where do I send donations? You've gotta be kidding!

$30,000-$35,000 is a standard salary for plenty of graduate positons out there & those people have slaved away at uni for 4, 5 or 6 years. Apprentices get even less.

These are 17 year old kids with zero qualifications or experience, why should they be getting paid more than uni graduates? They don't do any more hours than any other rookie trying to make a name for themselves within a professional organisation.

It may be tough as a mature-age rookie but thats not different to a mature-age uni student or mature-age apprentice, big deal.

I'd also love to know who the rookie that got paid $32,500 p/a but was "pretty much bringing home $1,200 a month" is... um... try $2,200 mate. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

How about an article on the factory workers raising families of five on less?

B: Tappy Frawley Rivers

HB: Grimes Garland Blease

C: Jones Sylvia Trengove

HF: Howe Clark Jurrah

F: Green Watts Davey

R: Jamar Moloney McKenzie

INT: S.Martin Gysberts Bail D.Nicholson

As per Mephis, I think the absolute priority must be mids, you only need to glance at our current batch to recognise that we are several top shelf mids short. Premierships are won in the midfield, the rest of the positions can be covered by role players if you’re midfield is strong enough.

I really think we need more competition for the small forward role.

I think this need is better met by drafting skilful mids, see Geelong & Collingwood, no pure small forwards other than Krakour, they develop players in the small forward role that eventually graduate to the midfield and win their own ball – Varcoe, Stokes, Christensen, Menzel / Beams, Sidebottom, Blair, Fasolo - those players are just as capable of applying forward pressure and kicking goals as pure small forwards.

Dissapointing PD. Previous afl.com.au PDs, particularly Burgs, have always listed which clubs are looking at which players so you get a broad range of players that are on each club's radar, this provides no such 'insider info'. The picks also seem very similar to a lot of other PDs out there. Hmmm.

Fair enough, if they will be working with MFC players out there that makes sense, sounds like the next best thing to having our own VFL team.

The assistant line coaches at Melbourne will fill the breach...

Source? That seems like a very odd arrangement, given Casey has 50 odd players of its own that do not train or play with MFC.

I do not understand how having those coaches bouncing between Olympic Park and Casey would be in MFC's interests, unless it was only ever intended for them to be working with MFC part-time.

You seem happy with the poker arrangement...

...But it seems you are not really against Poker machines anyway, so this too is irrelevant.

Further examples of your inability to interpret plain english without putting your own words in its place. I hate pokies infinitely more than betting agencies... but yes, that is totally irrelevant.

Serious? You think OWNING poker machines is the lesser evil?

I'm not saying I agree with Deesbet practices, but they are not acting illegally. People are jumping all over clubs (such as MFC) for their "involvement", but if people are serious about the issue, then they need to direct their anger/disappointment to where it belongs - and that is in politics. If MFC were not involved, someone else would be. If someone is to make money from it, then I would prefer it to be the MFC.

Stylus you have a real skill at misinterpretation. Firstly, you wrongly applied my comments about the MFC & Members' contracts to the MFC& Deesbet contract. Then to justify that, you implied that I was denying any link between the two when I had done the opposite. And now you are saying I think pokies are a lesser evil than betting agencies when I have said nothing of the sort.

If the club is going to rely on gambling revenue, it should at least have the sense to do it out of the public eye, ie pokies, rather than directly aligning itself with a betting agency, ie Deesbet. People assume Deesbet is the MFC but they would not have a clue who owns what pokies. Obviously the MFC once saw the sense in that too, given its previous commitment to only align itself with community minded organisations.

Clearly, it is not essential to have a direct alignment with a betting agency, given the majority of rich clubs do not and continue to thrive. It seems they are smart enough to not engage in an alignment which has the potential to damage the club’s image and commercial value.

The old ‘it’s a political issue’ & ‘if we do not do it someone else will’chestnuts can be used to deflect and justify anything and add nothing to the debate.

Unfortunately, in this country, many sporting clubs rely pretty heavily on betting organisations for funding. If MFC ignore betting agencies and pokies it's at our peril. Most AFL clubs receive a significant chunk of their revenue from this area.

I think there is a difference between owning pokie machines and actively aligning yourself with a betting agency that engages in predatory advertising practices.

Stylus - both my comments and your original comments made reference to members’ contracts with the MFC, not MFC's contract with Deesbet, they are completely separate matters and you cannot apply comments made regarding one to the other.

If MFC has entered into a contract with Deesbet which allows it to cold call its members then, as I said, that is really disappointing and completely against what Stynes was spruiking when he first took over.

And from a commercial perspective, your suggestion that members who are unhappy with a betting agency cold calling them can simply opt out of contact from all sponsors is hardly a proposition that would please reputable sponsors who advertise using more accepted means.