Ron Burgundy

I'll give you some facts. I spoke to Neale Daniher about Powell following our woeful fourth quarter capitulation to the Swans at the SCG in 2003 (I think it was round 5). Daniher said to me that Powell was busted and that his OP would likely re-emerge and that is why the MFC let him go to the Saints in the PSD on a three year deal. Daniher said Powell wouldn't get through his 3 year deal and that the Saints would regret the deal. I think the facts ultimately proved otherwise. I'm pretty sure Powell finished third in the Saints B&F in 2003 and was a bloody good "free" pick up for the club. We missed him greatly during that period. As to Junior, the club wished to resign Yze (as Carlton were desperate to sign him) along with a couple of other players (including possibly TJ whom I think the Pies were after). Junior was well down on the MFC's list of priorities, and the club concentrated on re-signing the other key players before working out Junior's contract. I actually think the club even told Junior this. Junior's contract also had nothing to do with Powell's. To suggest that it now did is complete revisionism. And yes, Woewodin's contact was about pay. Everyone knows that, but thanks for the heads up on it. This negotiation also had nothing to do with whether he'd still be on our list in 2010. Clearly. But thanks for the heads up on that too. The damage was in him not being on our in the period 2003-05. The upside in that was said to be Daniel Bell. In my opinion, I don't think we got the deal the club said it had brokered at the time.

To be honest, I think history proved the Woewodin trade to be a bad one for the MFC. It's easy to forget but the club suffered horribly after that trade - both on and off field. 2003 was a bloody debacle, particularly given we were minutes away from a preliminary final in 2002 (but for injuries and loads of bad luck). I therefore had high hopes for 2003 - but the club then shot itself by trading Woewodin (which caused all sorts of issues with many players and supporters) and then letting Powell go for nothing. And we were actually in our window at this point in time. As a result, we had a leadership vacuum for years. Bell hasn't really dominated. Woey enjoyed one excellent season for the Pies, one reasonable one, and was shizen one. Most fundamentally though, the club took a big hit in an intangible, though hugely important, way. And it didn't present a tougher image as a result, just an incompetent one. Hence, I can't agree with this call.

I reckon Joel will be a bloody good player for us for quite a few years. Well done, MFC.

This is the best thread I have read in years. I am absolutely pumped. To many of you, great work.

Mate, you've stolen my avatar.

The fact is - if anyone in the media actually knew that the MFC was tracking Gysberts as a potential first rounder, his name would've been all over this site and no one would've been surprised at hearing his name called out at number 11. The MFC seemingly held its cards very closely to its chest and flew under the radar on him. He's no less of a player as a result - it's just that he didn't get the superficial chat room attention prior to the draft. Gysberts is obviously a little ripper, and he probably complements the style of our other future elite midfielders, rather than mirrors the style of those others. Balance is important and he probably adds more to our midfield mix than some of the other names that were bandied about. I'm going to love watching this team over the next decade.

Wonder what Scully was thinking as McMahon lined up for that kick. He was apparently a Tigers' supporter.

I reckon we'll pick up Ball at 18 (despite his wishes to go to the Pies). If we do, I hope he displays the leadership qualities many of you have raved about.

I cannot believe I am engaging in this debate with you to be honest. For the avoidance of all doubt, it is my view that the professional approach for an AFL player in Luke Ball's circumstances would be: 1. to accept the MFC's invitation so that it could present what it had in mind for him, and also to allow it to attempt address any of his (possibly legitimate) concerns about the club; and 2. then to make an informed and considered decision about the merits or otherwise about joining the club, which may quite reasonably be that he doesn't want to. This would be the professional approach in the circumstances, Don24 - it's simple. And that discussion should've occurred prior to nominations for the national draft. It is plainly obvious through Ball's conduct that he does not regard the MFC as a viable club for him. That's fine. However, as a supporter of this club, I don't want it to commit to someone who's conduct towards us has been, at best, unprofessional - particularly given that he's touted as a potential future leader of the club. I am not otherwise interested in answering your largely irrelevant, childish questions.

I have stated my position, I think quite clearly. Ball elected: 1. not to engage in detailed discussions with the MFC prior to draft nominations; and 2. nominated for the national draft, rather than the PSD, which clearly evinces an intention not to go to the Dees. This cannot be controverted, as it is clearly in the club's interests to use each of picks 1,2,11&18 on promising juniors. It is also relevant that the club publicly declared its interest in the player. From media reports, Ball appears to have largely disregarded this gesture of good faith by the club. The MFC, to my knowledge, has not publicly declared any interest in Bradshaw or any other experienced players - hence, there is no reason nor obligation for club or player to sit down and discuss things. All you say in response is essentially "no one knows this or that". It is perhaps a convenient approach to take, yet it is a wholly ridiculous approach to take - but you can do so if you like, as you appear unable to put any cogent arguments together. Keep playing the man rather than the ball. It matters not to me, but it is tedious trying to debate with someone such as you.

Yet more dribble.

Don24, unlike you, my view is based on facts and the way in which this issue has unfolded (to date). The facts are as follows (albeit some only as reported): 1. Ball has said he will not play at St Kilda next year. 2. Ball has indicated that he wishes to play AFL next year. 3. To do so, Ball needs to be recruited by an AFL club (other than St Kilda). 4. There are rules which govern the recruitment of players to AFL clubs. 5. The MFC is the one club in the AFL that holds ALL the cards in relation to this year's recruitment process. It has picks 1 & 2 in the national draft and pick 1 in the PSD. It also has room in the cap to meet his demands, and is conveniently located in Melbourne. 6. Despite this, from ALL reports, Ball is unwilling to genuinely engage with the MFC. 7. Ball's conduct in entering the national draft reinforces this, since, if he had any legitimate interest in the MFC, he would have entered the PSD (as this course would ensure the MFC retained its high draft picks for potential future stars). I regard the above as facts. You may not - I dare say, virtually every other reasonable observer in the AFL community would. Notwithstanding this, people such as yourself argue that you know Luke Ball and that he is "a leader, a true professional, a fine young man" etc ... As I said, I don't know him. My view is entirely based on the above factors. It is not founded in any emotion - in fact, I don't believe I could ever be star struck by any 25 year old, let alone Luke Ball. That being said, I was initially strongly of the view that the MFC should recruit him. This was principally based on the view of many (such as yourself) that he was "a leader, a true professional, a fine young man" etc. As I want this club to succeed, I think those qualities would really assist us. His conduct to date suggests otherwise. I am a rationalist. I don't want this club recruiting a bloke based on the cliched views of others if the underlying facts indicate otherwise. In my observation, he's a long way off being a true professional and, unlike you, my view is based on a proper consideration of the above facts. However, it's possible that, if recruited by the MFC, these "prefessional" qualities may emerge. I would sincerely hope so, because that's the only reason he'd be recruited by this club - he's not otherwise the gun player he may think he is. Ross Lyon (and the Saints football dept) seem to share that view. As an aside, in any field of endeavour - but particularly something as tight as the AFL (where there are only 16 clubs), I would've thought basic principles of integrity and respect would've dictated that he would think it approriate to at least meet with the MFC, rather than seemingly avoiding all expressions of interest altogether. So, in short, get your head out of the sand, Don24. I don't want anyone bagging this club as unprofessional, particularly if their own conduct is, objectively, a mile off the pace.

Through his conduct to date, it appears that Ball is childish and unprofessional. Ball may think the Dees are a mile off a flag (perhaps we are), but it's clear to most rational observers that Ball, through his conduct to date, is not yet wise beyond his years. He doesn't appear to have tested the waters at all, and his conduct to date suggests that he's incapable of adopting a measured, considered approach, which would involve hearing and assessing what the respective clubs actually have to say. I've seen graduates in the professions and the business world (similar age) who seemingly demonstrate far greater maturity and level-headedness than Ball. He may be a great leader of 18 year olds at a footy club, but he appears to be a mile off the pace in terms of the degree of professionalism required in the professional or business world. Still seems to be a boy. And for a St Kilda player or fan to criticise the MFC about not having a "winning ethos/culture" is laughable in the extreme.

Would laugh for a very long time if he gets drafted by Port or Freo. He'd salary sacrifice to try to get to the Dees then, by which time the club would be laughing too.

Jesse Smith seems the obvious next target to me. If the Dees can assist him to get his body right, he will be a complete gun.

Stuff that. I only want blokes who genuinely commit to this club - not one year passengers.

I'm currently sitting in the Qantas Club in LA. My flight to New York is boarding in 10 mins. I am happy to put my card down at ANY bar, hotel lounge or club in NYC and buy Ball and all of his wingmen booze all night if he's willing to be heard on why the MFC should be his club of choice for 2010 and beyond. Anyone know where he's staying in NYC? Even just the zone.

If we were to land Ball and enjoy a good run with injuries, we could definitely make the eight next year. Get Ball. Just get him.

Whether Scully or Trengove is picked at number 1 is a bit artificial really. The reality is, we're getting both players (assuming they're the players the club will pick, which I hope is the case). This is wholly different to the Jack Watts situation. It's not comparable. Jack was/is measured against Natanui, Rich, Hill and Hurley, in circumstances where we could only pick one of them - and, arguably, the stand outs weren't quite as obvious at this point in time last year. I'm glad the club picked Watts, particularly if we pick Scully and Trengove. If they didn't pick Watts, with the benefit of a season under their belts I'd have taken Hurley out of the others - and he wasn't seemingly ever in the mix in the debate here prior to last year's draft. Watts also had to contend with the NikNat excitement factor and Rich being known to be a proven player against mature bodies. I think the circumstances this year are very different. If we only had ONE pick, it could be different though. Does anyone seriously still maintain that losing to Richmond was against the club's best interests?!

I've thought that Green should be playing full forward for several years now. Good mark. Good lead. Great kick. Smart player. Will take several marks in the forward 50 each week. Should convert most of them. No brainer really.

Any key Melbourne officials/observers at the game?

That deal's far too generous. Why not just trade our pick 50 for pick 5 - ie, a straight swap? Surely, like all of the other bullet-proof suggestions on this site, it's possible ...

Well done, Dean. A massive pat on the back. Picks 1 & 2. Rev up.

Would be an error to let Jamar go. Trades like this rarely, if ever, work.

Thanks Whatshappening. God bless Robbo.