Ron Burgundy

Bloody hope not! Brayshaw's possibly a future captain of the MFC. He's the player I most want of the three at the club. Happy with either of the other two as well, after Brayshaw that is.

And please don't cite 1997/1998 - that situation won't repeat itself ...

I hope we win games early and get confidence and momentum, something we've not had since about 2006. If we do, perhaps we can finish about 10th. Can't go from second last to top 8 in a year IMO. That would be the stuff of Hollywood - and I don't believe in Hollywood.

I wish I was the age of a senior MFC player again, i.e. 23.

There's absolutely no way the club wants to lose Jones. Or that Jones wants to leave the club. I'm confident this will all work itself out.

He's the softest ranga to have ever played a game of AFL.

Thank you for this. He'll be a one club player. For the Demons.

Silly might be silly. But not all players move for silly. Some do, most don't or won't. And there are slightly unique reasons underlying Franklin's, Boyd's and Beams' silly offers/moves too. So, why do the silly offers only rarely does dislodge required players? Simple - most players want to be one club players. It's cultural. I suspect it's why most Army guys don't want to leave their platoon before their time - they want to be there for their mates. I always remain surprised that some of you don't seem to get what appears to be totally obvious to me. AFL is not an international code - it's all about club success - that's Everest in this game. And it's what many players growing up aspire to achieve in their careers - i.e. ultimate success over many years with one club. Simple. For most at least.

Loyalty is a two way street. If Jones is offered, say, $750k to go to Richmond and a similar amount to go to Carlton, and the Demons have $400k on the table for him - well, clearly no one with a sane mind would argue that he should recommit to a club that's not showing him sufficient respect. Any deal needs to be broadly commensurate with market value, especially if it's not an offer that's being pitched against a silly offer from a start up franchise. Surely this much is so obvious it need not be repeatedly stated.

Dead set. Is this necessary?

I don't believe it. Many here assure me the 'one club player' thing doesn't exist anymore.

I now love the Prince.

Great post Demanding Success - thank you.

I'm confident he'll remain a Dee for life. And that the Dees will look after him. Perhaps the club is presently a bit tetchy because it's trying to build a war chest to secure a big name at the end of 2015. This shouldn't impact upon what Jones deserves though.

Howe is very much a required player IMO.

In a trade for an established player, eg, Judd, Dangerfield etc. I wasn't talking about what the pick gets in the national draft.

I think most players still aspire to being 'one club' players. That there's now more movement reflects the changes to the drafting and trading regime over the years IMO.

Big money offers have been on the table since the 80s. A player's loyalty settings remain the same as they always have been. The modern day Robbie Flower would be as loyal now as he was then. Tom Scully would have done just as Gerard Healy did, albeit 20 years earlier. Not all people are built the same way.

Nope - he actually strikes me as genuinely loyal. Would be really surprised if Howe were to leave the Dees (assuming a commensurate deal was on the table for him to stay).

Speaking to a few of the GWS assistant coaches following our loss to them in Sydney last year, they all said that the only Demons player they actually rated was James Frawley. Personally, I would have liked to see him genuinely commit to the club and show some leadership as a club leader. I'm not convinced he did that. If he did this, there's no way I would have preferred pick 3. That he did not, suggests to me that pick 3 is pretty bloody good compensation for a player who's not been AA for several years now. Pick 3 generally gets an AA standard player.

Loyalty is relevant in any workplace IMO. Those here who don't seem to get this probably haven't been missed all that much by their former employer/former work colleagues each time they've changed jobs. That said, loyalty without good performance does not work anywhere. If he's clearly not performing, as in all work places, something needs to be done. I have no problem with that. But the employer/club still has a duty of care to ensure that it's handled appropriately, fairly and sensitively in the circumstances. In short, I would hope/expect the club is being absolutely transparent and fair in its dealings with Evans, and that, assuming no character issues, it will assist Evans to get to another club should the opportunity avail itself. I would hope they would look after him financially, as they would be contractually obliged to do in the circumstances. As an aside, I was firmly in the camp that thought Evans would be a really good footballer for us. This was perhaps influenced by what Cameron Schwab told me about Evans at a Debt Demolition Dinner a few years ago - he said the club thought he was going to be a gun and West Coast were really into him. Also, I regard this 'footy is a business' slant that some here relentlessly champion as so bloody obvious and boring that it really needs not be said. AFL's a performance-based industry - in fact even amateur based sporting competitions are. Everyone knows this, including, relevantly, the players - their performances are relentlessly dissected at all times, and this has always been the case. It also conveniently overlooks the intangibles that make footy so much more compelling than monitoring the performance of, say, ANZ through watching its share price fluctuate on any given day. Loyalty to club is IMO still absolutely relevant - just ask a decent Geelong player about this. Tom Scully wasn't the first player approached by GWS for the $6M/6 year marquee deal. As to Trengove, well - I don't quite know what to think about his situation. Bit disappointed on the whole.

He may not last until the rookie draft. Would he be worth picking up in the national draft?

Assuming JT is placed on the long term injury list, and we rookie list Tapscott, then I assume we can simply elevate Tapscott virtually immediately such that he is effectively on the senior list for much of the year. Am I right in thinking this?

Perhaps we should've traded our pick 2 for pick 7 ...

Out of interest, anyone here still wish we had Frawley instead of pick 3?