Vipercrunch

My new favourite term for being fat.

Our decision whether we head to court should depend on what evidence the AFL have and what they intend to do with it. IF solid evidence exists that show beyond doubt that we "list managed" with the main purpose of losing games for better draft picks, then no court in the land will help us. IMO the "new, tough" Melbourne that I hope we now have would be far better served taking their medicine, putting their heads down and working through it. The is no use pointing the finger at other clubs about it like little kids either. The Ox sums up my thoughts exactly Schwarz, who played 173 games with the Dees, fears a heavy sanction could pose a serious threat to the club's future. "I, like anyone, hope it goes away, but something might come of it," Schwarz said. "Whatever it is, you just hope it doesn't hurt or cripple the club. That said, if individuals have done the wrong thing, then they have got to be held accountable." On the other hand IF the leaks so far is all there is (tongue in cheek comments etc etc) then I doubt the AFL will try to pursue it too far any way. There will be a bit of to and fro about it to ensure the case is seen to have run its course then it will be over. FYI - the rule in question is. "A person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match - or in relation to any aspect of the match, for any reason whatsoever.'' - AFL Regulations 19(A5)

My hope for next year is whatever Greg Denham says would make him admit he has totally mis-read what is happening at the MFC at the moment PLUS some. Given his rants i wouls say anything above 6-7 wins would force him to eat his words. My expectation is 8-10 wins and no losses >75 points.

I've always liked what I've seen of Rodan from a distance, both on and off the field. Can't understand why he wasn't played more at Richmond or Power. Glad to have him on board. Seems a good person.

Sad to see him go. The treatment always sounded like a long shot. Any one else pick up the error in the article? Nice one Jon Ralph... "It will strip yet more valuable experience from the Demons list, with Brock McLean and Jared Rivers - the club's top-two finishers in the best-and-fairest in 2011 - already leaving the club as free agents." And please DO NOT give number 3 to one of our first year players. Make them earn it FFS!!!!!

A poor policy that was made even worse by poor implementation. Lame joke though. There will be much better ones coming our way I'm sure.

From the things I know him to have done, he is doing well. It is the things that some have alleged him to have done or been involved with that makes this poll premature imo. Until the investigation is over and we learn IF he was involved with tanking and if so, how much, then I can't answer.

OK List management, experimentation, resting players, blooding the youth etc etc NOT CARING if you win or lose to better your chances at winning your next premiership. More than acceptable behaviour that occurs when a clubs realises it is not in contention for the current season. NOT OK List management, experimentation, resting players, blooding the youth etc etc specifically so you DO NOT WIN to better your draft position. I belive the AFL will continue to accept if clubs stop caring if they win or lose in the later rounds of the season, but will be very harsh when a team becomes motivated to deliberalty lose.

We are getting crucified becuase there is evidence that we conspired and plotted to lose games. To suggest that other clubs would get away with it if similar evidence surfaced is ludicrous. All the big name journos would love to be the first ones that published evidence agaisnt ANY club that did this. We were wrong to think tanking would benefit our club and we appear to have done it in a completely arrogant and stupid way. Re-inforcing the policy to lose games at meetings of 10+ FD members? Threatning peoples jobs if we won too many games? IF thats how it went down then it is laughable.

Excellent Post!!! Summed up my thoughts excatly. On a side note, stop playing the victim guys. The press is after us because if the reports are true we behaved disgracefully. However The Age is getting their information (questions must be asked!) they are running the stories because they paint a picture of a totally deluded club. We far, far over estimated the value of a piority pick and far, far under estimated the damge to our club contriving to lose would cause. Reporters will continue to sink the boots in until this matter is resolved, we are punished as we deserve and we show some guts and determination to fight our way back into a club that deserves their repect.

Heres my take... IF our motivation to experiment, rest, etc etc was to lose games to better our draft choces then we tanked and deserve to be punished. In my little world it's as simple as that. No if's and buts. We cheated and deserve sanctions. Very hard to prove, but if there was this meeting as reported and there was instruction to lose games then IMO we cheated.

PLEASE, PLEASE don't give any of the new young players numbers of significance. Give them all high numbers and give them time to earn a number of significance. If we give Viney 31, Hogan 5 etc etc then it shows we have learnt NOTHING and will continue to be crap.

Who cares? If anything those ratings reflect far more heavily on our wasted early picks in the past and failures to develop than this trade period.

Very different circumstances. No one at the MFC (and I doubt any supporters) wanted to lose Thompson. Everyone knew how good he was and that he was only going to get better. Every other club would have wanted him if he were on the open market. The Gysbert's deal was done at the 11th hour of a three week trade period. There was only passing interest in him from a very few other clubs. IF he turns out to be a real player, there are many AFL judges out there who got it wrong.

A lot of disgruntled supporters out there today who need a little perspective. Our FD are making decisions based on what they have seen day to day over the last 12 months. Note that they inherited most of our list. The "cost" (ie pick number) of all our players is completely meaningless. They either can play and train as demanded or they can't. Players that we have allowed to leave (Rivers and Beamer) and that we are now trading away for peanuts have obviously been deemed by the FD to be unrequired. Our draft position was set up very early in the trade period. We locked in Viney and Barry (while securing for the future with Hogan) and made it clear Pick 4 was untouchable. We still need to draft one more and as it stands Pick 49ish is our next best. I am sure the FD would love to improve that pick, but they and everyone else knows that guys than are unrequired won't help us out in that regard. Gysberts, Morton and Cook, despite what position we drafted them into the club with are not worth a pick better than 49. That is the crux of it all. So what we are doing is helping them get to the club they want or using them to get players the FD want/need. Morton wanted to go to WCE so we let him go there for effectively nothing. Why? Because its good business. Players like it. Gysberts felt wanted by North and we could use him to get Pederson, who the FD obviously wanted. No one wants Cook enough to fill out the paperwork, but he may get a 2nd chance through other means. Summary: We are trading IN players the FD want and trading OUT players the FD doesn't want/like. We are trading with currency (Picks) that hold ZERO value to us. I feel there does need to be some explanation as to why the FD see value in the players we have traded in and that will probably come in the days/weeks after the trade period is over.

I'm cheering. Bring on the pre-season training reports, NAB Cup then the real thing with a far more capable squad.

This is the first trade I'm a bit iffy on. Not sure of the need to get Pederson in and positive we (or Gysberts himself) didn't get the most out of Gysberts. Time will tell on this one. On 2012 form, its basically two VFL players changing places.

I don't think you have to any more.

This is no over correction. We have already secured Viney, Barry and Hogan. We will use pick 4 on another 17/18 year old and at least one more. Thats 4 kids coming into the club. We have lost two oldies - Maloney and Rivers and brought two in - Rodan and Byrnes. We have also brought in mid aged with Dawes and may still get Pederson. We will be losing several of similar age when the dust settles with the long list yet to get contacts. I feel the club is doing very well with this. We lose some players that haven't made the mark and bring in guys with proven attitudes. Our depth should be very good next year. Great competetion for spots. The key now is development of our younger players (WE MUST GET THIS RIGHT!!!) and keeping the injury list short.

Happy with this. I had a feeling he would be on the radar when he got the flick from Port. Every time I saw him in 2012 I thought he was pretty good. Gets his own ball and then finds space. At the very least he adds depth, but could be more than that.

We've already recruited 2 for the role he played for the 2nd half of last season. Dawes for now and Hogan for the future. He's role as a defender was already covered which is why he moved forward. Good player for us, but wouldn't be critical for our next 5 years. FA is ideal for situations like this.

I very rarely listen to SEN between 9-12 unless there is a story breaking. Switch to FM for 3 hours and listen to that Gangnam song a couple of hundred times. Will be much more beneficial to your happiness and wellbeing than KB and his brainless "experts".

I'm bullish about Gumbleton. He dropped off a bit late in the year but I thought he moves pretty well and could take a good mark. The question will always remain about his back but I wouldn't be surprised at all if he turns out pretty good, whoever he ends up playing for.

+ Trenners to that base too.

I think I noticed a pattern. First he typed something. Then he pressed Enter. Twice. Then he typed something else. Then he again pressed Enter. Twice. Then he did it again. Not only was what he said funny. The way he said it. Was. Funny. Too.