george_on_the_outer

The Saints are still in dire straits. $17.1 M in AFL distributions ( biggest amount outside GWS and GC ) A $5M grant to relocate to Moorabbin. (Then they've had to write off $4M or so on the Seaford venture, with probably more to come.) That accounts for their $1.1M "profit" this year. With a $3.2M commercial bill due to be repaid by the end of 2017.

We probably don't want a re-valuation on the Bentleigh club....yet. While we are the beneficiary of equalisation money from the AFL, it doesn't look good to be making a sizable profit, even though it is a paper one.

Agree, and the addition of Hibberd, Melksham and Lewis extend our list of capable players to well beyond number 30. So when the inevitable injuries occur, for the first time in a long, long time we won't be struggling with NQR players to fill the gap.

...and I guess this means Jobe won't get his Brownlow back?

Agree...another simply stellar result. PJ has completely turned this club around off the field. And his influence has done much the same on-field. It is still small steps, but a similar increase in sponsorship, gate receipts, and membership next year would just about wipe out any remaining debt. With the exciting list we now have, there is every reason to believe the supporters are returning. We have 5000 more members today than at the same time last year!

another memorable draft deal done by the Tigers comes to fruition: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-22/yarran-released-by-tigers-after-ongoing-mental-health-issues?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=RSS+feed%3A+AFL+Latest+News

It is important to remember that this hearing has nothing to do with the Essendon players, TB4 or anything else that Dank was supplying. It is about trafficking. To quote from the Age today: While he was cleared of three charges relating to administering the banned drug thymosin beta 4, the AFL anti-doping tribunal, under chairman David Jones, found to its comfortable satisfaction that he had sought to "traffick in [TB4], by selling, giving, transporting, sending, delivering and/or distributing to a third party or parties, namely the Essendon Football Club" between January 2012 and September 2012.

Other readers are not interested in the petty point-scoring that is occurring between posters. Stick to the subject

My bet is that Jobe will hand the Brownlow back before next week. That way 1. the AFL commission doesn't have to make a decision 2. Jobe becomes a martyr to the Essendon fans 3. Since the commission didn't make a decision to take it away, then Cotchin and Mitchell can't get the medal. ( will there be phone calls to Essendon from headquarters in the coming days?)

Good thinking.....done!

I've pinned It's Time's table to the top of the board. When I or other mods see any updated data we will amend.

The AFL will introduce this system when Collingwood have no prospect of making the finals under the current system.

Could find himself as Head coach next year......

Enough has been said about this subject. Locked

As Pennant said, get on to the club ASAP. The cheer squad often has spare seats as not everyone can get to Perth easily. Great group to sit with as well, because the locals struggle with the rules of the game...

Looking at Chris25's picks above, we can now see why the MFC traded away the 2016 future 1st rounder to get a forward in Weidemann (196cm) Of those 42 players only 2 are taller, Todd Marshall (197, forward) and Tim English ( 203, ruck), with Harrison McCreadie (196, defender) equal height. Really, really smart thinking by the Recruiting team.

Rookies don't cost as much as a senior listed player. When the Club elevates a rookie they have worked out he actually can play football, and is worthy of further financial investment. Last year there were 70 picks made in the main draft. The next pick is in the rookie draft i.e pick 71. So by that stage the difference in quality is minimal. Nothing lost.

Has been sufficiently discussed. Locked

There are no winners or losers at Trade period.! The trades that get done have 2 parties involved and both are agreeable to make the deal. Who is the loser? Who is the winner? Neither.......today. The unknowns are whether these trades are ultimately successful on the playing field next year. IF O'Meara plays 22 games then Hawthorn are a winner. If he can't get on the park then they are a loser. Richmond found that out last year with Yarran. The real point of interest are those clubs that don't trade. Port Adelaide being the standout this year. Unable to offload 2 good players in Lobbe and Hartlett, when other teams are throwing around multiple draft picks in exchange for meagre offerings. Even their salaries are a negotiable item, but Port were unable to do it. Why weren't Port involved in the Gibbs trade instead of Adelaide solely? Bring on season 2017......so we can see the proof of the pudding.......

Well the AFL have paid $200M today rather than waiting 9 years and paying $30! Where does the $200M come from?.....from money that could have been distributed to the clubs. Would $10M to each club today have solved a lot of problems? Certainly would have. If they think they can reduce the annual payments to St.Kilda, Bulldogs, North and yes... Carlton & Essendon then they are fooling themselves. While the Medallion club seats are not available for those clubs to sell as upgraded seating/memberships, then no further income will come to them. That is why the Bulldogs sold out of ALL their higher grade memberships within days. They only have a few bays on level 1 to sell. And who would pay extra to sit on level 3? The other concern is that the AFL is not a stadium manager. To protect the surface, events which previously held at the stadium and conflicted with football, will now be refused. So less income. A very real possibility of less money to tenant clubs, and definitely no money to all the other clubs. Sound like a great way to waste $200M to me.

Let us make it plain....You cannot post entire articles. It breaches copyright. Link to the article, and if people can't work out how to do that....bad luck. We do not want lawyers threatening to shut down the site.

1 player at pick 19 is not going to improve their situation one iota. But the reason for that pick is simply disgraceful, given our circumstances over the past 10 years, when we have been denied such largesse.