daisycutter

Like Johnson and Brock? I don't think players (esp of that standard) get guaranteed spots But I agree Warnock will have his ear to the ground and would probably take a better offer

How about Warnock for Warnock? I'd sign off on that

now thats what I call a good rumour . . . if I only could guess who was involved, hmmmm

I can only find 4 I'd rate as "good" - DAVEY, GREEN, JURRAH and SYLVIA Its a major problem if we want to be a contender

For me, this is not a debate about whether it (whatever it is) should be legal I was getting sick of people making excuses for other people who make bad choices and illegal choices (and not just once) Arguing it should be illegal or not is avoiding the issue of personal choice and responsibily and consequences This situation IMHO is not the appropriate place for this argument Just my opinion

Thats silly. If it is illegal then it is illegal, you can't think beyond that! Regardless of whether you (or me) think it should be illegal or not it is, and until people are prepared to face the consequences of their actions and accept some responsibility, we will keep seeing people potentially wreck their careers or lives. Standing on your soap-box is not going to help anyone

Yeah, just done some research (apologies to those who know this) Firstly Jack Viney's birthday is 13.4.94 (incidentally at June 2009 he was 164cm and 69Kg, obviously already bigger by now) So, he is 16 this year 17 in 2011 year (and before April 30) and 18 in 2012 OLD DRAFT TILL 2008 Players had to be at least 17 by April 30 in year of draft (e.g. hence Watts) DRAFT SINCE 2009 4 months added to min age, so that now must 18 by Dec 31 in year of draft This is a permanent change and nothing to do with new franchises SPECIAL TEMPORARY RULES for GC17 and GWS Starting from 2009 Draft players who reach 17 in the 4 months of Jan thru April of the draft year can be selected There are varopus separate rules for GWS and GC17 but I won't go into the details here PROPOSED SPECIAL RULE for GWS (NOT APPROVED YET BY AFL) Allow GWS to select 4 17 year olds (turning 17 in Jan thru April) to be selected in 2011 Draft. They must then be traded the next year to the highest bidders. So, 1. Jack not eligible for Drafting (normally) till 2012 when he turns 18 2. His status unclear re Proposed Special GWS Rule. He does fit into the age 17 by April 30 bracket in 2011 Can't see it happening as it would bypass the Father Son rules, but lets wait for AFL clarification

Good response Blistering There is no "proof" that such a consideration has ever been acted on by the MFC. I wonder where this opinion has come from. Has any official said such - not that I've heard. Also some posters are saying that Miller and Bell have signed a waiver re injury/compensation. Again I haven't seen any proof of this so therefore I will assume that as they are still contracted till October the terms of their contracts still apply Players such as Miller etc also have future income prospects which may be influenced by playing well in the VFL final series. If they were prevented from playing purely for injury risk reasons this might be construed as a "restriction of trade" as after all they still have a contract to play football (with either the MFC seniors or its designated affliate "seconds") - food for thought??

Jack, I might be wrong, but I seem to remember a thread recently on this subject which implied he would be available in the 2011 Draft by his birthday just falling into the range. He would be in the "younger age" category which is not compromised in 2011. May have got this wrong but someone here probably knows the correct rules, date cutoffs, birthdays etc

I understand what you are saying, but being a bit nitpicky I don't fully agree that statement is accurate. They are employed to play for the MFC or its affiliate (being CSFC currently) Maybe more accurate if you had said "they are employed to play for the mfc and csfc by the mfc not csfc" Whilst I understand it, I can't say I'm fully happy with that attitude re the alignment (if in fact it is acted upon), it just doesn't sit quite right with me in a partnership of mutual benefit. Leaves a bit of a sour taste and smacks of big brother. Anyway in the case of Newton and PJ it seems the reasons are injury based not financial Didn't mean to be critical of your post, just feel a bit frustrated if that consideration were to be acted on

Thanks for explanation Yokozuna

thanks SD

It also states in same article that all players are given a score each round, so how come Cheney has 0 from two games?

Turns out he finished 24th, not in top 22! And after full 22 games. He'd be disappointed in that especially as votes were awarded by FD, maybe suggesting he didn't follow instructions I certainly thought he would have polled better Lends some support of that other rumour . . . . ?

I have heard that before about the injury cost exposure. Seems a pity but money is money I suppose. If that is true then the club must have told them their time is up but not publicly, . . . or . . . there is another reason . . . injured, not selected on form (doubtful), some VFL player limits applying etc Would like to know

How are votes given? No of voters Value of votes No of players per voter

If Newton and PJ have been told their contracts are not being renewed it would be public by now I thought contracts went October to October (in part to avoid issues like this) Don't think rule is 12/10. Thought it was something like 7 VFL min, 12 max AFL Plus some limit on total AFL list players, but not quite sure

Another link on afl.com

Interesting Jonesy plays all 22 games and doesn't make top 10 Anyone know where he finished?

Can't see the Goodes comparison Goodes is a monster with a big engine who can split packs Jurrah is more the silky thoroughbred type who tends to play with finesse in burst mode - not the workhorse type Thats not to say he couldn't have stints in midfield but more the occasional thing rather than fulltime

What is the specific rule stopping these two? I would have thought Newton at least would have min Casey games and not exceeded max AFL games

Someone has to ask it . . . . Where did Cameron the Bruce end up?

with Millsy moving on could this be the new Pia? Keep the good work up George, appreciate it

Hmmm . . . there must be a moral somewhere in there about viagra . . . it just eludes me at the moment Cuz must have been really stiff

Hope you weren't meaning the "I wouldn't have a clue" point