Bonkers

The way I see it is that all 3 parties have now discussed the potential for a trade in the media. They are slowly softening the blow to the fans in Adelaide that he is leaving. I would assume that the deal has been approved in principle by both clubs. There is no other reason for strategic leaking of information like this, if Adelaide weren't open to trading him they would deny any rumour of a trade. It's now up to PD to decide whether he would like to come to the MFC & for the MFC to convince him as GNF has mentioned already. Perhaps this is going to be played out in the media much the same as Roos did when he decided to coach the MFC. That's my take anyway.

From what I'd heard his wife became pregnant during the alleged doping regime. That's one of the reasons he has requested a trade as he is ticked off that it may effect his child's health. So from that I'd presume he is one of the 34.

Roos seemed to manage ok without getting a star like Dangerfield to Sydney, admittedly he had some pretty handy players like goodes already. No point selling the farm for one player that blows out your entire trade period. If Dangerfield is available for a decent price all well & good.

Ok. I'm just of the opinion of not paying overs for anyone when there are other deals possibly available such as the Tyson trade last year. I'd rather use the picks for other options & cover more holes in the list than what you were proposing. I most likely wouldn't offer anything more than pick 3, a player & a pick not in the first round.

If Danger doesn't want to come back to Victoria there is no point discussing the trade as you would be paying overs for someone who doesn't want to be here anyway. The bargaining chip is that he wants to come home, this reduces the price you have to pay. If he doesn't there is no pressure for Adelaide to deal & the deal is off.

There isn't that much difference, PD wants to come back to Victoria & Adelaide are bent over a barrel as they will only recieve one pick next year if he leaves under free agency. What is another club going to offer for Dangerfield that trumps our offer? That is the real question. Work the deal backwards from there & only offer what you have to give.

Comparing that trade to the Judd trade & we'd be paying massive overs. For those who need a reminder, the entire package was Judd and draft pick No. 46 (which became Dennis Armfield), in exchange for Kennedy, pick No. 3 (Chris Masten) and pick No. 20 (Tony Notte).Toumpas could still become a superstar of the game as well as pick 2 & 3. Your giving up 3 potential superstars for one. Pick 10 you might get something out of but it's no gaurantee. Considering Adelaide can lose him for nothing next year & he's not as good as Chris Judd I'd say that offer is in favour of Adelaide by a long way. I guess it doesn't matter anyway as it's likely it won't happen.

That's what I was presuming. We'd be better off offering a low value pick than attain Gwilt via free agency. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Out Clisby in Gwilt via PSD. That's a win for mine if that occurs.

1) every player is tradeable if it improves the list, I think it is exactly that scenario. 2) the price paid for acquisition of a player will not be detrimental to the long term future. Older players being brought in for now will be low value picks or trades. We aren't losing in that scenario. As long as the price being paid is at market or below market trade price for these players I see no issue.

If that's the case then he isn't fit to play for any club. Those are the pressures of team sport & being in the AFL. From my perspective this is being played to Mitch Clarks agenda. I had my doubts about his motives when he retired that he would make a return to another club. That is exactly what will happen.I'll be happy to eat humble pie if Mitch proves a lot of people wrong & stays at the club. The writing is on the wall though & he is well & truly shafting the club at the monent. He has no loyalty other than to himself & his wallet. When you have his fkhead manager coming out in the media saying that he's done us a favour by giving us a list spot & taking a payment you know that the club is being screwed. I'd be happy if the club played hardball & forced him to enter the draft rather than accepting a trade.

Living in the outer south eastern suburbs I disagree. Whilst I'm a MFC member a lot of my friends are Hawthorn supporters. There's two reasons for that. One is that Hawthorn were smart enough to target market to the sth east whilst it was a booming area in the 80s & 90s. The other was that they were a good side in that period. There's nothing wrong with targeting a growing area as long as you have a product to market. The club needs to fix the product for people to engage with the club. Another issue not related to your post but I'll just mention it anyway. The club has signed a 30 yr agreement & now people want the club to walk away from it. What sort of a partnership is it that you commit long term & as soon as it doesn't suit you, you pull out? The club would be better off digging in, helping the Scorps out if possible & giving back to the community they supposedly want to engage with & have a presence in. The club needs to decide whether they are in or out & look to give rather than thinking it's all about taking & what they can get out of the arrangement. If you want to build something you have to invest in it. How much is the club really willing to invest in the area? It's almost like they are having a bet each way. Perhaps the MFC can arrange to have representitives placed on the board of the scorpions in exchange for some minor financial relief. That's just one idea & I'm sure there could be others that may make the arrangement work. If the arrangement with the Scorps is unworkable due to the financial & admin side then I'd personally like to see if the club could field a reserve side in casey still under their own banner. I guess that is coming from a somewhat biased viewpoint. I just believe there is a better chance of growing supporter numbers by focusing on a growing young population than to focus on somewhere like Melbourne Uni where the market is more international students etc & not grassroots supporters.

I thought his 3rd quarter was good. I believe he won quite a few centre clearances which helped build some momentum for Casey in the 3rd qtr.

With a rigged fixture for attendances & TV consumption, corrupt administrators of the game as well as certain clubs, the tanking fiasco & systematic doping system at Essendon, draft consessions to start up teams & the overall thirst of the AFL for the almighty dollar it's no wonder people are beginning to see the AFL for what it really is.

I am curious as to why he would be named in the side to play hawthorn if he's injured as Barrett has reported.

From what PJ was saying when he was appointed last year, the club had around 10,000 or more members that didn't sign up from the previous year. It would be interesting to see what the clubs strategy is in regards to getting these people to join up again. It would go a long way to us reaching 40,000 members.

Without the tanking fiasco & sackings in the FD, the club would have lost 400k. Its not such a bad figure considering the year we had. As Jackson has already stated we should be in the black next year.

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/29752-grant-thomas-on-mark-neeld/

Melbourne turns to meditation under Roos Stumbled across this article. I didn't think it would be long before Roos would introduce meditation to the players. I'd be interested to hear other peoples thoughts on the topic. Personally I think the mental side of the game is extremely important & if this can help some of the players then I'm not against it. It has been successful in the NBA for Phil Jackson as well as Roos at the Swans so there is a record of it being beneficial.

I'm not really sure if this is true. According to hannebery's profile on the Sydney website he weighs 81kg @ 1.82m tall. Salem is already as heavy & tall so I'd expect him to put more size on. Salem also averages 5 tackles per game at TAC cup level so he does have a physical side to his game to build on at AFL level that may see him become a similar style player with better disposal.

Beat me to it.

Just having a quick look at their financials. They have current assets of $1.1Billion & Liabilities of $900 million. With a profit of around 72-3 million. Turnover of $4.27billion. I'm guessing their profit margins & debt were pretty tight during the 2007-08/GFC period, but that is pure speculation on my part. As we know many companies were squeezed during that time so that would be my guess.

It's public knowledge now that Magner was pi55ed with the club & said as such to the herald sun about how he was handled last year by Neeld & the coaches. If it happened to Magner I'm sure he wasn't the only one. Why do you have to blindly defend the club? They weren't, aren't & never will be a perfect organisation. This is a forum where people are entitled to voice there opinions or things they have heard etc. Your blind faith or one sidedness only diminishes your credibility IMO. I'm appreciative that you make posts about training etc & you have some good info to pass on about players you talk to, but you could be a little bit more objective when others have an opinion that doesn't match your own.

Hi Sue, On the AHG website a large portion of the website is made up of car sales, service, parts & care through an online interface. I'd say that they are looking to build their online profile & sales by targeting the everyday consumer through online sales/bookings as well as just looking to build the overall profile/brand of their business.

Don't know if there's much point discussing this yet as we don't know if they will become the sponsor. Do you consider their profit pretty small considering their revenue is so high? Are they servicing a large debt?