Left Field

Without paying out existing contracts (terrible practise) isn't it likely that we will run out of slots on the primary list? Rookie prospect only for mine if he falls far enough.

Announced on AFL.com.au http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-27/mccartney-finds-new-home BTW well done Kurt....

Funny. But no to Robinson.

OK I'll go out on a limb. I'd offer him a 1 year contract with a one year option. He is probably only depth but plays a reasonable defensive inside midfielder role which Roos seems to like. Can gather lots of possessions as the 3rd (untagged) mid, runs ahead to offer an option and isn't as terrible as he seems by foot. He can also read the game. And donated (yes donated) $10k back to us when he didn't have to. I'd pay out Pickles and bring back Brock. Knock yourselves out.

I haven't seen enough of either of them to make a definitive judgement re toughness. At many good clubs, they may not have even debuted yet. And yet here we are discussing whether they are or are not scared.

OK with most of this - I guess we'll see in time. Only exception is the "resting ruck" in the forward line. Gawn and Fitzpatrick maybe (but only just). Spencer or Jamar should only ever rest on the bench. Roos doesn't seem to like the defensive liability of a lumbering ruckman deep forward when the ball turns over. It seems to me that he often looks for other mis-matches in that part of the ground.

Yeah I know it's a bit statement. From my perspwective, I expect he will return to play medium forward rotating through the middle once Roos determines that his defensive efforts are good enough (they were not). He has added intercept play to his game whilst back (which will be even more useful all over the ground later). He has great hands (above his head and below his knees) and covers the ground well. Maybe lacks explosive speed but offsets that by reading the game faster than most. His disposal efficiency/total metres gained will benefit from having more targets to got to once the game plan "gells" consistently. I'm more than happy to revist this statement as we go along. I would not have taken GWS' pick 6 for him (I would have tried really hard to get their attention with a JW combo instead).

Anyone knocking Howe on this thread really has no idea about football. Jeremy Howe is the most exciting player on our list - he certainly has more ability than the others. And by the end of his career will be lauded a a multi-dimensional A Grader.

I'm not sure any of these trades will have much impact in 2015 and beyond. Lamumba might release Howe forward and he has probably got a starting spot for the next two years at the Dees. Clark might or might not play. Certainly a bloke his size who plays the way he does is inviting injury. Varcoe - not sure how he fits in Collingwood's best 22. Half back? Defensive small forward? ZZZzzzz.

I have felt this for some time. It's going to be Coniglio plus an exchange.

I'm OK with trading former high picks that, for whatever reason, haven't produced at the expected level. I love Trenners as a Bartel type, but being honest, how would Jimmy have gone if he had been drafted by us? And if not productive as a mid/forward threat then what is he exactly? I am not a fan of the wide-eyed enthusiasm for any single player - especially when we have zero players featuring in the media top 50 players in the AFL. Be ruthless and win. Or be tame and try to improve in slow increments. I vote the former.

I'd rather give the dogs 3, let them send Griffen to GWS and get Shiel and Frost as a package. I'd even think about doing that with 2, given Brayshaw would then probably still be there at 3.

Statistics can be bent anyway you like BB. Fact is, we had so few inside 50's because we could not hit the side of a barn under pressure from the backline or through the middle. Some see this, simplistically, as an overly defensive game plan. I however see it as shocking skills that continued to gift the ball back to the opposition when most had made the commitment to run into an attacking structure. Only to be burned on the turnover. EDIT from here. Sammy is a reciever who would have been caught in no mans land playing in this scenario.

What a wonderful, humble champion Robbie was. Never wearied by playing in losing sides and never stopped being a brilliant team member. Never took a short cut to easy success. Humility and a champion.

Wow. Didn't see that coming. Blindsided. Will happily boo you forever Chippie.

Any chance we could switch that trade for Matthew Stokes + a pick swap?

Melbourne....J Trengove....0 votes. At least one of them hung fat. Where is BP today?

Another angle (although this is a stretch) is that PJ is building a siege mentality across all levels of the club. It's "not only us against the other teams but its us against the whole system" kind of thing. Maybe it's a forward shot for next year if we don't bounce off the canvass. "Surely you cannot knock us back now". But I agree it's most likely to shore up Pick 3 for Frawley.

I had one once that was signed and then had letters representing "x (n) finals for (4) y (n) premierships". Like 17410 or something like that. Can't remember the exact sequence.

Abolish the rule forever. Could not possibly have a candidate at any point in the future unless they have already folded.

Sloane would be the better get. Younger, less question marks about his body and less of a dill. * Edit. Just looked it up - both the same age. Still prefer Sloane.

You know we are only going to get a fair hearing followed by a first class hanging. My point earlier has not been made well so I am going to have another go. I would accept assistance but not petition for it. I don't care about the AFL industry, but it's the messages we send inwardly (to our list, our board, our sponsors, our members and supporters) that bothers me. Let's use our misfortune as motivation - a classic case of the old "pull together tightly and stick it up them all". "Play like Demons" was the cataylst for our last sustained period of premiership success. It wasn't short cuts that may have lingering cultural effects. I'm leaving this alone now :-)

I agree Macca but the AFL line will be that the northern teams represent a long term investment in growing the game and growing revenue. They seem to want four main things: An 18 team comp to maximise TV rights revenue A true national footprint which protects the game in a sense from those that do not have a true national presence. i.e. all other codes A live game every week in each major capital city A local derby twice/year in each city to drive up cross town rivalry and drive up attendances. Melbourne will get a better draw when they consider that we won't kill their TV ratings (especially in prime time) with our terrible performances. I guess when our competitiveness returns, we will probably also warrant more games against the bigger drawing clubs. Honestly, if they want to throw cash and draft picks at us then OK, I'd probably take them. But my concern is a reliance on handouts versus developing ourselves from within. I'd prefer the latter (even if its slower) because it will build a truly viable club. But I seem to be on my own in that view.

But Jack the AFL assisted us last year, parachuting in Jackson (who landed Roos) and Bartlett (jury still out with me). We are effectively AFL run at the moment. Then they also gave us extra funding (just shy of $2m from memory) to reshape get out of various long terms commitments. Naturally, Jackson will ask for further assistance but with a full book of sponsors now, continuing FH support and solid memberships (considering) we have less grounds. Sure the Clark/Frawley situations are bad and we'd like to pay full cap and have full FD spending, but at what point should we just suck it up and dig ourselves out of the hole?

To set goals and assess overall organizational health, I have always used the Balanced Scorecard approach. Without the mumbo-jumbo, it is just a way of ensuring that strategy and performance are not measured against a single dimension (for businesses this is financial performance; for footy I'd suggest this is win/loss). As EH points out subsequently, they had played in a GF as recently as 2007, and actually won the comp a few years earlier. They should have gotten a new wave of supporters and members from their prior 10 years performance*. But their memberships and attendances had dropped off a cliff and their financial performance suffered badly. They had a carp stadium deal and were routinely getting 20,000 people to their matches including opposition supporters (heartland of Port BTW - probably would have impacted the Crows worse on balance). They were also struggling for sponsors and lost multi-millions in the previous season. So basically they were a train wreck. Overall, were they slightly better than us or slightly worse? Does it really matter. Right now they are much better off than we are. That was/is my main point. * not having won a flag for 50 years, losing new supporters to successful teams, is probably the single biggest reason why Melbourne is a small club.