Nasher

I've just purged the thread. If you racially stereotype, expect your post and all ones after it to be deleted. Some may think racial stereotypes don't equal racism - well I think it does and will moderate accordingly, and this is not up for debate. Cheers.

Contracts are mostly about affording the player some security. Yes, they offer the club some security too, but at the end of the day you can't force the player to stay if he doesn't want to, you never have been able to and wouldn't want to anyway. So no, contracts are not worthless, nor are they worth anything less than they were in the past. I know you won't get it.

We used to have a Demonland/Demonology combined group which if I remember rightly was run by Whispering_Jack and George_on_the_outer, so those guys and others involved could probably comment on whether it's worthwhile as a group thing. They had a few functions where their sponsored player turned up too I think. Hasn't run for a few years now though.

They mean the same thing in my view.

Fail. It's Henry's face on the train, not Gordon's.

Brad Miller versus Ben Holland? Two flawed geniuses. How am I supposed to split them?

By that stellar logic, Toumpas has made the grade too then.

I've been groupthunk in to wanting Lever. Just putting this out there so when we don't draft him and he turns out to be a gun I can bleat about it repetitively, even though I actually have no idea about the juniors at all.

I have less problem with delisting a player a year in to a contract when he's a long way from best 22 and has regressed from a development point of view, than I do pulling a contract out from under a player who has just had an excellent season and the ink is still wet.I still don't like it, but it's a better option and the one I'd choose.

WJ my point is that if I were the player, any "guarantee" the club made me wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on, when it had only very recently "guaranteed" me a spot on the senior list. All trust would be broken. If they can backflip on the contract they can just as easily backflip on their promise to make him fully available at all times. There's just no mechanism to give him the same deal on the rookie list that he has on the senior list, he can only get a one year deal for a start. This is entirely a situation of the club's own doing, it's not some unforseen circumstance that has happened by luck. I don't see why Neville Jetta, who is clearly a best 22 player and has busted a nut to get there, should be the one to pay for the club's seemingly sloppy list management.

3, 2, and 4 and 1 equal in an "I really hope it doesn't come to that" scenario.

I get that you're proposing an "everything's the same just on a different list" deal, but I still think it's no way to treat a player by promising something to the point of having him sign for it, then backflip at the eleventh hour. And it's not exactly the same, anyway, if Jetta is on the rookie list, the club could on any whim backflip and decide not to make him eligible for senior selection. What if they decided to promote another rookie, or Trengove makes a miraculous recovery? Given that in this hypothetical situation the club had already backflipped once, I wouldn't trust them not to do it again. If I were the player and the club did that to me I would very much get my nose out of joint, and I'd be strongly considering my options (walking).

Yes.

He's been told he's in and he's signed a contract. You could probably ask, but you'd be screwing the player around and he'd be within his rights to tell you to go jump.

All good mate. When I saw the comment you replied to I could see it coming, it was just a matter of which P-nut brought it up

I think we should all have the same argument about Stefan Martin that we've all already had before, saying all the same stuff as we've all said before. What do you guys reckon? It really is like Groundhog Day on this forum sometimes!

Thanks for that, looking at the age spread and where our list is, I think it makes sense that we've taken this path. We've clearly taken Newton, Frost, (Michie) as players of an age right before they're due to become really good players. Hopefully they actually can, because if they do it should accelerate our improvement drastically. And as someone pointed out in the Newton thread, if these guys step up, it undoes some of the damage of the disastrous 2010 draft. Don't think I'll ever be able to not be nervous about filling our list with other clubs fringers and misfits, but there's probably a healthy dose of MFCSS driving that. As I said, interesting times. This will be a fascinating off period to reflect on no matter what happens. Poita has already put his view out there!

I'm talking specifically about fringe 22 players. I'm not talking about Mitch Clark leaving because it was all too hard at Melbourne, or Jono O'Rourke leaving for... whatever he left for. I'm talking about players outside the best 22 who are leaving for more games elsewhere, like Newton or Membrey. I wonder what might have happened had deals not been able to be brokered for Mitch Hallahan, Kyle Cheney, Luke Lowden or Viv Michie? I agree that the system has a number of undesirable outcomes, but I don't think this particular scenario is one of them.

The Blease scenario is different LDvC; we've given him the flick and therefore couldn't give a rats where he went. In the cases of Membrey and Newton, it was a case of the player saying "thanks but no thanks", not the club showing them the door.

The idea of free agency, according to the AFL, is to afford players not getting the opportunity at their current clubs to move to a club that does give them an opportunity. Now the RFA and UFA model will never achieve that because of the amount of time players have to wait - very few players survive on a list for 8 years (or whatever it is - sorry) without getting much opportunity. The only way the system works in this case is the DFA. Players who aren't getting an opportunity generally aren't going to whizz off to a strong team; that's just gambling with your own future because you couldn't be sure the new opportunity will be any better than the old one. The bottom line is these guys want to play; it's why Membrey is now at St. Kilda as a DFA and Newton is at Melbourne as a DFA. I don't mind this model because I think in 90% of cases, the player is going to choose a weak team; it would be counterproductive not to. I don't see why you have to force him to go to St. Kilda through the PSD. Realistically he's probably going to choose St. Kilda, Melbourne, Footscray or GWS anyway, and he ain't going to choose Hawthorn. You might as well give him the freedom.

If #3 turns out to be a gun, we'll be able to say that we got him as a bargain with our last live pick in the draft.

Pick 3 being our last live pick doesn't sit fantastically well with me I've got to say. I hope Newton and Frost add something long term to the club, as they are essentially our second and third round picks. Taking non-22 players from other clubs at the expense of the draft seems risky, though I accept that the draft is risky too. Interesting times.

Does it? The club losing the player did the right thing by him, at their own expense, when they didn't have to. I haven't given this any more than a second's thought so I'm open to you smacking me down with logic, but this is a case of the system working I think. And I reckon PAFC deserve some credit in their handling of this.

Same question for me. I hope we're picking up a best 22 mid, but honestly I have no idea whatsoever. I'm pleased as the club seems to be happy and Port fans seem miffed, but I'll keep the cartwheels on hold for now.

Anyway, the comment's gone now. Don't think we need to give this topic more oxygen than it already has.