Nasher

I'll put my hand up as saying I don't think depth or competition for positions are very important. I'll also say that those things are independent of Rivers; I believe he's still best 22. Rivers hasn't exactly missed much footy on the back of McDonald being in the side this year, so I don't see why next year would be any different.

I don't know about an absolute "can't afford it", old dee. That's for the bean counters to decide. It's more about the cost justifying the problem it solves - I don't see there as being much of a problem to solve so I doubt it will.

The bye issue is one that needs to be worked through, but it's not terminal. Other than that, I can't see what's wrong with the current arrangement, I think it works pretty well. We've got a pretty big influence over what's happening at Casey and by the looks of it, their club is benefiting from it as well. They have access to our army of coaches for a start. If we're only one of several (or the only) team with a VFL alignment then it also might become easier for the VFL to schedule byes and breaks that line up with the AFL byes and breaks. LIke rpfc and diesel, I don't think we need to be sheep on this issue. Do what's best for the MFC; and I wouldn't be surprised if retaining the Casey/VFL alignment didn't prove to be the most cost effective solution for us, even if it's not the case for all the other Vic sides.

Rounds out what could only be considered an absolute disaster of a season for that particular player. RR, 30 isn't what I'd call a high draft pick.

Same here. Last three rounds can't come quick enough. Don't know that I can bring myself to watch the finals this year either, though I've become a pseudo-Sydney supporter in the last month or two.

Exactly. The Collingwood "rivalry" has reduced in relevance to the point where I reckon it's almost embarrassing. A one way rivalry isn't a rivalry.

Yep. It was everyone. Everyone except for, well... everyone. Seriously, who wanted that other than a handful of nitwits?

Exactly, the wording implies he left us high and dry, when in all likelihood it was an amicable parting.

What the heck does any of that have to do with Lawrence? He was drafted for a mandatory two years and wouldn't have been retained anyway.

Reports of his severe home sickness were coming out of the club since day 1. Well done for sticking it out (mostly) for the duration of your commitment. Top level footy isn't for everyone.

Do you deliberately misrepresent people's views, or do you just not understand what people are saying most of the time?

I must admit I didn't see today's game, but what does Dunn offer in the back-line that makes him keepable? In my mind based on observations in recent weeks, once we've got a fullish side to choose from he'd be competing with Joel Macdonald for the one spot. Maybe I'm being blindsided by my own prejudice, but I don't know that I could ever fully trust Dunn to compete 100% all the time; I don't feel the same way about Macdonald although obviously he's NQR in his own way (i.e. average disposal and one every eight games or so he'll outdo himself for genuinely terrible performances). Still feels like choosing between a turd salad and a turd sandwich. Dunn's strung a few good games together; well and good; he did that once before and followed it up with a year and a half of complete cow-pat. It'd take a lot to convince me that he's worth keeping.

I just meant that the panic stations is just coming (as always) from a few nuffies on the periphery and I reckon all clubs have members who flip their wig over nothing. You seemed to be suggesting otherwise. Anyway, small fry issue. I agree that he's still in the "could be" rather than "is" basket.

A handful of posters wetting themselves about whether we'll keep him is hardly "panic stations at Melbourne".

Barry Prendergast was on record in saying that he believed the FD were playing Jetta in the wrong position, and that he thought he viewed Jetta as an inside midfielder. I guess that somewhat supports what you're saying.

For me it's never been a question of what he offers. He offers guts, aggression and hard work. The question's always been is having better than most G&D, but without speed, size or class, enough? I think that it is, at least in the current climate.

The club who holds the contract has to agree! Why would the MFC agree?

It's a pretty flimsy thing to base your view off though. I work in a trading office, and if our blokes traded purely on the back of what their rivals said - well, I wouldn't have a trading office to work at anymore. What would happen to your view if the chief recruiter at Sydney then piped up and goes "no way, we wouldn't touch him with a barge pole"? We (the club) form our own view of Gysberts, and we're better positioned than any other club to do so because we watch him at training, we have all his test results and measurements, and we initimately know what he can do. My gut feel is that the club will close the door on him, but that's just gut feel - the club will know whether it can solve Gysberts problems or not. I'm not sure why you have taken it as a given that his fitness problem can be solved; there's the possibility it can't and it's not remote. What I do know though is that it will not pay one iota of attention to whatever noises Stephen Wells makes.

I am. The biggest question mark has got to be whether he actually can build up the required fitness, especially when he's spent so much of his career injured (bad lack of broken jaw notwithstanding). I reckon he's further behind schedule than you seem to think.

By the way Bail was brought straight in to the side when he finally passed the concussion test, I'd say Neeld is a fan. I'm surprised he's rushing to sign Spencer, but as I've said before he's aggressive and has a dip; perhaps in the current environment that's enough - Bail probably falls under that banner too. No mention of Fitzpatrick either.

Poor Lynden

Well said. The invention of rules is what irks me more than anything else.

Exactly sue. The number of people on this site who don't understand the difference between a reason and an excuse has been a bugbear of mine for years.

I doubt anyone needs a reminder that our captains are just babies, but this point really drives it home. Especially when in my mind Grimes is the "senior" captain but has played 5 less matches than his younger co-captain. Best of luck in your 50th Jack.

Malthouse also imported a heap of senior players in his next year like Shane Wakelin, Andrew Williams, Chad Rintoul and so forth. Neeld will (or in my opinion, should) be looking to import senior players in a similar way where possible. There's definitely a lot of similarities between the two situations.