Nasher

No, that's too absolute. I think the system is fairer than any of the alternatives.

Is the net result not to cause us to pay fair value?

I thought you were suggesting reverting to the old system because I thought that you could not possibly be suggesting regulation because that idea is absurd - but it seems that you were. An "independant" assessment of a player's worth is, as I said in my previous post, asking for trouble. This system, while imperfect, makes some allowance for clubs to make its own judgement about a player's worth. Under your proposal, I think you'd see the worst of both worlds because the assessment is going to be imperfect - you'd get players whose values are over-valued and it would discourage clubs from taking this option, and you'd get players who were under-valued and you're back where you started with Ablett Jr, Scarlett and Hawkins going to Geelong basically for free. That we might "overpay" (I use this term very generously - really we're not overpaying, just not getting him cheap like some want) for Viney is byproduct of us being crap on the field. It's not because GWS are "tampering".

Jamar said in an interview recently that if there was a contract in front of him today he'd sign it. It's all just words of course, but I don't get the feeling he's looking for the nearest exit. I have no idea about Moloney's intentions, but I'd be surprised if he's seriously considering other opportunities.

You may notice I also said I thought it was perfectly within the spirit of the rule. Daisy, am I to presume that you are proposing we revert back to the old rule of clubs being able to just use their last pick on F/S picks then? Because that's the only solution I can see that doesn't introduce subjectivity, i.e. treating it on a case-by-case basis, which is just a recipe for disaster.

But this is exactly the scenario the current father son rule was designed to cater for - to prevent clubs from being able to pick up gun father son selections at rock bottom prices. If Viney is clearly rated as a top 10 pick, how is it "more fair" that we get him for 25? Let's be honest. Those who reckon this is draft tampering are just pissy because we might have to pay pick #3 or so for Viney. If it looked like we might finish 9th on the ladder all we'd hear is the sound of crickets.

The point of that rule is to force clubs to pay market worth for father sons. If GWS bid pick 1 and force us to use pick #3 (or whatever), then that's what they've done. Our choice is to take it or leave it, we're not forced or trapped in to doing anything. Not only is it legal within the rule, I think it's perfectly within the spirit of the rule.

What does this mean? It sounds like you want to leave him out because of his date of birth. Sure he's a long term prospect, but if he's playing up to scratch - which he currently is - then he's also a short term prospect. I'd feel very nervous about forecasting his omission next week.

It's not a false bid. They can quite easily be held accountable for it. If (when) we choose not to hold them accountable for it it's because we value Jack enough not to.

How would that be draft tampering?

Uhh... I would.

Nominations happen before the trade period, so no.

Had he been a VFL listed player I might agree with you, but he's not. The bottom line is he's ineligible to play in the AFL for four weeks - who cares whether the VFL happens to play or not during that time? It seems fair to me. Having to sit out 7 weeks of AFL football to serve a 4 match ban is what would've been BS. This site would be in meltdown if that happened to an MFC player. I'm glad the VFL tribunal showed a little bit of intelligence in this decision.

Read rpfc's post about why we won't have to pay Pick 1 under any circumstance, even if we had it.

Ahh, the old negotiate by media stunt. One of the most annoying aspects of professional sport.

He's not here. Let's not involve a guy who has not involved himself. Let sleeping dogs lie and all that.

And when someone does a knee in the first minute of the game?

That's a question we can only speculate on without knowing the dynamics of the playing list, but I'd say that given that the LG is playing group selected and the playing group shunned Sylvia and Moloney, I'd say the young players are not expecting to learn much from them.

CLARK I think Clark was just looking for an excuse to leave Brisbane and the "go home" thing sounded like a good one. Once again, the player has to actually want to leave before he'll start entertaining offers, so I ask again, what's Bennell's motivation to leave?

What would be his motivation for leaving? I don't reckon a distant cousin he's never met would be much of a drawcard. It's okay to "dare to dream" but I wish we'd stick to exploring options that are actually plausible.

I don't agree with the idea of trading them - pick 34 and 35 don't thrill me and that's what we'd be looking at. Like them or not, they're our big bodied, senior players. Play them until they either pull their fingers out, or get passed by someone better.

I realise JMac was a point of contention but anyone who argues that Bailey should've kept Robertson - at risk of sounding like B-H - watches a different game to me. Watch the videos with Robbo's Neeld interviews on the MFC site. Neeld is no doubt just taking a light hearted jab at Robbo about his next tackle being his first one, but that is without a doubt why Robertson got left behind as a player.

What's so outrageous about leaving Tapscott out? I'm a fan, but I'm not sure what he adds to the team that is so irreplaceable at the moment, and he only seems able to play at max intensity for 3/4 of the game at present.

Personally, I agree with the post someone made last week that we should just change captains every week, so whoever played best last week is the captain this week... For a non-facetious answer, I agree with Rangey and Ben.

This is one aspect that is very frustrating about the VFL affiliation system.