hoopla

So we're back to the ' less than ideal'prospect of forward loaded contracts then ( or Luke Ball!)?

Your analysis and your conclusion are spot on. The fact that Brock defected after pronouncing his life-long devotion to the MFC has not helped his public image. He has always been quick to promote himself - and his football over the last couple of years has not matched his stated ambition.

Thanks for the info - and thanks to 1858 who writes very clearly for someone who's over 150 years old. The arrangement encourages clubs to retain expensive veterans who might otherwise be de-listed simply because of salary cap pressures. It's just one of the compromises designed to counter the push for free agency Word has it that Melbourne is about $500k below its salary cap minimum - so that ( if we don't get someone like Ball) we are going to have to front-load several contracts Presumably players on a two year contract who might normally expect to get $200 in year 1 and $300 in Year 2 will get, say, $350 in Year 1 and $150 in Year 2. Players will therefore be rewarded for anticipated future performance before they have actually delivered on their immediate goals. Over the course of a long season those in the second year of their contract may find themselves carrying players in the first year of their contracts who are actually taking home more money than they are. I guess there will always be anomalies in contract relativities - but this additional complication is one that will require very careful management. Is there any way under the CBA that the club can claw back front end payments that prove excessive?

Thank you for this comprehensive explanation. 46 is logical - why then does Hawthorn have 48? Is there something about the published lists, I am not interpreting correctly? http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tab...55/default.aspx

I'm afraid I'm dead against free agency. Ball's apparent desire to go a club with premiership aspirations is a classic illustration of the way in which free agency will work in favour of the stronger clubs. But my greatest concern about it is the way it will progressively erode club loyalties amongst players ...and ultimately supporters. The culture "stick with it through thick 'n think" will be replaced by " if it get's tough go somewhere else " Although the AFLPA like to say otherwise - as a practical matter it is never easy for professionals to go where they want, to do what they want when they want to do it. No systems are perfect - there is always compromise. Free agency is a threat to the competition as we know it - and the AFL is right to resist it.

There has been a lot said about his attitude, character etc. Clearly he has an ego. Was he a bit on the outer in Tassie? Can you see why some would say he's not the sort of person you want to have around?

From the AFL footage he looks agile with good hands. He's a straight kick.He's the type of player we need.

I reckon he's a confidence player. If he had converted his opportunities over the last two seasons, I don't think we would be cursing his 2 year contract. Full forwards are so hard to find - that you've got to give prospects the benefit of the doubt. If someone could teach him to kick - he's still a chance...but only just!

The rule seems strange. Clubs with 6 long-serving players have 50 to choose from - 38 plus 6 vets plus 6 rookies. Clubs with young lists - no vets - only have 44 to choose from. We have 46. What is the justification for that? I agree with your conclusion - we have to delist another player to use both 34 and the PSD. With Hughes somehow being re-rookied we only have 2 rookie positions available. All up we are going to have just about the smallest player turnover in the competition ..... 7 (5+2). This would be most unusual for a wooden spooner

Pringle's comments were 4 weeks ago. You'd like to think Colin'd be doing light training by now. Has anybody seen him on the track? He is an important player for us

Now the real "list clogger" is Hughes............. Two years on the rookie list for very little except injury ...a year in the suburbs... back again last year...injured again. He's 23-24. Surely he's being de-listed but we've heard nothing.

Only every second day......he must still be recovering

I don't think you can put the blame on Casey. The issue seems to be that our premiership window is not close enough for him. If he enters the primary draft to try to avoid us , I'd forget him

Presume he'll be re-listed. That will leave us with 3 rookies - Spencer (interstater Yr 3) ; McKenzie , Healey. With two veterans , I think we have 6 spots ( Is this right?) I just hope Hughes is moved on - which will leave us with 3 picks

For such a big kid , he is very athletic. If he has the right attitude - which is fundamental - he looks just the type we need. Surely you'd have to consider him for pick #11

I'd agree with the rookie option. I'm not sure I'd flatter him with PSD #1.... he needs a big wake up call.

I'm surprised to read all this criticism of Rivers. He has a terrific football brain - and he knits the young players together with his leadership and clever positional play. He wasn't at his best at times last year - but with a full pre-season under his belt I'd expect him to be an important part of our defence over the next few years. To me there is something special about Bennell. He is an exciting prospect. Cheney is not a fashionable footballer - but he's shown enough at 19 to be given another chance.Although I would consider de-listing him , it would only be with the full intention of taking him back through the rookie list I would delist Bartram without hesitation to get another pick

No way we'll take Bradshaw A journo has asked the question - and we've said that we're not ruling him (or anyone ) out. It's all a game to keep the other clubs guessing.

If it pans out that way - and BP has done a good job - then there must be a freakish dearth of tall 18 year olds with potential playing footy this year.

I'm hoping for another delisting - but I'm not holding my breath. Its possible to list players ( in lodgement one) who have not signed a new contract - so tomorrow is not the end of the line. I'm also hoping that Hughes comes off the rookie list to free up more space there

The fact is that it is all a matter of guesswork - and the evidence is that a large pool of players are just about equal. Picks #11 and # 18 might be early picks - but they are also our last chance to put a bit of muscle on to list. We should stop using 2001 to justify a policy which ignores need. If we did make a mistake then - it was in overlooking Brian Lake and failing to put Luke Molan through a properly tailored development program. There will be a couple of talls with potential out there - and we need to make sure we find them.

Well I'll agree with you on both counts - on Molan because it is the decent thing to do [ even though CAC himself later admitted it was a mistake] - on picking for need because you are absolutely right in our current circumstances!!

If HighTower or anyone else for that matter, has some spare time they will work out that Mr Cuthbertson just follows my posts around Colin Sylvia for the Brownlow

Darren - I'm about as close to the Board as you are to life membership

Good try.... but I only asked the question because his name was brought up by someone else.........