hoopla

Taking Bruce & McDonald off the vet list will fix up a fair bit of the $500k. And give us 2 more rookies.

Ed: Just realised, it would take our main list back to 38 ie only 3 picks

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.

I have the CBA on my computer.

There really isn't an incentive to name more Vets than the two on the VL, unless the third Vet is on stupid money.

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?

The Veterans list contains 2 players maximum.

For season 2009 our list breakdown was:

6 Rookie List | 38 senior List | 2 Veterans List Giving a logical total of 46 - now that each club has been granted 2 extra rookie spots this will change to give us a potential 48 in 2010.

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

Thanks folks for alerting me to what a wonderful day it is out there.

If I may digress and return to the subject matter at hand, I notice that in one of today's papers Tim Harrington is quoted as saying that there's been no movement on Luke Ball as yet. Reading between the lines, this is giving me the feeling that Ball remains set on moving to the club of his choice i.e. Collingwood.

On the other hand, I just can't see any way that guarantees he can easily get there. I actually have a lot of sympathy for the view that says after giving 7 or 8 year's of service to one club, he should be allowed to get to the club of his choice (and that the first club should be reasonably compensated). Whatever happens with Ball I think it's fairly certain that the introduction of some form of free agency is imminent.

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.

I used to play with Mitch at North Launceston and Tassie when i trained with the vfl side. He is a very good player who unfortunately was surplus to requirements at Hawthorn because of Franklin and Roughead and did not want to play in the ruck. His departure was based on finding more game time and the split was amicable.

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?

I am not sure if there is a thread on Jake so I thought I would make one.

I heard from a very good source today he would like to be picked up by the Demons. He has been told by the Eagles they will select him with a late pick if he is still available.

I really hope he is still there at Pick 18 and we select him. KP Player so I think that would be great.

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

Yeah, they screwed up.

Let's hope the costs are not that great.

I don't think they will be.

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!

This needs to be cleared up, because I am under the impression veterans don't give you an extra spot on the list. I thought the point of veterans was that their salary didn't come under the salary cap.

And according to the AFL website, Robertson was a veteran this year, meaning he was 'outside the list'. So whatever being a veteran actually means, it doesn't change anything, because Bruce takes Robbo's spot as a veteran.

We are currently able to use 1, 2, 11, 18 and one of 34 or PSD1.

Edit: OK, with some research, I can finalise this once and for all.

A club is allowed 38 players on its senior list, plus up to 6 veterans and up to 6 rookies. At http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tab...55/default.aspx our list goes until 40, which is due to us having 2 veterans. There are 5 gaps in that list, thus confirming that we need to delist another player if we want to use both pick 34 and PSD1.

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

Anybody have any updates re: Colin's progress? Looking forwards to seeing him in 2010.

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

Yes..you can have cloggers even in the rookies...and he's one !! Much rather someone else get a shot as we know what Trent has ..and at this level its nada

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.

Spoke to him yesterday, he says he has been running/training every second day since recovering from his injuries

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

I wish we could [censored] this casey deal off get somewhere closer to home so players would actually consider coming too us. Im [censored] off because I always get my hopes up. Maybe I shouldn't get my hopes up about trengove and scully too so im not disapointted again if some how we don't choose the pair!

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

If he gets through the National and PS Drafts, if he is fit I would take him with a rookie pick. We all mature and if this is the shot in the arm this guy needs he can fit into our team. 195cm key forward 21 years old, I would consider a rookie spot or if we miss on Luke Ball use our PSD pick 1.

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.

. Rivers is vulnerable beacuse he doesn't hurt teams the other way and is exploitable - he can't play on key players and he can't play on the smaller quick types either. It'll be interesting to see what he's like with a pre-season under his belt.

I don't think Cheney has the class to play as an attacking defender and if he isn't quicker than what he showed this year I don't see that he's a [long-term] solution for the quick smalls that most teams have. However, someone posted that he's had an ankle injury that impacted on his pace, so perhaps he can play that role in future.

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.

I'd like us to get a contested marking KP too but only if he's worthy. All I'm trying to do is illustrate that there's a very real and reasonable scenario where we might pick up 4 mids with our first 4 picks.

If we do end up with 3 mids or 4 mids then I can understand why and I wont be crying to mummy and tearing my hair out like all those on this forum who demand a KP no matter what. Please yourself, but don't ask me to pass the tissues if it pans out that way ....

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 have to admit Im more than half expecting an announcement of anoter delisitng(s) tomorrow. Part of my thinking is to do with forward planning and no, not forward line planning. With GC and WS lurking we need tobuild stocks, some will be all but warehoused over next year or so but it might give us some more ( or better )options regardig our lists going forward than we might have at present.

We pretty well know as a club what some players' currency is or could be. The FD might roll the dice and think its better to excise a couple more in order to take on new blod that might provide more options for the club as it enters the twilight-zone of sanctioned 'poaching' etc

i.e it could be a simple gamble.. replace a lacklustre player(s) with one or two who might have more upside..might !!

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

I'm trying to imagine the conversation at our draft table ...

Chris Connolly: Now Bazza, you know we need a strong contested marking KP - pick one at 11.

Barry Prendergast: Yes agree Connolls but Sydney and Port picked the two I rate at 6 and 9 and now there's only flakey ones left and the fact that they picked KPs has let one of the mids I really rate slip through

CC: Doesn't matter, we've got to take a KP no matter what and anyway I read on BigFooty that you could throw a blanket over the lot of them from 10 to 25. Just pick one.

I think something alarmingly similar to that might have happened in 2001 - well not the BigFooty part but ...

CC and BP are not going to fall for that. BP has said he'll pick for need only if he thinks the players are equal.

The same argument applies at 18 - the later you get in the draft, the more you can take a risk, but we shouldn't be taking risks with 1st round selections.

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.

Ok, first things first.

LUKE MOLAN WAS NOT A DUD SELECTION - LUKE MOLAN WAS HIDEOUSLY CRUELLED BY INJURIES -AFTER- BEING RECRUITED

I don't normally resort to capitalisation, but this fact needs to be drilled into some people. The poor guy had the most appalling injury luck and it's really unfair on him as a person to keep on baggging him like he was a spud.

Second thing.

It has been widely (almost universally) acknowledged in the media and from the professionals when interviewed that you can 'throw a blanket over' draft selections from about 10 to the mid 20s. I.e. our picks. I've barely heard of a kid being rated as there around 11 who wasn't also a possible to be there at 18.

If there ever was a draft it pick for need, this is it. Especially since we already have two gun mids coming in, and even more so if Ball joins the party.

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!!

Riloi -yes he was outside the square all the draftees have to be good little boys-antisocial, poor fitness and work ethic meant no one other than Hawthorn would touch him. Same with Buddy Franklin.

You are a critic of CAC and your influence was instrumental in him leaving and you are a fan of Caro's work. It's in the Caro topic some time ago.

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

Hoopla, you have suddenly become very active on these forums. You date back from the time of Checker Hughes rather than the fullback Danny Hughes and your 2nd least liked Daniel Hughes so you have seen it all happen at MFC but now you are wielding your opinion and giving only a small piece of your inside information -why not give the Demonland forum all of your inside info. I believe that you would be a great addition to the MFC board as you know it all.

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

Only you can answer that. You brought his name up asking a question.

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