hoopla

I only want Ball if he wants to come. If he nominates for the primary draft in the hope of going somewhere else, I wouldn't take him- though I might talk him up to try to persuade another club to use an early pick to get him. Why are we talking about Luke Ball in the middle of an Olympic Park thread anyway?

The "However...." makes this sounds like " best available subject to needs"

10 November is the deadline for listed but uncontracted players to nominate for the draft.The fact that our three uncontracted players - Bartram,Cheney and McNamara - might be listed this Friday doesn't necessarily mean that we are going to keep them. [ I think they are the 3 ?] Friday is a key date for the rookies List lodgement 2 on 10 November will determine how many picks we have in the primary draft. We'll have to wait until then to know whether picks 34 and 50 are going to be open November 18 is the" Luke Ball deadline". If he doesn't nominate for that, then we'll know to pass up our final draft pick so that a space is available for Ball at PSD #1. It'll be a while yet before we know our final draft strategy

Rioli was hardly öutside the square. They wanted a small forward to complement Buddy and Roughy. They looked at the balance of their list. For other readers of this post - I am not a critic of CAC - and I'm not a Caro lover.!!!!!!!!!! Wish List : Scully, Trengrove, a couple of KPPs and Ball plus ANother ( made possible by the delisting of Barts!)

Hightower, have you ever seen Mr Cuthbertson play?

I'm very certain!

Why not ? Hawthorn's approach to recruiting just won them a flag........

Darren, I may be a sceptic - but I trust I am not septic I have actually been to the Casey ground .... and I liked what I saw -except there was no a gym etc Do you have any inside info on Luke Ball?

Agree absolutely But Bartram's been training ... and there is whisper that he has been offered a one year contract ( and is p--- d because its not 2)

"Crock of Rot".Good call ... and the rarity and value factors are driven by the balance of your list

With hindsight, you'd have to think that the 2 All Australians in that list were just about the best recruits of 2001 - Swan (58) and Lake (Harris) (71). Lake vies with Scarlett as the best tall defender in the competition. Do you ignore the need for a balanced list - when your "best available" will not necessarily turn out to be the " best player"? An 18 year old tall may have further to go than an 18 year old small - but that doesn't mean he won't make it. Realistically there is not going to be a lot to choose between picks 5 and 20. When in doubt look at the balance of your list

Its supposed to be a thin draft - yet several teams have opened up their lists for 5-8 picks after we finish.

Where does the 6th spot come from? Robbo, Wheats,Wheels, Brock and Bucks = 5 off the senior list

You've probably bumped in to me in those nightmares! You could say that the mistake with Molan wasn't so much putting needs ahead of talent - but completely misreading Molan's market worth. We needed tall defenders and he may have been the best potential tall defender in the draft - it's just that he wasn't worth any more than pick 50. It looks like we are only going to have 4 picks in this draft. Where are we going to get our KPPs from if we don't use our 3rd and 4 th picks on them this year? It would be a different story if we had 7-8 vacancies on our list - but we don't.I'd agree with you if it is demonstrably clear that none of the available KPPs are up to it - but I don't believe that anyone can say that with certainty especially as talls take longer to develop than smalls.

What I'm saying is that there is rarely a standout "best available".It is entirely subjective. Put 5 recruiters in a room and ask them to rank 20 players. I guarantee you'll get 5 different lists starting from a difference of opinion on pick #1 ( Scully or Trengrove?) The fact is that 99 times out of 100 there is no such thing as the "best available" except by reference to the balance of your list. We need KPPs - KPPs are hard to find - but "you've got to be in it to win it"

No.."best available" is very subjective. If you know for a dead set fact that all the available midfielders are going to make it - and all of the KPP's will turn out to be duds - you've got o choice but to take a midfielder. But you don't know that..... every player is a risk. Realistically there's not going to be a lot to choose between the best midfielder available at 11 and the best KPP available at 11. Given the balance of our list , we've got to go for a KPP. Let's put some faith in our midfield group - and try to find a bit of muscle to help them out. Ideally both 11 and 18 should be KPPs

The Red & Blue Foundation was actually put in place by the previous committee so the club is aware of it. It is on the website. I have just been surprised that it hasn't been promoted more aggressively. The only reason I can think of is that equipment is such a small part of the overall budget that a strong R&B Foundation campaign is not worth the effort. That would surprise me given that we sell home games for amounts like to $200k -$300k It also shows the supporters some imagination - which is good for the image. If enough people respond positively to the R&B Foundation thread... the club will surely increase its profile

Appreciate your help Your proof that we have so many designated facilities has overome my scepticism ( You get that way as a Melbourne supporter!) Sounds great

Good one!.

Thankyou ...great to hear. Do you know how many others will use Gosch's paddock?

Clearly I am aware that there's spectacular bricks and mortar at the Bubble dome - my question is how much of that space is being set aside for the MFC ? - and what right of access will we have to the shared facilities behind the other tenants? Will we be able to say to Luke - "that is going to be our gym - we will have 30 sets of weights in it - our medical rooms will adjoin the gym over there - we''ll just have to run down there to get to our oval etc" The oval will be available to us 4 afternoons per week or .... ? Good to hear that the buildings at Casey are progressing

We're looking at Ball for his leadership as much for his football ability. I'm not sure that we'd want him if he enters the ND hoping to get to Collingwood. In so doing he would be effectively saying that the prospect of working up from the bottom with a group of kids does not interest him.I wouldn't sacrifice Pick 18 for a reluctant mid-age player. For me its PSD or not at all

All this talk about pick 50> Assuming we leave open the PSD, picks 34 and 50 won't be available unless we delist two more players -- and this is looking increasingly unlikely ( per many other threads)

Its an interesting question. A player is allowed to state a preference and put a price on his head - but he can't refuse to play for a club with an earlier pick if it offers him the same money. I seem to recall that the rules of the psd force interested clubs to meet the player's asking price. If that is so - and Sydney and Bradshaw have worked out that the Swans have to beat $950k to beat all the teams with earlier picks, it must be very close to tampering. I'm not sure what would happen if the other club made him a really good offer - but one slightly below the offer of his preferred club. What would happen if North, say, offered $950k against the Swans $1m? I presume if North selects him but can't persuade him to play, North loses its pick and Bradshaw retires. Now let's spice it up a bit.....change the player from Bradshaw to Ball - and the teams from the Swans to Richmond and from North to MFC?

Agree - great positive article