sue

I suspect that any MFC related article on the AFL site automatically goes onto ours perhaps without consulting us.

I agree with that. The players are not setting up as private businesses. You can't get a bunch of players together and proclaim yourselves the Canberra Crackpots and demand to play in the competition. That is restriction of trade and long may it continue. So maybe the AFL should have rights to impose other restrictions too. Be an interesting court case brought by the Crackpots.

You'd hope that PJ will be using that. 'Special assistance' could appear as more compensation for Clark than has been touted.

Pointing to various teams having periods of dominance in the pre-FA agency days proves nothing about the impact of FA in future. I don't need a crystal ball to predict that after a few years when FA is well established that the periods of dominance will increase and be restricted to fewer teams unless the AFL takes steps to equalise things properly.

We don't disagree all that much Moonshadow. It depends on the price we have to pay.

After FA's start, but not before FA becomes of age. It will get worse.

I'm not saying I don't want him. It depends on the price and risk vs his value as a player. I'll be happy if we get him at the right price. It is not 'basing' recruitment on 'what happens if he gets injured'. It is foolish to not take all possibilities + and - into account. If the price is so high we can't get some extra good player(s), then it is a risky thing to put all the eggs in the one basket. Of course 2 or 3 good players may also not fire or get injured. The odds are just lower. If you are depending on a single messiah, you are a naughty boy. Dangerfield past injury record is almost a neutral factor. You wouldn't want to touch him (at a high price) if he had bad history. Fortunately he doesn't. I trust Roos and co to weigh up the pros and cons if they get the chance (which seems unlikely anyway).

yes

And if he gets injured in round 1 and is out for the season we are stuffed. But if we take the route of getting a couple of good players for the same cost, then the risk is spread. Once we are better, then we can take the risk of putting all our money on a superstar, but right now it is too risky. Look at Mitch. Look at how the Suns went after Ablett was inured (and they are much better developed than we are). Of course if we can get a superstar and good player(s) as well, that is another story. But that is dreaming.

I agree that in this specific case (Dangerfield) his record is good so it's better than relying on someone like Clark. But the principle remains - the past does not predict the future 100%. I'd rather a couple of guys who may step up to his level. The time for a 'star' recruit is when we are a little better and the risk is less.

Not sure what you mean, but I'd start by asking the Suns why Ablett didn't win the Brownlow.

While there is an argument that we need a star to attract spectators/members/press etc, I am reminded of an old saying about eggs and baskets. Even bastketcases can't reply on one egg. If he gets injured for example, what then?

If that was to happen, the AFL would look extremely silly. They might take the recourse of prosecuting a few players successfully and then hitting the club with more penalties.

Depends exactly how and what and to what extent you (MC) were told - eg presented with an offer which MFC said was low because of X or conditional on Y and MC thought X wasn't enough of a reason or Y is too onerous. So both sides amicably agree to differ. In any case most people will say whatever paints themselves in the best light. Saying nothing or bad-mouthing MFC wouldn't do much for MC's or his manager's reputations whereas saying they will look after the MFC paints them as good guys regardless. I'm not saying Roos has indeed done what is conjectured, just that there is no evidence against it. And at this stage it is one possibility that desperate Demons supporters can cling to.

Seems to be a contradiction between 'announced' and 'after the GF'.

I agree. In case I didn't make it clear, in my posts where I said the club should say something to explain why it hasn't been screwed, that should only happen after everything is settled.

While I can see why you say that, I really think that the club has to give some indication to supporters that it wasn't screwed if indeed it was not screwed. There will be ways of doing it perhaps with a bit of subtext, without stepping over the line you are concerned about.

I have tried to withhold judgement until we knew more. Seems to me that there are still two alternatives. 1. We made it clear to him that he was not wanted, or if wanted, only on a very undesirable contract. And we did that because we know more than other clubs or have a cunning scheme in mind. 2. MC is indeed best described by the long list of expletives deleted that some having been lobbing at him. For the comfort of supporters, if #1 is the truth, then I hope the club lets us know some way or another.

OK - it is about plea bargaining if they respond to the show cause notices in the relevant way. People who plead guilty when they are innocent typically don't have lawyers of the calibre that Essendon has been employing. (Though after their performance in the recent case, their calibre may be smaller than their fees). The answer to the question in bold is - when they are poorly advised by slack lawyers (often on legal aid) or the evidence against them is overwhelming despite their innocence so a plea bargain is the only (partial) escape. There are probably a few innocent people serving longer sentences because they stood on their innocence. Sad and understandable. It seems you can't even get parole until you admit you were guilty.

I don't understand your point. They haven't been offered bans yet, just ask to 'please explain'. They can respond by saying how they were not guilty (eg. here is a list of what I was injected with and it is all kosher) or how they were guilty and if so, try to explain why mercy should be shown.

As I understand it is not a matter of pleading guilty. The players are asked to respond to the notice by detailing what they have taken and when and stating they took nothing else. If they don't know what they took they should say so (and point the finger at whoever got them to do it). As we know, for a perfectly sensible practical reasons that will not get them 'off', but by being truthful and doing some finger pointing at you know who, it may mitigate any penalties.

What? we want compensation for Clark? No way, toughen up MFC, we need to pull ourselves up. Give him to C'wood with pick 2 for Harry. As for Frawley, anything earlier than round 4 will just reinforce our dependency culture. Let's demand Wednesday twilight games to really build our ability to withstand financial storms.

17 hmmmm, must mean half of them will get off.

- The AFL concluded that while Melbourne has a poor on field record in recent times, this does not of itself constitute “exceptional circumstances” Yep, the AFL thinks it is "normal circumstances" for us and that they are happy if it should stay that way forever.

Sorry WJ we don't know that. We might reasonably expect that, but this being the AFL anything may happen.