sue

Obviously MFC supporters will notice injuries to our players and groan about it, but we'll take less notice of injuries in other teams. Has anyone actually analysed the data over all clubs to show we are particularly injury prone?

Bingo, we just disagree. I reckon the number of people who we've missed as members of the MFC because we haven't put some photoshopped pics up on the MFC website could be counted on the proverbial fingers of a mutilated hand. I presume you agree with me that a well-staffed and functioning footy department is more important than a well-staffed web management team.

What a disaster. No photoshopped pics. If we had a superb well-staffed media department people would be moaning why isn't the club focussing on winning games instead of all this useless media hype.

Weekly?! I expect hourly reports plus access to PJ's diary to see who he is lunching with.

As a person in the dapths of NSW where we are force-fed every GWS game, Greene didn't impress me much in 2013 compared to 2012.

Since several posters have poured scorn on the above post. I'm obviously dense too. I naively assumed Srjennings was just joking that we Demon supporters were just unfamiliar with the concept of being 6 goals up.

Having watched several of the highlights packages, I'm surprised that conclusions about what a player is really like can be drawn from such small samples of play. But in the absence of more information, I enjoy reading the posts.

I have no idea if he is on the actual payroll or not. He may be on accumulated leave from his last job(s). No need to be on 2 payrolls. Has the word 'spin' changed its meaning - where is there spin in any of this? rfpc didn't say we only saw cardboard cutouts of Roos at Etihad reviewing players. Non event.

To be fair to rpfc, you did say 'on the payroll' in post #39 or so. Hopefully he is indeed doing the job full time and quacking as needed even if he is not on the payroll.

It's just the usual pick up of an article on the AFL site: afl.com.au/news/2013-10-21/keeping-up-with-jones It does no harm, i doesn't say anything to imply MFC is after him, so where's the potential disappointment or pick 9 issue? It keeps MFC in the news, is positive and I expect it will go into any portfolio we put together to lure a sponsor. Where's the harm. Maybe BB is right - you're not serious?

But think of the PP's they will get.

We will be able to quote Caesar veni, vidi, vici I hope.

I don't see that it adds anything to discuss whether GWS or we got the better deal. We have different needs and there are a lot of imponderables where only time will tell relative values. The question is, is it right for us now.

True. But happy if saying that ups his compo pick. Not that it will.

In our parlous state and with FA looming over our heads it is more important to make some immediate progress in 2014 than wait for a pick 2 to develop or hope that some other club will lose its mind and give us an established mid so they can take a novice at pick 2. I don't see much point in comparing it to past trades like Judd - situations change. I'm pretty ignorant in these matters, but it sounds wise to me.

Well I'd be very annoyed if my club felt that it had a 'perfect' list and had to dump 3 players and take pot luck on draft pick replacements. Only saving grace is that it probably would happen extremely rarely. If so, most clubs will turn over 3 or more anyway, so why enforce it. AFL seems to specialise in silly rules.

Forgive my ignorance. What is the rationale for at least 3 compulsory changes? Seems arbitrary to me.

Probably not. But do you know if Essendon has made any trades yet? If they had I'd be a little more inclined to believe it because I can't see any other club touching them with a 10 foot pole otherwise. (Unless they had knowledge of what ASADA may/can do.)

Which makes me suspect that the AFL is underwriting Essendon trades in some way - eg. if you take a player who is subsequently banned we'll give you a PP in 2014. But if the AFL has said that privately to clubs, it is surprising that it has not leaked out. I've not followed trading closely - has Essendon made any yet?

This says it all.

Gasp, yet another thread of shirt-rending and flagellation. How about putting the same energy into considering how to deal with FA. We'd be in trouble over time with that even we had been better in recent years and had escaped its worst consequences now.

I posted a bit on this elsewhere, but more appropriate to repeat here: I reckon the AFL may have confidentially told clubs that if they take an Essendon player who is subsequently rubbed-out, then the AFL will compensate the club in some way. For example a better pick in the 2014 draft than they'd otherwise get. So clubs would be more likely to consider Essendon players - still some risk, but also some insurance. But it is hard to imagine how that hasn't leaked out. Maybe the AFL has threatened that if you leak, you get clobbered in one of the many ways the AFL can clobber you (which the weaker clubs are all too familiar with).

Leaving the unmatchable 9 years aside in this particular case, it would be a good principle that it is an equal offer if you can match within 10% Sydney's offer. By the very definition of the COLA, this is true.

While the Dawes-like players may make our team better than it would otherwise be, it will still be made up of second-raters (on average) who couldn't displace better players at top clubs. Of course there will be occasional players who can't get a spot for other reasons, but they will be snapped up by the richer more attractive clubs. And there may be some who will suddenly develop when moved to the weaker clubs. But on average, the weaker clubs will have second-raters and lose any picks they get when they develop into A-graders.

Maybe the AFL will lean on Sydney about releasing Dew as part of accepting the Buddy deal and guilt over not giving us a PP. Who says I'm a pessimist!