BLWNBA

Hard pass.

Correct mate, that was my poor choice of phrase in my post.

It's an interesting quandary to consider. By reports, the player you likely get in the top 5 this year will be equal to players around the 12 - 15ish mark; therefore we're not exactly losing anything value wise regarding the substantive player. Therefore, it likely comes down to if there are specific individual qualities per se, that the club want to bring in at a particular pick. Are these available in another player? Are the attributes tangible or non-tangible? What about the player taken at Pick 5 is, or is not, equivalent to the player to be taken at Pick 11? I'm not against this at all. However, there is a lot of talk starting to come out that Richmond may look to target North Melbourne's Pick 2. If true, they obviously have series concerns about a certain not being there come Pick 6. Luckily for Richmond with their amazing draft haul, they almost have the luxury of being able to overpay ('burn') a pick in order to get in on those extremely pointy high-end picks; I'm not sure if Richmond would see the overall value in dropping two picks at 10/11 to get up only 5 - 6 spots - but who knows (cf. to Pick 2).

I was (am) a massive fan of Trainor, but I've become pretty concerned about his injuries sustained this year. He had two serious concussions during 2023 and I'm led to believe he had another late this year that saw him enter concussion protocols in September. I think he may be a slider and while the talent is there, I suspect clubs may be put off by the worry they'll be taking on another Paddy McCartin.

I absolutely acknowledge that our forward line has been an issue, including the 'missing' forward piece which we all crave. However, I think we really need to be taking two mids with Picks 5 and 9 this year (assuming we don't look to split etc). There's a glut of talent likely available at those picks and we need a big reinvigoration of our midfield, IMO - we saw what life was like this year with no Petracca and a highly limited Oliver. Yes, some will argue that Kozzie, Rivers and McVee can push into those roles, but Pickett is a pinch-hitter at best; Rivers is honest, but he still isn't an 'A' grader (and as a mid, may not ever be one), and McVee is relatively unproven. Windsor is our next Langdon and I can see him being an 'A' grade winger, whilst I'm not yet convinced on Tholstrup.

Ça alors!

@Katrina Dee Fan unsure where your reference to "meer" has come from, but assuming it's directed me. Just thought I'd kindly remind you I've simply used your own language from this post here.

Right.

I thought that despite you having a lot more to do with the club than just being a cheer-squad member, you weren't one to stand on top of the mountain and shout it out for all to hear?

Thank you kind overseer.

Generally, that is just tendency and relevance.

Don't forget about a public brawl at Entrecote and May's embarrassing "we would've smoked them" line.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with that and most of the commentary this trade period is that the majority of traded players have been obtained at 'overs'. Still, I just don't see a world where Bolton is worth that price, even acknowledging Pick 14 coming back their way. Bolton is a nice player to have, but I think he's far from a regular match-winner and isn't often the difference between a win and a loss.

Insane price to pay for Bolton. An amazing outcome for Richmond, regarding the totality of their trade period.

Tim Lamb on Derksen: "that's looking very unlikely ... we'd like to bring Wade to the club, but the way things are tracking it's looking [a bit too difficult]".

It would require a bit of work at this stage to complete IMO, given our current draft hand and that we've offered Pick 49 to the Lions. We also have the consideration of needing points for the potential acquisition of Kalani White next year, should he nominate us, so I'm not too sure how we'd wrangle a mid-late future next year for Derksen (especially given the changes to the draft index). I'm not definitively stating it can't be done, but it's precariously placed should GWS relent.

Probably one of the least surprising selections by the current footy department post 2021 IMO.

Disagree with the cap, autonomy should remain with the clubs.

As many other posters have said, I can't see anyway this now gets done. Whilst I completely understand that a club has a prerogative to keep a contracted player, I think GWS' decision here is pretty ordinary. Given the potential ins to the club, i.e. Stringer, and the glut of contracted forwards on their list who are being played or seemingly in-front of Derksen, holding him to the final year of his contract is frustrating. I'll be keeping a watch on him next year and I think it will be an interesting scenario if we look to re-attempt the trade next year, noting we've traded our future third, or if it now becomes a one-and-done type of scenario. A disappointing outcome for both parties IMO.

Apologies mate, I’m travelling at the moment and have fleeting access at best. Really appreciate the thoughtful response, well composed and some good points. The Fair Work Ombudsman decision related to a decision made in 2015 which determined that employees of AFL Media, were in fact independent journalists and able to collectively engage in negotiations over their pay and conditions under a new collective bargaining agreement. The AFL Media disputed this, instead suggesting that they were communications personnel employed by the AFL. Essentially, the AFL claimed they were sports administration professionals, whereas the employees and Media, Entertainment and Arts Association claimed they were journalists. The decision essentially visited the position of the MEAA and journalists and held that the journalists were independent journalists and news professionals tasked with producing, collating and disseminating products including the AFL website, the AFL Record (prior to Croc Media acquiring this product), and associated video content on YouTube (amongst many other publications). On point two, Pert would essentially have to prove that his dismissal was harsh, unjust or unfair. Central to this, would be the examination of the board’s conduct and it would need to be determined if the dismissal related to Pert’s conduct or performance, amongst other factors. Unfortunately, as a hypothetical, it’s just too difficult in my view to conclusively discuss. Regarding point three, once again the issue would be determining if defamation has occurred. Patterns can be aggravating, however, I truly do not see anything that Barrett has said as being defamatory; although the protections would still likely apply (though I note each individual claim would be examined on its own merit, but regardless would be held to tendency and patterns). Apologies for taking this thread sideways, once again!

Very happy with this and a better outcome than what I was expecting regarding the pick swapping this year. Get some elite talent in the midfield and we can look to set up again for the next decade, particularly if we lose one, or both, of Oliver and Petracca next year.

Yet they’re happy to throw out terms like ‘bullying’ and ‘harass’ when you have some sort of opposing discourse.

That’s the farcical thing. The very posters that will uncritically claim that all ‘anti’ (sic) MFC reporting is ‘BS’, are the very ones that will never be critical of ‘complementary’ reporting. You cannot credibly claim media is ‘BS’ when it doesn’t suit agenda. Still, those certain individuals will continue to act in this way. It’s nauseating.