1858

Just as long as they don't car-pool 20 odd players in a Toyota Coaster and rock up late I'm happy with this.

I read some of these posts differently but anyway... I'm not saying what he is "gonna" cost at all. I am hignlighting that it will be a completely different process to how we were awarded the Scully compo and any direct link is pointless wrt the comp picks. Gaff's value will be determined by a prospective bidding war not by the virtue of what we got for Tom Scully.

Of course, but as you realise the point still stands and it is a point that has not been explored in the context of this debate.

Ok, nothing wrong with that opinion at all, I think the gap is a little wider than that in favour of Scully but I'll go with it. Now, given that Scully is arguably slightly ahead of Gaff as a player (with more experience) and then incorporate his inflated salary to move to GWS, we end up with a the AFL's compo system spitting out 2 compo picks for a player who (for all intents and purposes) was stripped from us via an offer he couldn't refuse. If we find ourselves competing for Gaff it will be in a free-trade environment where the player in question (allegedly) wishes to go home. A compo pick and a player is more than a reasonable starting point. There is no point in connecting what we may have to pay for Gaff with what we got for Scully what so ever. The only point to come out of it is that GWS would never have offered such money for Gaff and hence a band 1 would never have fallen in WCE's lap. I am not for one minute suggesting that MFC wouldn't part with both compo picks for Gaff but I find some posts which try to validate 2 compo picks as a starting point (or no brainer) simply based on the fact that that's what we got for Scully and the whole "out with a kid in with a kid" approach to be quite misguided.

Neither would I, but in the context of this discussion that isn't the point. I'm asking you had MFC made the trade what would your thoughts have been?

I don't understand why the 2 compos is A simple question. Had MFC and WC done a straight swap Scully for Gaff in the trade period would you have found that a satisfactory trade?

Reminds me a little bit of the Stonecutter's song.

That applied to subsequent years 2012 - 2015. We could have activated the compo picks if we wanted to in 2011, the cut-off date was November 11. Compo picks won't be used key draft dates

I think we actually had the option of activating our picks last year but we decided not to because the AFL bumped them down the order so as not to infringe on the orange brigade - I may be wrong. I'm thinking any future compo picks won't be bumped though. Can someone clarify?

"Look at me! I'm Davy Crockett"

A player like Gaff would be great as his RFA window (at Melbourne) wouldn't open until after he turns 28 not to mention being a decent player with a few years under his belt so he'd fit our list just nicely. I'm not sure the club would want to part with both compo picks though but its great to have the options I guess.

Thanks for that, didn't realise GC used their compo as part of the O'Meara deal. Does anyone know if there actually is a FIFO rule as suggested in that thread?

GC have a mid range pick which was traded to them from Geelong. I believe (along the lines bing181 stated) that our mid ranger would be before theirs (assuming Geelong finish higher than us in 2012 which is virtually a lock in). Dr. Who raises a reasonable point also about how far down the draft we want to go. We can always try offloading a player with a pick to get a pick upgrade or to bring a decent player in but that will be easier said than done.

I agree. IMO Geelong were thinking on similar lines when they traded back their mid selection pick to GC for pick 15 last year rather than use it the following year when it was worth more. Also if we miss the finals then our first 2 picks will be back to back picks in the ND which gives us a slight edge in our tactical planning even if we need to use the first one on Viney.

In the context of Clark (as potentially a marquee signing), it would be costly, I'm not necessarily suggesting this would become a realistic priority for MFC - although across the AFL these sorts of signings would be even more important to clubs (hence the premium). I don't mind pointing out the extra advantage to our Clark acquisition though or any other trades that might come our way. Some clubs will plan to pounce on FA more than other and whilst it is unavoidable (we can't lock up our list) IMO trade week will still become busier and busier as time goes by across the AFL due to FA and clubs wanting to get players on to their list in order to get the most out of their value prior to their FA window opening. IMO that 22-24 age bracket will become quite the hot spot.

I don't expect to see him on the park this year but I'd be interested in people's first impressions of Tynan to all those who have been to our sessions over the last couple of months.

In the context of FA, trading in players like Clark (who won't hit yr 8 until after he is 31) is at a premium now. Even trading in a kid who has been in the system for a couple of years like Gaff would be higly attractive (not withstanding of course his form as a player and all that) relative to a new 17/18 yr old draftee.

ah yes, I remember reading that now. It certainly seems more than just the players will learn a thing or two from Neeld.

Interesting. Is this in context of the playing group, FD or even those above on the board/executive?

From the sounds of it if they are increasing their flights to Australian by around 200% in the next 4 yrs then it stands to reason that Syd/Melb/Per/Bris even perhaps Adelaide will be flying direct to Guangzhou as a transfer hub. This is absolutely in direct competition with Qantas as well as any other carriers who do Syd/Melb to LHR via Bangkok, KL, Changi, HK and to a less extent the middle eastern carriers.

I thought about that too but a news search brings up this article: China Southern set to take on Qantas which describes the main strategy as offering another transfer hub as well as European options. The part that really made me take notice though was this bit: ...and this bit In the context of MFC we have no idea what this could mean (probably nothing) but in the context of China Southern they have massive plans for Australia by the sounds of things.

Apparently Skyteam are desperate to build their brand in Oceania/Australasia and China Southern only just became an operating member in September last year. Along with what you're saying these are just circumstantial factors but heck no harm in considering the possibility I suppose. I can't see it happening but IMO it would be a massive coup if the club pulled it off.

You can add Petterd to the mid-heights list but things are starting to get quite competitive for forward spots all of a sudden. I wonder where Petterd will feature in years to come. Depth is good but depth players are seldom content when they could/should be playing regular footy. An interesting one for mine.

A pretty comprehensive run down of the year and with it some much appreciated closure from my pov. Our pre-season loss to Essendon (specifically how) and our opening game against Sydney were reasons to raise the eyebrow at the time I thought but I don't think any of us saw the season coming to a head like it did on 186. What we've done since has been pretty impressive on some fronts and I hope we can convert our off field developments to on-field improvements in a big way from now on. As good as next year's draft will be I hope it is more of an icing on the cake scenario than a much needed stimulus but we'll see.

This article suggest $100k per veteran outside of the cap. Veteran's rule could be just the tonic for old Cats