1858

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

I get the feeling that it is Nicholson's to lose at this early stage but mature bodied rookies are there for a reason and we have a new coach now with new ideas so my vote is a tentative for Nicho.

I don't want to jump the gun but things don't sound too good with big Maxy. If he looks like going on the LTI list prior to the start of the season then it really hots up between our rookies for the promotion. Assuming Nicholson gets the full yr nomination (in lieu of a veteran) then you'd think it would be between Evans, Couch and Magner for the LTI promotion but it will be interesting. I can't see our ruck stocks being tested tbh but if Clark hypothetically was earmarked for more ruckwork then perhaps Williams could be in the mix. Not sure where Lawrence is at and doubt Sheahan would be ready to play the role Neeld would want. If training wasn't intense enough already it could go up a notch for the rookies.

Thanks for the reports guys - much appreciated.

Interesting, I didn't know that. That flexibility should come in quite handy for clubs down the track. Yeah, easily. Does anyone know how long Sellar's contract is for? I would have thought 2 yrs but I suppose 1 yr isn't unreasonable.

Being a list thread, I thought I may as well add the age brackets and [games] of the list if anyone's interested. Nothing scientific here, simply the ages of the players at the end of this calendar year. The 20-24 age bracket is made up of a healthy 27 players. 30+ (1) 18 Green 30 – V [241] 25 - 29 (7) 36 Davey 28 [150] 40 Jamar 28 [110] 28 Macdonald 27 [107] 22 Moloney 27 [130] 27 Rivers 27 [128] 12 Sylvia 26 [121] 34 Martin 25 [50] 20 - 24 (27) 6 Bate 24 [90] Clark 24 [82] 14 Dunn 24 [81] 44 Bail 23 [18] 3 Bartram 23 [95] 8 Frawley 23 [82] 20 Garland 23 [58] 2 Jones 23 [114] 24 Jurrah 23 [35] 15 Petterd 23 [50] Sellar 22 [21] 16 Grimes 22 [32] 42 Spencer 22 [8] 7 Bennell 21 [51] 38 Howe 21 [13] 39 Jetta 21 [30] 13 McKenzie 21 [37] 10 Morton 21 [64] 49 Nicholson 21 – R [9] 47 Strauss 21 [11] 17 Blease 20 [5] 48 Fitzpatrick 20 [1] 37 Gawn 20 [4] 5 Gysberts 20 [18] 9 Trengove 20 [37] 35 Tapscott 20 [15] 4 Watts 20 [40] Teenagers (7) 21 Cook 19 [0] 41 Davis 19 [0] 50 Evans 19 – R [4] 45 Lawrence 19 – R [0] 43 McDonald 19 [2] Taggert 18 [0] Tynan 18 [0]