1858

Was asked about a tall forward or HBF @ pick12 and didn't really give too much away (as expected). He added that there are different types of midfielders that clubs need and that despite previous drafting (of mids) he didn't rule that option out either. So no specific indication of what we are/aren't after.

That was the initiative I was trying to think of. Great idea too, player development fund and a facility development fund.

I agree with rpfc about going to the well once too often especially when we are no longer in debt. The eradication of our debt through DD was a very specific and passionate movement by many stakeholders/supporters to get the club back on its feet. The club currently has many initiatives for increasing revenue (outside of internal investments I have nfi about). DemonHeartland, increased demand for GF guarantee, better merchandise, $200 raffles, bigger functions, more membership additions (ie $25 sms) - it all adds up. Also I believe general donations are a yearly option despite not having a profile such like DD - IIRC you can donate to specific areas such as facilities or the FD. Not exactly sure where rpfc is coming from wrt profit though, it is still very important. The amount of profit we make in one period can majorly effect the amount of investment in the next. It isn't just investment in the club and the FD either it is our asset base. CS highlighted how MFC is down the bottom wrt our asset base and that now we don't have the debt monkey on our back we need to take the next step - our asset base (along with growing our supporter base) is crucial to our long term stability. Profit is an important part of this so I hope the club does make inroads with increasing revenue. Whilst profit is good, profiteering is not and I think the club knows the right balance, they won't dig into the supporters purely as an open cheque (which perhaps is what rpfc was getting at when talking about profit).

Not just this club. 1 yr at a time is a prudent policy for 30+ players wrt contracting. Regarding Bruce the question is was it purely the 1 yr policy itself that he was up in arms about or the unlikelihood of being recontracted for season 2012 - there's a difference and it is this very difference which exemplifies why such a policy should exist so the club's hands are not tied. To argue against the policy doesn't make sense to me. McDonald played to the age of 34 I don't see what the issue is.

I think what we're seeing here is the aftermath of the generation gap we have had over the years. We didn't have enough quality on our list 3 yrs ago in around the 25 age bracket with players on either end making up most of our list. The top enders are simply gone now its that simple. Jones is still just 22 and could be a 100 gamer by round 9 next year which is arguably a result of that gap. wrt experience, we do have 3 players in the 90s and 2 in the 80s so by year end we could have another 5 100 gamers although 3 or 4 is more likely. tbh I don't see any point in worrying about other teams like Collingwood. We need to remember who we are, where we are and what our goal is. There are many teams in the competition who are in a very similar position to us. When we make our challenge Collingwood will be the least of our worries. I would be pretty surprised if we didn't bring in 1 or 2 along the path to glory.

Are they mutually exclusive?

Fair enough, I took your words "as we speak" as meaning now (or at least prior to next year). In any case we're young.

"what if the presence of the experience player made the difference between 8th and 9th" Probably not a scenario worth worriying about for mine. So we just miss out on % or perhaps by 4 points and then rationalise it through 1 less veteran? _____________________ As a general discussion on experienced players I don't think losing McDonald and Bruce will make a profound influence on our younger group. McDonald served his purpose this year and I think the value adding of having him on our list next year has been overstated by many. Bruce is a genuine loss IMO as a 244 gamer who knows and plays an important role for us. 1 more year would have been very helpful (especially with the sub rule) but past that who knows? I see it more of a hole to fill than anything else though. I thought our younger players took the game on this year and showed a fair bit of courage in sticking to the gameplan. We have enough senior players around them and coaches to keep guiding them. They need to build a camaraderie and grow from within now rather than rely on a 34 yr old in McDonald to alleviate their load/progress in the midfield (irrespective of Bruce now leaving). We still have Moloney, Sylvia and Jones in the guts to offer assistance and act as fellow players rather than purely as mentor figures although Moloney covers both aspects. Look at how many teams have kids in their midfields now - they will be our future competition for success. Sure St.Kilda and Collingwood are more experienced in the middle atm but so what. Lets just accept that they're better than us at this point in time and move on. Like Geelong they will rebuild at some stage.

Unless I'm miscalculating we're at 22.08

I concur.

Only in the rookie draft though.

Interesting wager this. So we have 4 home games against Victorian clubs next year as opposed to 6 this year. IN: Carlton, Gold Coast, Fremantle OUT: Essendon, Western Bulldogs, North Melbourne ________________________________________________ To do a quick crude analysis, lets say Carlton/Essendon cancel out. We then rely on our improved Demon supporters and neutrals to cover the loss of home games to the Dogs & North to 2 of the biggest non entities in the league wrt to club brand. By round 23 I'm sure the novelty of GC would have worn off, by then they may be simply battlers (who knows). Freo is a corporate nightmare for any club except the Pies. Yes, we should get more followers on the expectation of natural improvement and a competitive fixture and perhaps a few more neutrals but I doubt it will cover the drop off of opposition Victorian supporters. Will be interesting though. I doubt our increase in FTA coverage will make any notable difference either but it will be interesting to see how our average figure pans out. No doubt the home games against Carlton, Collingwood, hawthorn and Richmond will be corkers in any case.

Spot on.

This is the point though. Depriving us of a 6th pick rookie - theoretically the least likely prospect on our entire list.

I'd agree with that but given that Newton isn't on our senior list we don't really have him fighting for our lives. As 'rpfc' put it, being on the rookie list was ironically Newton's lifeline - we simply choose 1 less rookie in the RD and perhaps pay a little above the minimum rookie salary for Newton but that's about it. He doesn't hinder our preparation for the ND and having up to 4 picks. PJ did not have a long term future and McNamara in the eyes of the club was worth letting go for that 4th pick or PSD pick. The moral of the story is that you play the cards you are delt.

All in all I'm pretty happy with this. We give ourselves a legitimate chance of acquiring further prospects in the drafts and we throw down the challenge to some existing players to step up in the process. I thought PJ may have been kept as insurance but if the club thinks we don't need him (or at least expects to rookie him) then all the better we are. Spencer had a fair few critics last year but I noticed he has an ability to get over a pack and uses his weight well in crashing them - couldn't be any worse than PJ as a tall/ruck. Even Martin now has a chance to make an impact. In any case we're down to 20 days to the national draft now.

Fair analysis. When you consider North finished above us and apparently have copped another raping then we have done reasonably well. I'm glad our WA game is out of the way in the first half of the season. The only significant area is no bye after the Darwin game but perhaps the club wanted the bye leading up to it to do promotional stuff up there (interested to know). We have hawthorn the following week who come off the bye themselves so I don't think we'll be favourites for that game.

I notice that both 'Knightmare' and 'Snoop' have us picking Cameron Guthrie with our 2nd pick. In itself this obviously means nothing but notably they both rate him as a good get for that pick ie 32 is at the end of his range.

In principle I hope we rookie as many new kids as possible - with the very lose theory of increasing our chances of uncovering some promising kids. Obviously it doesn't necessarily work like that as we'll probably be sourcing kids way down the rookie order by the time we fill the latter positions. The one thing I consider as a possible factor going forward is the size of our FD and the level of resources we can put into these hopefuls. If this can increase significantly then our rookie program may become a more stringent part of our recruitment rather than mostly pick and hope. I can't see any of our current rookies (apart from Spencer and McKenzie - promoted) staying unless the club for some reason decides to perpetuate the Newton saga (geez I hope it doesn't come to that though).

List lodgement 1 is in 8 days. That is rookie upgrades and delistings. Further dates here.

Skipper at least worth a look.

List lodgement one can't come quick enough.

So, now that the dust has settled we face the PJ situation. I'm guessing the club will opt to keep him in light of our ruck situation but negotiations could be a little delicate here. Do we offer 1 yr and if he demands 2 yrs and threatens to walk do we go with 2 yrs?

Pick 66 is virtually nothing. We actually got more for Cheney than what Adelaide got for Griffen. Our 2nd round ND pick is usable now (even though there could be further senior list delistings).

To my mind Spencer was always going to be at least a 2 yr contract. The club has stated since day 1 that he is a project player, they're looking at long term development.