1858

34 and 50, compared to what we got out of Meesen/Newton should be quite advantageous. I didn't think 34 would ever be in doubt TBH and 50 gives us flexibility if we want Thorp and another PSD player.

If pick 50 was used on a kid it could be very speculative but I just have to love it if not for anything else then just for sheer spite. :D Every pick we take in the ND is one less option for the opposition. Stating the obvious here but imagine if Collingwood (who have 30 on) picked up a decent longshot that we never gave ourselves the chance of getting - vomit worthy. Give them nothing!!!

They are not being paid out this year. They are remaining on their contract with us for next year, until they are selected by another club.

Yeah, no worries. I edited that after reading the post above mine. Mine took ages to post as I was checking other stuff.

cheers.

Is this a smart way of tackling our gap in reaching the salary floor? More ND recruits means more salaries whilst also paying Meesen and Newton (I'm assuming despite going onto the rookie list they are still in our cap or am I wrong).

we now have 2 more spots with which to draft... 34 and 50 just came into play....hmmmmm !!!

33 and 49 actually, now that LB has gone into the ND.

Now, I have no idea how long it takes to fully recover from stress fractures, however the club might not believe he will be available to play till round 10 or something, in which case dropping him to rookie list makes sense

Fair enough, it pays to have all the info I suppose.

Not sure if this is a question for CC or someone else but I'd be interested to know how big a response there has been to the Red and Blue foundation. Also what impact that it has had (so far) with Player development/Facility development and on our players.

Also are there any other clubs that we are modelling certain aspects of our player development on and who do we consider to be at the same stage as us with respect to list and premiership window.

These are probably boring/generic questions, oh well.

If this is the case then things look ominous for Meesen's career. I would have thought Bell before Meesen.

btw where have you heard this? You're not just going by one of the other threads are you?

Meesen ?

That would leave Spencer, Jamar, PJ & Martin to ruck.

I agree, Meesen will probably be needed at some stage. In any case I'm not sure of the point of putting Meesen on the rookie list, this is the year that we finally see what he can offer for the long term. Bell or Newton on the other hand are another story IMO.

You're missing the point, and so are alot of others.

Ball has yet to say he's not interested, we're still in the negotiation stages.

I wonder what that actually means. If by the fact that Ball's manager has not publicaly stated that Melbourne is off the table then I agree otherwise it is a long bow at this point IMO.

What Bailey did was to give him a way out before any real discussions have taken place.

I understand where you are coming from, you are kind of saying that boxing a person in can change the way they think. "If you have them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow" mentality. The only problem with that is that no matter what Bailey says, the situation will not change with who Ball ultimately wants to play with. If he prefers to stay with St.Kilda then he will, what are his other realistic options?

As I said earlier what our real intentions are is irrelevant, it's the perception which is the most important thing.

Oh, and this attitude that 'we only want players who'll bleed for the club' is laughable. Modern football is a business, this 'playing for the jumper' tripe is an outdated idealoligistic fairy tale that is now irrelevant. Does anyone honestly believe that either Scully or Trengove would choose to play for Melbourne if they had the choice? If you do then you're kidding yourself.

It is a cliche, but it is still an important message to get across. Firstly it reinforces the type of players we are trying to mold down at the club. Secondly it also sends a message to Ball that we will not play out the desperate club routine, we have priorities like any club - something that should be respected. Ball and his manager aren't so naive that if we try and box them in that they will just relent. The other factor is that by pursuing Ball at every length it possibly only serves to give him greater currency which is what he wants with a St.Kilda contract in mind. By not pursuing him at all lengths we may possibly be helping our chances of getting him: 1) not trying to corner him and 2) St.Kilda may not have to offer such a great contract to keep him. There is more than one way to go about this.

I subscribe to your POV only if the ND was in play but I doubt he'll go into the ND anyway and the club have stated a similar opinion.

This probably has no baring what so ever with our situation but the Adelaide Crows have launched their new guernseys with Reebok - the contract finishes at the end of 2012. Seems a bit odd as Adidas (their previous sponsor) likes the big profile clubs but then again Adidas own Reebok anyway.

With a darker, more traditional guernsey you'd think that whoever we get would be happy as their logo would stand out more. I've read comments that our contract with Reebok expires so hopefully the new guernsey lands a big fish.

Did you think that maybe given hawks may want to clear some salary cap room?

I would have thought that if they paid Thorp out then that would take up cap space for next year anyway. Happy to be corrected though.

I suppose it could be as simple as would you rather have a "Dylan Grimes" or McNamara or Bartram.

Well at this point I must admit my ignorance here as I don't know much about Grimes or many of the draftees for that matter apart from what I've read on the net. I wouldn't mind seeing how McNamara turns out given the promising words Emma Quayle gave him a while back. Bartram - not fussed either way. Is Cheney still OOC?

Whether or not it's Thorp or someone else I would be very, very disappointed if we did not use 34 and PSD 1. If possible I would even look at 50 and if no one was better than who we delisted I would redraft them.

I feel the same way, although 50 I am not so worried about.

Thorp training with us is interesting. I wonder if there are 1 or 2 nervous uncontracted players. If we ended up chasing Thorp with PSD1 are we likely to create another spot so we have 1,2,11,18,34 + PSD1 or will we stay as is and forget 34?

Mark Stevens of the HUN considers the first 6 picks now a lock and then the following 3 likelys:

1 Jack Trengove Melb

2 Tom Scully Melb

3 Dustin Martin Rich

4 Anthony Morabito Freo

5 Ben Cunnington North

6 Gary Rohan Syd

________________________

7 Lewis Jetta "West Coast is almost certain to follow Fremantle's lead and go local ... Sources say Jetta may have the edge in the three-way fight to stay close to home."

8 John Butcher "The mail suggests Port wants a key forward and a midfielder. Expect it to take Gippsland's John Butcher, regarded as the brightest key-position prospect, "

9 Jake Melksham "Port would then top up its midfield with Calder Cannon Jake Melsham"

________________________

I take most of these draft predictions with a grain of salt but this one doesn't sound too far fetched.

This is neither a critique nor endorsement for Joel MacDonald although I think there could be worse players to pick in the PSD.

I just thought I would put up the figures for the height of our defence and see where MacDonald compares. Going by the numbers I think MacDonald may be able to find a niche in our defence or at least be handy for depth and match ups with his height. Having said that I don't wish to trivialise the whole thing because it comes down to how good a defender you are and the team's needs but McDonald has always seemed reasonably solid and having just turned 25 ideally still has a fair bit of footy ahead of him.

Using rpfc's defensive 7 purely as a guide I have bolded those players and then our other defensive options have been added as well as MacDonald. In the case of certain players I have commented if they have other possible positions they may also play (over time in the case of the younger ones) and have noted those players who are not necessarily long term options. Compared to the defenders most expected to be exclusive to the back 6, there seems to be a noticable gap where McDonald could be handy as an experienced backman. Like I said there will be a few options in the PSD for the club so I am not putting MacDonald up above anyone else (Thorp could be handy or we could stick with the ND), just thought the numbers were interesting.

Thoughts?

__________________________

Bennell 179 Midfield rotation

McDonald 180 Midfield rotation/last year

Bartram 181 No Certainty

Cheney 184 No Certainty

Strauss 185 Midfield rotation

Bell 186 No Certainty

Grimes 187 Midfield rotation - possibly exclusive mid over time

MacDonald 187

Bruce 190 Veteran

McNamara 190

Garland 191

Rivers 192

Warnock 192

Frawley 193

Martin 198 Ruck/utility

Wow, down to approx. $1 million in debt is a great effort. Things are almost becoming manageable.

He isn't worth a re-look, the reasons for letting him go have not changed and I don't understand the desperation some posters have with regards to the PSD. Nobody is pointing a gun to our heads and saying you MUST pick a PSD player. The club will weigh up it's options and if it beleives it is better served using ND pick 34 (or 50 if we lose another player) instead of PSD 1 then be it.

Trust the club.

Draft shy Ball to stay a Saint

"Melbourne's earliest selections are expected to be invested in teenagers Tom Scully and Jackson Trengove"

They'll get his ****ing name right one day...

(at least it wasn't Trengrove I suppose)

I don't think we ever embraced the NSW scholarship with any great enthusiasm. Like the idea of recruiting Irish footballers, the cost factor ruled us out when we were struggling financially. I think the Northern Territory (where we will be playing some home games in the next few years) is going to be one of our targeted areas in the short term.

Which has to be a great thing WJ.

You'd think that with the inception of GWS in 2012 that the NSW/ACT talent would have been well tapped into anyway going forward.

Looks like Ted got the chop.

He was on his last yr as a scholarship player and wasn't transferred to a rookie spot prior to list lodgement 1 (last Friday).

As it now stands we don't have any scholarship kids.

I missed the Fulham v Liverpool game, was Torres substituted (at 1-1) because he needed a spell or because Benitez got ahead of himself? I know Torress has a bit of an injury cloud but Liverpool make me laugh. They manage a win against the mighty Red Devils then follow it up with a loss to Terry McCann's lot lol. Liverpool truely are a joke.

Taking Bruce & McDonald off the vet list will fix up a fair bit of the $500k. And give us 2 more rookies.

But we don't have space for them in the regular 38 unless we only want to use 3 draft picks.

1858 - Very well explained, just one addendum - when a player is placed on the VL they can be moved back to the PL but will remain a Veteran and therefore a club will change from 50% saving to 33% saving.

So:

rpfc $900k - 450 outisde

1858 $600k - 300 outside

= $750 outside with 2 Vets placed on the VL.

To:

rpfc $900k - 300 outside

1858 $600k - 200 outside

hoopla $450 - 150 outside

= $650 outside with 3 vets and 2 placed on the VL.

I have the CBA on my computer.

There really isn't an incentive to name more Vets than the two on the VL, unless the third Vet is on stupid money.

Basically, the proportion of a salary outside the cap depends on the amount of Vets at a club.

Yeah, I showed the itemisations on the previous post (to the last - if that makes sense) but you are right, I hardly see the point in having more than 2 veterans either.

Are you 100% sure that a VL player can just go back to the PL withouth being delisted and re-recruited? I would have thought that a PL nominated veteran could be "un-nominated" but I think the rules are pretty rigid once a player actually goes on to the VL.

I see you are on a front loaded contract btw , as for hoopla I think 450k is a over the odds - I know we need to make the cap floor but that is too much considering I took a cut for the team. :D

Jake reminds me a bit of Kurt Tippett.

Add some muscle and strength to the boy and I think he will be a great KP player.

I would hope we can pick him up with Pick 18. But it wouldnt disappoint me if we took him with Pick 11 since he would like to wear a Demon jumper. We will still have other options with Pick 18 either way. Win/Win for us.

I haven't seen him live and youtube clips don't count but I must admit that in 1 of the clips he showed pretty good vertical lift and reach for a mark surrounded by players and dare I say it it was Tippett like.