Dr. Gonzo

We need to be going hard after this guy, exactly the type of player and situation we should be targeting.

On one hand I get it - on the other they got Beams last year under similar circumstances so can't really complain.

His main limitation is that he doesn't run both ways. He's a downhill skier of the worst kind. Roos played him in defence to try and get his head around being responsible for an opponent but it didn't work.

The AFL are a corrupt joke of an organisation. Seriously when will clubs say enough is enough and start holding them to account? I know the media would never do it as they would be ostracised and have their credentials/access revoked.

I think you're confusing the two issues. If Buddy retires, Sydney can negotiate a payout figure which is the money he will receive in his bank account. However Sydney will still need to include Buddy's salary as it stands in his contract in their salary cap. He won't receive this money buy it will still count against their cap until 2022. Also Buddy's contract depreciated over the course of the 9 years. So for instance year 1 would be $1.5m, year 2 $1.3m etc until year 9 which may only be $700k.

When people say "rubbish draft" they're usually referring to depth of the draft past pick 30-40, not the quality of top 20 picks. How do you know it's a rubbish draft?

No it doesn't. Frawley showed 10x more in his career at the Demons than Howe has shown. He was AA and consistently shut down the best forwards playing in one of the worst teams of all time! Howe hasn't done much in his career to date.

I dont have a problem with this approach, it is a professional sport these days after all. As long as once a contract is signed the player acts in a professional manner then I don't mind the professional approach to contract negotiations. It's the way of the game now.

Kicking him out for nothing would be stupid. Using him as tradebait to try and get an upgrade is smart.

It's about the competition not just the MFC.

That's draft tampering and if the AFL had any balls they would knock that on the head right now.

Another one I'd add us removing the salary floor - how can the bottom clubs build decent war chests to benefit from FA if they're forced to overpay their existing players?

Unless the AFL fixes the many flaws in the system then smaller clubs don't stand a chance. First priority should be enforcing a hard salary cap with strict penalties for any breaches. No third party deals to entice players to a new club. Second should be allowing clubs to nominate franchise players who are exempt from FA. Remember FA was about ensuring mid-range players can easily move to a new club for better opportunities not to allow A-graders to move to top clubs for easy premierships. This is about money and opportunities to play senior footy not about top range players all moving to the same 3 or 4 clubs to build all-star teams. Third should be removing players right to veto trades. If they have FA after a period of time then anything before that should be controlled by the club. The offset could be reducing the qualifying period for FA from 8 to 6 years. Rookie contracts should also have options up to 4 years (probably even 6 for 1st round picks). 2 years for an 18 year old kid isn't enough. That's just for a start.

An every week top 3 mid will cost you two first round picks. Pick 6 for Hartlett is about right and I would be doing backflips if we landed him though I seriously doubt we are in the running.

If he leaves Port surely he'll go to the Crows - they've got plenty of cap space once Dangerfield leaves.

I think the criticism was over the 4 year contract from memory.

And you don't give them $400k/year over 4 years.

No. I did this a couple of years back (around 2009) because I was sick of the AFL screwing us and wanted all the money to go direct to the club. But the fact is the club just can't compete with the AFL membership. $550 gets you into 40 H&A games with close to best seats in the house, plus pretty much free entry to first three weeks of finals (have to pay an $18 booking fee) and half price GF tickets. If your club makes the finals and your a top tier club member (say it's the same around $550) you'll end up paying that $550 plus $80 for both week 1 and week 2 of finals, then about $160 for week three. That means you'll end up paying $870 for the year compared to $610 for an AFL Gold Member. Then you've got GF tickets which are about $180 for AFL Gold compared to $350 for club members and you'll probably get top tier Ponsford Stand. After a couple of years on Trident Memberships my family switched back to our Full AFL Memberships (we were able to get back on without having to go on the waiting again). Main reason was value for money and being able to take my kids to finals/GF's down the track regardless of who is competing. TL;DR - if you want value for money stick with AFL Membership if you don't care and just want to support the club get the MFC Membership.

He did the same thing to Jetta and put him out of commission for the best part of a month!

1%ers definitely are measured by Champion Data. If you want to know what Roos thinks of Howe and Watts go and check last tears Swans game and the bake he gave them at either 1/4 or 3/4 time. Since then he's given them plenty of chances but neither have stepped up to the plate despite showing glimpses.

Maybe he's played so many games because he's a better option than Terlich or Bail or McKenzie or Matt Jones. It's not like we're spoilt for choice is it? Would you give back Brayshaw to take back Frawley? Similar arguments, played (almost?) every game for last couple of years. If not Brayshaw then Frost or Neal-Bullen someone of equivalent draft status. What about Sylvia, should we have signed him up because he was a regular or are you happier with Vince who just won our B&F?

We're obviously not going to delist him/trade him for a bag of peanuts - he has value! But if we can get a decent trade out of him we will rush to sign it off.

Did you see his game on Saturday sans-Franklin? Did you see his 2012 season at the Crows? He is light years ahead as a second forward/second ruck option than anything we have or could really hope to get. I doubt we will get him so it's mainly a hypothetical argument but for a Melbourne supporter to turn their nose up at Tippett because we have Dawes, Fitzpatrick and an ageing Pedersen is frankly unfathomable.

I hope we can use him to get something decent - if not and he sticks around I won't be upset but best case scenario is we trade him out.

Because he shows glimpses of good things on occasion he just lacks consistency and application. Other clubs will back themselves to "get the most out of him" when in fact I think what we see is already his best. This could go two ways - either they give us fair compo in a trade and do get the best out of him in which case it's a win/win or they overpay anf he remains the same inconsistent one way runner elsewhere in which case we win. Either way we're better off without him.