Gooner

I'd let GWS have Jamar if the AFL compensated us well enough, although given how much we've been screwed over by the AFL recently, I'd suggest they'd probably offer us pick 87 for Jamar or something ridiculous. I find the AFL's concept of giving extra draft picks for losing a player to be a little weird also. It seems somewhere in the middle of the unrestricted free agency where a player could go anywhere once his contract is up or allowing players do leave but making the other side pay compensation (either cash or draft picks).

There are several ways in which this could be done. It could be done through direct donations to the club, or if you wanted to keep it independent from the club, through a trust. Arsenal Football Club in the UK have a similar concept (http://www.arsenaltrust.org/) through which they have purchased shares in the club and provide a way for supporters to communicate with the club. They have organised question and answer sessions with the CEO and help keep the club accountable to fans. Obviously Clint Bizkit's suggestion is based around financial support for the club, but it could be a way for supports to assist the club financially in exchange for greater transparency and communication with the club. The biggest issues with the trust is setting up the terms of the trust and appointing a trustee/s, but it could definitely be done.

Interesting to see Victory's response: http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/melbournevictory/news-display/Melbourne-Victory-statement-regarding-EnergyWatch/46720

It's all going to come down to the terms of the contract. It's possible that the club could seek an injunction to stop Energywatch using them, although my bigger concern is the club being sued for breach of contract. I hope we've got some strong cancellation terms in the contract otherwise the sponsorship could end up costing us money.

What was BP's role with respect to team meetings? I imagine he would've had some sort of role so that he could look for players would fit into our game plan.

http://www.melbourne...52/default.aspx Looks like his first public decision will be to call out his son's name. Interesting that a full time recruiting manager is still planned but Viney is still calling the shots at a draft eight months away!

Looking at the highlights, he looks like he's got a decent goal kicking style, but seems to make a few skill errors when setting up the play. He's a project player who will hopefully come good in a few years.

We've got three spaces spare on the rookie list. I think that'll be most of the changes that we're likely to made. Being a weak draft, it's unlikely that we'll pick more than four players (we've currently got three spots) and more than three or four rookie spots. I think the most likely outcome is three national draftees and three rookies. We can free up list space next year and use the compo picks and possibly use five or six picks in the ND next year and a further 2-3 in the rookie draft.

I don't think he'd seriously go into the PSD. It's just to try and force Brisbane's hand. Although, if he's after money and wants out of Brisbane, he could go to GWS or Melbourne in the national draft. I think it's much more likely that Brisbane will end up accepting Freo's offer at the last minute.

I don't agree with the argument that GWS will have problems with the way that they've recruited. As much as I hate them, I think they've gone about it quite well. They've got lots of draft picks and the players who they have recruited are all young. They'll be crap for the first couple of years but then will become a good side. It's just a pity that there won't be anyone attending any of their games to see it. As for the idea of diminishing returns, that concept isn't that relevant. Each additional kid will add to their future success if the kids are reasonable quality but there is always a chance that one or two of the draft picks will be duds. However, that's the case regardless of the number of picks that you have. In fact, the more picks you have, the better because you can diversify and reduce the risk of your major draft picks being duds. Whilst I agree that it'd be better to have picks over a number of years, that wasn't an option. I think the two things that GWS could have done better is recruit a couple of average players but good leaders and recruit more from out of contract players, as they effectively cost nothing as the AFL awards ADDITIONAL compensation. That's the worst thing about the way GWS and GCS have come in and taken some quality players whilst the AFL gives up the compensation and all clubs suffer. It'd be better to give GWS more draft picks and make them trade them for Scully etc.

If we can pick up Lisle for a third round pick I'd be happy with that. I don't think he's worth much more than that, but he'd be a good speculative pick. Maybe throw in an exchange of second round picks also if possible. Or a straight swap with Warnock if the Hawks want him.

"Crows get mini-draft pick, but who to choose? The Age's Emma Quayle reports that Adelaide will give GWS its No.10 pick in this year's NAB AFL Draft, plus the compensation pick it received for losing Phil Davis, in exchange for pick two in Monday's 17 year-old mini-draft. Quayle says that will net the Crows highly rated Victorian Brad Crouch. But Michelangelo Rucci of The Advertiser reports that they may instead select local small forward Ben Kennedy to avoid the same 'go home factor' that saw Jack Gunston demand a trade to Hawthorn. As part of the deal, Norwood teenager Luke Brown could be pre-listed by the Giants and sent to Adelaide, according to The Age. " http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/125021/default.aspx

We've got plenty of salary cap room. Why not offer Brisbane pick 12 plus a large contract to Clark? If it doesn't go through, we've still got pick 12 and salary cap space. If it goes through, then we pick up a quality player for a fair price.

I would've liked to get Crouch, but two first round picks is too much in my opinion. Over the last few years, there have been a lot of 17 year olds who have been very highly rated the year before the draft but then slipped down the pecking order and there have been late bolters who weren't considered top draft picks when they were 17. It may be that Crouch and O'Meera may turn out to be mid first round picks or top five picks. It's too early to say which they'll be and whether Adelaide and GC have got a good deal or not. I think they've both had to pay more than they wanted to because of the demand for the 17 year olds and we may be better off missing out on them, particularly if we don't have a great year next year and decide to activate the $cully picks. Looking through the last few years drafts, here are my recollections of 17 year old prospects 2008 - Rich (7), Shuey (18) and Natanui (2) were the clear favourites when they were 17, Watts (1) and Hill (3) weren't talked about much when they were 17. 2009 - Scully (1) was the clear favourite when 17, but Trengove (2) and Martin (3) weren't spoken about much at all. In addition Butcher (8) was considered to go at 2. 2010 - Swallow was the clear best pick when 17 and like Scully the same thing happened when he was 18, the rest were mixed up a little more, and I didn't pay as much attention as I Melbourne didn't have the top picks. It should also be mentioned that Toy was expected to go in the top three of the 2009 draft had he not been taken by GC but has shown potential and little more in his short career so far. I'm sure there are plenty out there with better knowledge of the drafts who can point out the risks in picking a player at 17 rather than 18. If Melbourne finish 8th next year, we could have picks 11,12 and 13 in a strong draft. There have been some great players picked up with those picks. If we finish even lower then we'll have the potential to pick up even better players.

I think we should be able to get Crouch for something around a price of one of our compensation picks. It looks like O'Meera is going to GCS plus pick 9 in exchange for picks 4 and 11 (Geelong's mid draft compensation pick). That equates to something like pick 6 when you average out the two sides to the deal. We're a little short of that, but we're asking for pick 2 in the mini draft not pick 1 also. We could trade one of our compensation picks plus a player such as Bate or Warnock in exchange for pick two in the mini draft.

It's very easy for a club to approach a player or a coach and still be able to deny that they have approached the player or coach. They simply speak to the player or coach's agent and ask 'would he be interested?'. They get a response and move on from there. If they can't agree terms, then they can still deny that they have ever spoken to the player or coach because it's all done through intermediataries. The information often gets leaked to the media by agents who are looking to pump up the price of the player or agent. For example, GWS probably spoke to $cully's agent in March, asked if he'd be interested in coming for $5m over years. The agent then leaks that to the media to bump up Melbourne's offer. GWS feel under pressure and offer $cully $6m to get him to sign. The same sort of thing probably happened with Lyon and Clarkson. Melbourne made enquiries with their agents, their agents leaked the information and as a result, they received better deals at Freo and Clarkson respectively.

I'm fairly sure that clubs have to declare whether they're using the picks after trade week rather than before the season commences. I think you're identified a good strategy for the teams who received a pick from GC17. I wouldn't be surprised to see a club who has a GC17 compensation pick trade it plus another pick/exchange of picks/player to GC17 or Port in exchange for their first round pick. For example, Brisbane may trade their compensation pick plus their second round pick to GC/Port in exchange for GC/Port's first round pick and their third round pick. However, I think unless we can get O'Meera or another gun 17 year old at a discount we should bank the picks as they'll be worth more next year when teams know when they can be used (because their ladder positions for 2012 or whenever they're traded will be known). There are risks in picking a 17 year old because their talent is less certain at that age, and it'd be nice to get the player at a discount to reflect that. I think a trade of our compensation pick for O'Meera would be fair and we can use our mid round pick next year when we use our first round pick on Jack Viney.

I think that's a good strategy. In fact, holding off with the pick 11 may be the better option. There are likely to be a few clubs that want to use their priority pick next year, which may dilute our mid draft pick. However, on the other hand if we're building a list, it'd be nice to have the pick available to use on a player who we could develop for a few years before we reach finals. Using the priority pick on a 17 year old is a little risky, as we're drafting a player a year out from when their draft position could be more accurately determined. Consider Luke Shuey and John Butcher were considered to be much higher picks that when they were picked when they were 17.

For all the talk that $cully is a liability because of his knee, I think that's just Melbourne supporters trying to cope with the loss. Yes, he did miss a lot of games with his knee this year, but we don't know how many of those games missed were due to his knee and if others were missed because he wasn't right in the head to be on the park. The fact is that $cully is an amazing talent. He may turn out to be the best player in the league, or he may turn out just to be a good player, but Melbourne have lost a lot. The problem with our compensation is that he are a team (hopefully?) on the up, and as a result, if we make finals or go close to finals for the next four years, we won't receive adequate value for $cully. At the very least it'll be a small compensation knowing that if we have a poor season next year, then the picks that we get will be better than if we had a good season. Unfortunately, we're in a position that we need to use the picks quicker than other clubs who are starting their rebuilding, like the Dogs, or who are in the middle of rebuilding, like the Crows as we've almost finished our rebuilding and will spend the next few years consolidating and trading for better players.

The term 'super draft' is thrown around a lot. There was talk of the Watts draft being a 'super draft' with Watts, Natanui and Rich considered to be close to Hodge, Judd and Ball. We don't know how good the draft will be for several years.

If we don't get MM, then it may be worth one more year of pain to get the most out of the draft as some have proposed. Unfortunately, we've got a developing list and will be pushing finals for the next few years and therefore won't get full compensation for our picks. I think the Doggies, who are on the decline will benefit more from Ward leaving that we will from $cully. I expect GWS to finish bottom next year, and I think Brisbane and Port will finish below us also. I think that leaves us with at best pick four next year, even if we tank. Best case scenario would be that none of the top picks select Viney and we an use picks four, five and eleven assuming no one else uses their compensation pick before us. Then we can pick Viney with our second round pick. I think this is too optimistic, but it's the best way that we can benefit from $cully leaving and the only way that we'll get fair compensation.

I think this is relatively easy to do and something that all Melbourne supporters should consider (and Geelong supporters given the compensation they received for Ablett). It's not about rejecting footy, just the AFL. For example: - don't do footy tipping on the AFL website, use another website - don't do dreamteam, do Supercoach only if you have to - don't buy merchandise unless it's from the MFC shop - if you're not a member already, sign up as a member rather than paying at the gate etc

I actually don't mind this idea for several reasons: - by playing the worse teams it means that the teams down the bottom of the ladder should win more games during the season. In the bad seasons, teams may still win 5-6 games rather than 3-4 games because they play the poorer teams more often and this could increase attendances - it means that the league should benefit with more competitive games being played - there is something to play for all season, I think finishing in the promotion places is more rewarding than finishing 8th and being knocked out of the first round of the finals, currently, only the top four sides have a realistic chance of winning the flag - it's not that different to the current situation where half the teams have no realistic chance of winning the flag and the top sides all play each other multiple times However, the bigger issues arise in teams who improve rapidly or fall rapidly. For example, the bulldogs this year in playing all the big sides would suffer and win few games, or the eagles would be crushing all the sides in the bottom half. I don't think the financial aspects are as big an issue as people are suggesting. The big teams already play more blockbusters and are more likely to play each other twice during the season and benefit financially as a result. I think it makes for a fairer league in that teams that make into the top half actually benefit, rather than the AFL simply selecting the teams that they want to see benefit on the basis of membership. For example, Essendon or Carlton wouldn't continue to get blockbuster games unless they finished in the top eight, and the Kangaroos wouldn't miss out on big games despite finishing in the top eight as they did a few years ago.

I'm not convinced that they'll leapfrog us, but they could do so. All the other new clubs outperformed most expectations in their first season. It's clear that the concessions have made a mockery of the AFL. GC making finals won't change what is already known.

It's a big call, but I reckon GC will make finals. 11-12 wins.