Gooner

It's only a delisting if it's on our senior list. Therefore Martin could be one of the compulsory delistings, but Newton won't be. The other issue is that we'll probably want to recruit at least one rookie with our first round rookie pick. If Newton doesn't perform, he'll free up one space on the rookie list. The other six rookies are on two year contracts.

Although we gave up picks 2 and 18 in 1997 for White. We won't get that with GC/GWS. I don't know why the AFL couldn't simply make the trade rules for the new clubs the same as every other club in order to assure that clubs who lose players, get fair compensation for them. The additional salary caps are sufficient to encourage clubs to give a decent crack at getting some quality players, but Ablett is worth a lot more than Geelong got, as is Scully.

I think it's actually a decent possibility. Here are my reasons: - teams sometimes have a season when they jump from outside the eight to the top four when they've going though a process of improvement - we've got a favourable draw - we don't have many injuries and seem to have had a good pre-season so far - there are a lot of teams that aren't improving - I would not be surprised to see Geelong or the Western Bulldogs miss the eight - none of the other teams in the eight with the exception of Freo seem to have enough young talent to improve significantly If we can sort out some of the structural issues with the forward line, then we've got the potential to make the top four.

It's similar to the Champions League, which is the top teams from each country. For example, it's the top four English/Italian and Spanish sides, the top three French and German sides, the top two Portugese/Dutch etc It includes group stages and then a knockout format for the final sixteen. The FA Cup is a knockout competition that includes all teams in England regardless of division. The only problem with this is how would it influence the VFL, WAFL etc? Would the top teams drop out for a year? How would they qualify the following year?

Fantastic idea Gives the VFL more exposure and means that if you finish 3rd or 4th you still achieve something.

Look at our rookies at the moment, we've only got Michael Newton (after Spencer and Jordie are upgraded) I believe. That means that we've got 5 picks in the rookie draft this year. With Gold Coast coming in and GWS having the first eight picks, it means that our first pick is pick 14 and then every 17th pick after that. It's likely that we'll be picking up our final rookie selection somewhere in the 70-90 range. Also remember that we can upgrade a rookie from round one as a result of only having one veteran on the list. The salaries of rookies only count for half on the salary cap, so we may be able to pick up a player in a similar way to the pre-season draft and promise to promote them to the senior list in round one. That gives us the ability to still use four picks in the draft, and also to pick up an experienced player via the rookie draft in order to replace Bruce. It seems that if we can speak to a player before hand, and convince them to enter the rookie rather than the pre-season draft in order to come to Melbourne, then we may be able to replace Bruce with an experienced player without it costing us a spot on our senior list. Should we do this? Who would you list to see come to the club as a mature age rookie?

Look at our rookies at the moment, we've only got Michael Newton (after Spencer and Jordie are upgraded) I believe. That means that we've got 5 picks in the rookie draft this year. With Gold Coast coming in and GWS having the first eight picks, it means that our first pick is pick 14 and then every 17th pick after that. It's likely that we'll be picking up our final rookie selection somewhere in the 70-90 range. Also remember that we can upgrade a rookie from round one as a result of only having one veteran on the list. Therefore, we should consider that we could pick up Anthony with a late rookie pick, with not much talent remaining by then, and only half his salary could count towards the salary cap. Also remember, that the rookies are on a two year deal I believe, that means that we will only be able to pick one rookie next year with only Newton being out of contract (unless we promote another rookie), and will have to either promote, extend for one year or delist five rookies in 2012. He may not be the answer to our forward line problems, but it wouldn't hurt to give him, or someone similar a try.

Anthony could be a decent pick-up, although I wouldn't want him unless we could pick him up via the rookie draft and then promote him. We've traded for another 3rd rounder, so we should use it and shouldn't have to waste a place on the senior list after losing a veteran/rookie spot as a result of Bruce leaving. He's not likely to be a Roughy/Fev etc type, but if he can provide a big presence up forward and take some pressure off the rest of the forward line.

Can't see Geelong being included when you consider some of the teams that have been missed: Carlton 1906-08 Collingwood 1927-30 My vote would have to be Melbourne 1957 or Collingwood 1930. The Dees won 5 in six years and should've won 6 of 6, making them undoubtably the best of all time followed by the Pies 4 on the trot. Brisbane was a great team, but never finished top of the ladder after the home and away season so I can't make them as a great team. However, over the ground, I think they were a better team than Geelong in '07 on the basis that they had a better forward line whilst matching them in the midfield and defence. Hawthorn '88 was a great team and are in with a shout as the greatest of all time, I'd place them 3rd. I don't rate Essendon in '00, I think the fact that they weren't up to it in '01 and '99 means that they can't be considered the greatest of all time, and it could've been more of a weaker league in '00 with the Kangas dropping off and the Lions not yet a force. One thing that bodes well for future premiership success is that of the Dees flags, only five of them have been a single flag, the others have been in two groups of 3 and a double. Let's hope we can do it in 2012-14 or something similar.

The reason why I considered it was that we won't be competing for the flag for another 2-3 years at the earliest, by which time he'll be 29-30. Cox and Hille are 29 and have started to go down hill a bit, although they're still capable of playing good football. Hopefully Spencer, Gawn and Fitzpatrick will have started to develop and we'll have one or two more top forward/midfielders who add strength and depth to our premiership team. Remember, the in the past when we've traded older quality players, such as Johnstone and McLean, we've picked up quality kids in Grimes and Gysberts.

Something that I've been considering for some time is whether we should trade Jamar. He's been great for us this season and will be useful in developing the other rucks, however, his value is at it's peak following his inclusion in the All Australian team. He's my argument for trading him: - he could be worth a first round draft pick (Jolly went for pick 14 and 46 when he was 27) - he's 27 and will start going down hill in the next couple of years - he's just played his best season - this is the first season in which he's played 22 games, he played 21 games in 2006, but other than that, his previous best was 14 games in 2008 - he's an All Australian player and that will inflate his value significantly (Burgoyne was worth picks 8 & 9 despite his only All Australian appearance being in 2006, three years before he was traded) - we could recruit another young player or two with a high draft pick who will develop alongside Scully, Trengove, Watts & co. Who would want him? - Hawthorn? - Bulldogs? - Adelaide (pick 14)? - Port (pick 16)? - Gold Coast? - Carlton (pick 18)? It's difficult to see who would pick him up, although I'm sure that things will become a lot clearer once the Gold Coast enters trade week and other teams get some of their picks in exchange for their players.

Essendon fans are notoriously bandwagon fans. They tend to have a lot of passionate (and massively overconfident fans), but also have a lot of fans that associate themselves with Essendon, but rarely attend matches. Unlike their nearest rivals Collingwood and Carlton, they don't have the same amount of fans that will support the club through thick and thin. After quite a few years of success, they've also developed an expectation of success and tend to get stuck into the team when they don't succeed, but yet still expect success. As a result, the club tries to rebuild too quickly and they don't have the talent to crack the top four.

I wouldn't be too fussed if Cheney stayed, although he merely seems to be a depth player and in time some of the kids and new draftees (I know he's young himself) will get a few more games and surpass him. My point was more focused towards Warnock though.

I said before the season that 10th would be a good result, 12th an average result and 14th or below a poor season. On that basis I think we've had a good season. Most people had us around 10-12 at the start of the year with some optimists talking finals. I think in terms of expectations, we've at least met the expectations if not surpassed them.

Agree with most of that, although I'd hold on to Warnock. He's still a very good player and should remain on our list to swap in when Frawley/Rivers/Garland suffer injuries.

The issue with trading is that value for money is often not received. Particularly in terms of players who are 25+ Clubs don't want to let their young talent go and some crazy prices have been paid for older players. Consider - Jolly, 29 - first round pick Burgoyne, 26 - two first round picks McLean, 24 - first round pick etc When there's probably a chance of picking up a player who could play 200+ games or has the talent of a Grimes or Jones, it's not worth trading those picks away at this stage, particularly for midfielders. Trading is not useful when the premiership window is not yet open. Wait at least another year before we worry about trading. The only situation in which we should consider trading is if the recruiting staff thought that a player like Tom Lynch from St Kilda was a real talent but is surplus to St Kilda's current requirements in having a crack at the flag and could do with a player of ours or just wanted to pick a particular player from the draft that was likely to be around by a pick of ours but not theirs. I'm not suggesting that we should trade for Lynch as I don't know enough about him, but that's the only sort of player that we could do with trading for.

An employment contract is ok, as long as it's for the benefit of the minor. I don't think we've got much of a case if Jack decided to nominate for the draft outside the father-son rules. The contract for his employment once drafted by the club would be binding, although the contract (if it met the requirements for contract formation), may not. The other issue, is that the Dees, if they wanted to hold Jack to his word, would probably struggle to prove that there was an intention to enter legal relations anyway.

In regards to the contract, it doesn't matter whether there's offer, acceptance or consideration or whether the onus of proof has been satisfied, because he doesn't have the legal capacity to make such a contract, being only 16. He must be at least 18 in order for a contract to be binding.

Kellie Underwood isn't the best commentator out there, but she's not as bad as people suggest. I think a lot of people are put off by the fact that she's female and they're not used to it. It makes her stick out a little more than the other commentators and any bad calls are emphasised to a greater extent. In a positive light, at least we're on free to air TV this week. It's been a while since those without foxtel have been able to see a game if we can't make it to the 'G

Following the controversy over the clash between our strip and the umpires strip, I was thinking about how much the AFL has cost us financially through their mismanagement. In considering the costs, I thought about: Membership reductions Possible finals revenue Prize money Sponsorship Future gate receipts etc Although it's only one match, it would've been a win against a top four contender and one of the pre-season premiership favourites. I can see this bringing in a lot more supporters and in turn, more sponsorship dollars. It's particularly hurtful considering it was on our only Friday night match for the year.

Absolutely pathetic. Umpiring in the final term was pathetic. Some of the worst umpiring I've seen. To give away three goals from free kicks, particularly the shepherd on Wells in the last is disgraceful and why people will stop going to matches. Davey was terrible today. He made a couple of good decisions in the third, but was otherwise shocking and I wouldn't be surprised to see him dropped in order to make an example.

It's open to exploitation. I can't think of another sport in which substitutes are allowed for injured players. I expect the AFL will bring it in, there will be problems, and they'll continually change it. Maybe four subs isn't enough. If you contrast it to other sports: Football (Soccer): 4-7 reserves, 3 substitutions permitted Rugby League Union: not exaclty sure on the number, but I think there are one off subs (unless it's a temporary injury) and quite a few of them Basketball - about ten reserves, unlimited substitutions No sport works the same way as AFL. Either they have one time use subs or a large number on the bench. There is no way to get it to work perfectly, so don't muck around with the game.

I was referring to the quality of the top five or six as you were, but making the point that there's not much quality, and hence depth beyond that.

Watts to come in this week? He's had a couple of matches in the reserves to get some match fitness. Richmond could be a good confidence boosting game for him to come back for.

I like the forward pocket just inside gate 5. Although I'm not sure if there's a regular seating area for Dees fans.