Radar Detector

Exactly. See link for the AFL's description of the compensation rules: http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=96815

We received First Band compensation because, as stated by the AFL "Compensation is based primarily on the new contract offer to the player". There is no higher band meaning that the question of an upwards revision is moot. An increase of 11% and subsequent re-application of the rules would see us getting... First Band compensation.

C'mon guys. We got the top band of compensation. The same as Geelong received for Ablett. You know, the best player in the AFL? The regime was never fair per se. If it was fair, Geelong would've received two top three picks (what WCE got on the open market for Judd). They didn't. We would've received one top three pick. We didn't. The facts don't actually change our situation. The AFL have clearly stated that the duration and size of the contract are the key determinant of compensation. Even with Phil's wages included, that still sits Scully at about $6.7m over six years which is well short of Ablett's $9m over 5 years. We have absolutely no grounds for further compensation, even if the manner of the dealings have a stench to them that makes it all a bitter pill to swallow.

2011 was one of the hardest years of my football following life but times are darkest before the dawn. 186 and the associated events have led to the return of Garry Lyon and the subsequent overhaul of our club bringing Neeld, Craig, Misson et al - a panel we could only dream of until recently. Likewise, the scourge of Scully has been a cancer on the club and the impact of the distraction has probably been deeper than we could anticipate - however we now have Mitch Clark and up to three first round picks for next year in a strong draft (one being Jack Viney). IMO we wouldn't have chased Clark if we didn't have the compo picks up our sleeve and we can use our first round booty to chase a Gaff or Pendlebury next year (or just recruit some good kids). While the continual press around the Scully saga will continue to fuel the debate and provides an interesting sideshow, the reality is the deals are done, the compensation is set in stone and Scully will play for GWS next year. It's probably time we move on and start to look at the future, which may even be brighter now given the events of the recent past.

It would not surprise me if the backer W&H speaks of is related to board member David Thurin. He is the son in law of one of the wealthiest men in Australia (Top 10 BRW Rich list style).

Phil Scully is fast becoming the Damir Dokic of the AFL. These situations rarely work out well for the sportsperson, hopefully this case is no exception.

Both valid points, although I see a material difference between not "being afraid" of the competition compared with being a complacent incumbent (e.g. USA car manufacturers). It is possible for the NRL to simultaneously not be afraid of the AFL (my contention) and also not be complacent in their current position of relative strength (your contentions). Their fixturing, albeit minor tweaking, suggests they are being somewhat proactive, not necessarily reactionary and scared (certainly not yet). This overwhelming perception that the AFL always will always win its battles and that it will keep spending until GWS works is also a myth. The advantage of the AFL's "war-chest" is grossly over-stated as the footing isn't close to even and consequently the NRL will not need to spend anywhere near the same amount of cash to maintain its relative position (as their brand is already established the equivalent of the AFL's one-off start-up costs have already been spent). And in any event, big piles of cash don't guarantee success - there are countless examples of corporates that toast billions of dollars on projects that ultimately fail. I'm sure they have a walk-away point.

I tend to agree with this. How anybody could think that the NRL are afraid of AFL's push into GWS is beyond me. The NRL are the incumbent and their brand there is strong. Whilst the NRL have probably tinkered their fixturing to knock some of the wind out of the Giants' sails early, I doubt they would be losing much sleep over the AFL's foray. It will be decades before they draw genuinely good crowds around the 20,000 mark (without handouts and freebies) if indeed they ever get there. Don't underestimate the apathy of supporters in the area to sport in general, let alone sports they have no emotional or traditional affiliation with.

"... on the season". Thanks for nothing James Brayshaw!

I concur. The AFL would surely view this initial phase as a combination of establishing the club for a tilt at a flag in 5-10 years time, as well as establishing a supporter base in a somewhat inhospitable environment. GWS have focussed so steadfastly on building a young list that they look to have their work cut out in order to win any games at all over the next couple of years. I struggle to see how the team will garner any support if they're not winning games which will in turn prolong the AFL's required bankrolling of the team. I suspect the AFL would be less than impressed.

I agree with JCB to an extent. Although he does a pretty good job as KPD at the minute, I think it's not his ideal role. But I wouldn't play him on the wing, I would slot him into HBF, similar to the way Joel Mac is played now. He would almost never lose a contest in that position.

Just playing devil's advocate for a minute... assuming we make no more rookie delistings, we will have three selections in the upcoming rookie draft. I doubt that there have been too many players selected in the fourth round or later of the rookie draft that have gone on to have stellar careers. James McDonald is the only player I know of (taken at the start of rookie fourth round) that has forged a stellar career from this low down in the pecking order. And 2011 is supposed to be a weak draft at the pointy end, let alone the rookie pool. My point is, that while Juice may not have shown much in his seven years, the reality is we are sacrificing almost nothing by retaining him, especially if the FD see a sliver of value. Now back to reality, it's probably a moot point as I suspect he will be delisted anyway.

I think that the only real gaping hole is another gun mid (factoring Viney as an inclusion in 2013). With that in mind, and given the boost to our forward structure provided by Clark as well as the physical development of our younger players, I don't think 7-10 is a reasonable expectation next year. Unlike the season just gone, we should have a discernable gameplan and a focus on structure. Key players like Watts (and Morton?) will add yet more bulk over pre-season and the natural development of the young side should point to noticeable improvement. And we are not jettisoning a chunk of older, experienced heads to facilitate the acquisition of more youngsters in the draft. I'm not saying that we should make finals next year, but 10-12 wins should be a minimum target. If we don't hit that range I would suggest that some of our annointed young 'guns' aren't coming on has hoped and we should be revising our 'window' expectations

If he's kicked 35 for the season he's done his job. A return 0f 45+ would be sensational. Most importantly, the additional benefits from an improved structure will hopefully be seen in Watts, Jurrah et al.

This exercise shows how tough it is to pick a best 22. The reality is there are about a dozen certainties and the rest are all in the mix depending on form and opposition. A couple of things I would like to see next year though are Bennell given the chance to make the small defender role his own. He has great pace and skills but doesn't get enough footy up the ground. But he seems to play his best footy shutting an opponent down. I would also like to see Grimes start the season as a mid. I think we have enough players in the mix to play off half back, including Garland, Blease, Tapscott, Joel Mac (if he stays), Strauss (if fit), Davey, Morton and some of the younger guys as well. Grimes could be a weapon in the midfield. Also, would love to see Neeld give Morton a decent opportunity to regain some form and confidence. I really feel like he could be one of the most damaging players on our list if developed the right way given his height, pace and tank. I would hate to see him fade into oblivion over the next two seasons.

I tend to agree with Sylvinator. We're one gun mid short at the moment, factoring Viney as an addition for 2013 and Trengove as a potential star. Hopefully we can address that next draft/trade period. Our forward and backlines now have a great look about them with the most encouraging part being the depth. Cook, Fitzpatrick, McDonald and Davis are all KP prospects that may not get much air time next year but show plenty of promise. Our 2013 spine should be pretty impressive. When we have a midfield to match we will be a serious threat.

I reckon we've left ourselves in an extremely strong position and am quietly happy we didn't snare Caddy this year. He will quite likely make his way home next year anyway and will probably be cheaper given he will be OOC. Also, there is likely to be another 17yo mini-draft in which we may be able to snare another O'Meara. Or we can use the picks to go hard at another OOC mid like Pendlebury, Gaff etc. Or failing that, two first rounders plus Viney in a strong draft is a pretty good result.

Unless Caddy is a serious chance of becoming a jet in the way that Scully or O'meara are, I'd keep my powder dry with the priority picks for a few reasons. Firstly, they will have great currency next year given the strength of the draft, albeit we have to nominate straight up. Secondly, Pendlebury, Gaff and a host of the GCS kids come out of contract next year. Thirdly, some of the GWS kids may already want out by then. And finally, the draft is set to be strong anyway...

Agree. He's no more of a long shot than Clark other than he is in contract and will be morke expensive. He's someone I would happily trade 2 first rounders for.

Stef Martin has shown heaps as a ruck/follower and also a tall defender but never have I seen anything to suggest he will be a success as a tall forward. If by some fanciful stroke of luck we manage to land Clark, I could easily see Jamar, Martin and Clark in the same side with Clark playing key forward and taking ruck duties in the 50 and Jamar/Martin playing as they did in 2011. Just gives the side more flexibility IMO. The one who would lose most out of this in the immediate term would be Gawn, but only for a year or so.

There needs to be an independent arbiter to determine who the best deal is for each mini draft pick in isolation. The mooted deals smack of one deal (i.e. GWS keeping mdp1) subsidising unders on another (i.e. mdp2). If another party offers a better deal for pick 2, they should be obliged to take it which may have the cascading effect of scuttling the deal for pick one.

Why don't we go after Tippett? Could package pick 12 in with Warnock. Would then allow us to go for mids in the bumper draft next year.

Beamer slotted in at number 49. Probably fair given his year.

Never said it was likely - in fact I think I claimed the opposite! Still, I'd throw something at them that they at least wouldn't laugh at and I think that is the best we could do.

Controversial I know (and pie in the sky) but I'd throw both our compo picks plus Jamar for Pendlebury. We need a gun mid more than anything else and I think we have the ruck stocks to cover the Russian in two years time. Jolly is looking on his last legs at the Pies but having a gun ruck was a massive ingredient in their 2010 flag win. I still think we'll be fine for tall forwards, just need to be patient.