The Chazz

I think the Webjet sponsorship is 12 months, with a 2 year option after that. Other than that I agree with what you are saying.

If you actually read my posts, you will notice that I'm saying that Howe is more than a HFF, therefore idicating that he has more tricks in his bag than RP. And if you still are unsure of my opinion, just check my posts #3 and #17, and you will find it clear that I didn't mean Howe had bugger all tricks.

It's not about writing him off, it's about the fact the players have either gone past him (ie Howe), or are holding their own (ie Dunn). I don't think the MFC will win a flag with Dunn in the team, it may with Ricky, but at the moment, as Nasher said, RP can't get a game ahead of Dunn so a few supporters have their concerns.

Totally incorrect Bing sorry. If we have Pick 3, and at the bidding for JV GWS and GC say "we will place a bid in for him, with no intention of picking him up, but forcing Melbourne to take him with Pick 3", then that is totally dictating terms on their behalf. What would you call it when 2 Clubs place a bid for a player they have no desire to pick up?

I seriously question some views, with this one being at the top of the list. The OP talked about how we should have a fair bit of money up our sleeve to throw at players during FA, yet the best name you can come up with is 1AW? If we are serious about spending big money on someone, they have to be a game breaker and Walker isn't one. Why don't we look at some of the better players in the league and target them? We are crying out for a bona fide star, let's get him rather than 2nd and 3rd rate players (we have enough of them!).

My concern with all of this post is the idea of throwing coin at potential stars. I'd rather throw double the amount of coin at a current star, especially one that has a good 6-8 years of elite level performance in him.

Personally, I wouldn't rate Dangerfield higher than Boak. I'm not saying Boak is ahead of him, but I just don't see why we need all this juice flying around for Patty.

Has played every game this year, yet averages 12 disposals a game, which is less than Trengove (16) who I think has had an ordinary start to the year also. I dispute the claims of good skills - I think his disposal this year has been dog ordinary. Don't get me wrong, I like Ro, but at the moment, he is very lucky that we have no-one at Casey pushing for his spot.

There's 2 roles in our team that I can see (in my view); 1. Solid HFF that is a competent midfielder 2. A defending/shut down/HFF-type that can kick goals At the moment, we have Howe and Sylvia ticking the box of number 1, and Dunn ticking the box of number 2. Petterd isn't our best option for either role, hence he is playing at Casey. Same could be said about Green. Some on here praise Ricky for his defensive pressure, but he has not shown anywhere near any form of consistency in this area. The days of a HFF with bugger all tricks in their bag are gone, hence Howe's development in the midfield so far this season.

Travis Boak is out of contract at the end of the season I beleive. Ex-Victorian, would see him coming home if the $ were ok. Not saying we throw everything at him, but he is quite classy.

Yeah, if Neeld loses by anything less that 186 points he's better than Bailey? This weekend will do nothing for us to be able to compare Neeld and Bailey, especially given our most recent trip to Geelong was memorbale for all the wrong reasons. Where I will be judging any sign of improvement will be in the effort indicators (or whatever it was that Neeld calls them). If we can keep up the effort that we showed for a majority of the St Kilda game, then yes, maybe our future is looking a lot brighter. If we turn up and put in a shocker, where no different to where we were last year. If we get flogged due to a lack of effort, I'll be pi$$ed off. If we get flogged but show the same work rate or more than last week, I'll accept it. I'd prefer we didn't lose at all.

Has had a far from inspiring start to 2012 in my opinion. His best game for the year was last week, and even that wasn't too great (I appreciate he isn't on his own there). I have absolutely no idea what his best position is, as at the moment, I have very little confidence in him being in our best 22.

I'm pretty sure it was Dunn that did a very good job at shutting down Fisher on Saturday night, after the 1st quarter that is. I believe that's Neeld's best option with LD, play a defensive forward role, because he also makes his opposition accountable. To play him as an attacking HFF he struggles. But, this is where even Dunn has it over Ricky - I would not be confident giving that Fisher role to Ricky. As one of the callers said a couple of weeks ago, our midfield depth is poor. We need our HFF to be able to solidly compete rotating through the midfield, and that's exactly what Howe has done. Petterd at this stage is an attacking HFF, who is ineffective going in to the midfield. If you want to be a "stand alone" HFF, you need to do what Dunn can do in terms of playing it as a defender.

I blame him for shooting the guy on the beach in the first episode of Revenge.

Best advice I can give Ricky is to sit and watch tapes of Jeremy Howe, and understand that if you want to play as a HFF in the AFL at the moment, you need to add so much to your game. I'm of the view that RP and JH are fighting for the one position, and at the moment, JH has it well and truly covered.

Good call dic...oh hang on, that was me that posted that.

Exactly right B59, and what you have posted is worst-case scenario. Best case is that we can hold him back and GC/GWS don't bid for him. We will lose if we have to do a secret deal with GWS/GC in the way of trading later picks so that they end up better off in that regard. We owe them nothing.

Nasher, this is another point I continue to raise. None of us have seen the contract, but surely there is a clause in there regarding where we are to take Jack, just as there would be a get out clause of some type that if Jack were to suffer serious injury that could resrtict his playing ability, that we are able to terminate said contract. Or if there are offield incidents that could tarnish the Club, etc, or if Jack's performance/form/development didn't see him as a genuine first round-type, then we would use our own disgression on where we can select him. I'm not trying to be a smart ar$e, but there has to be things in place to protect not only the player, but the Football Club also. I'm totally amazed that I am in the minority on this subject. If Jack is rated in the Top 5 at the end of the season, I'm happy to pick him up at Pick 3, but if other players have come on and he slides to a market value of Pick 10, I'd be livid if we have to use our Pick 3 on him. The idea of secret deals with GWS and GC stinks in my book. I don't want our Club to have anything to do with them. We should put ourselves in a situation where we don't have to (ie ensure that Jack is not rated as a Top 5 prospect).

So what was the true story regarding $cumbag's knee? Was it that GWS told him to play minimal games and we believed him that his knee was "sore"? Or were we punishing him by not playing him? The same could be asked about said recruiters believing all of Darling's "faults". We only need to convince 2 clubs.

Refresh my memory...

Of course the talk from other Clubs is for GWS/GC to force our hand. They know what position we can potentially be in - 3 live picks in the first round and Viney with our first pick in the 2nd round. In this draft, what recruiter/team would want an opposing team to have that scenario? Perhaps some of us need to watch the movie Sea Biscuit. Wrap Jack up in cotton wool during the day, keep the media waiting, then when they go home to bed, unleash the beast on the track to get him to the standard we need, without raising his profile any higher than we need to.

My opinion is that "if we have to" would mean that he is tearing the state titles and Casey a new one when he plays. Of course we would take him in that scenario. The scenario I'm suggesting is that we don't allow this to happen. We have a quiet little word in Jack's ear about how he has KPI's to meet in any games he plays this year, and they should be achieved, not exceeded. I can't believe we have a chance to basically own this first uncompromised draft for 3 seasons, yet people are wanting us to do the right thing by the league. I say fcuk the league and all other teams. If there is a chance we can get Viney with our 2nd round pick, giving us 3 live selections in the first round, then we do it. This DOES NOT mean we have some secret handshake deal with those teams below us. What would Sheedy do in our situation? I can't see he or Gubby making special deals with their opposition.

Wow, pots and kettles there. Anyway, we are committed, exactly right RP, but I'm quite sure none of us have seen the contract and certain terms about conditions of recruitment. For example, what if he breaks his leg at school, or suffers from chronic fatigue-type conditions? Are we really going to put our own balls in a vice? I would expect that there are certain conditions, not a "get-out" clause, but something for us to fall back on if need be. Perhaps I'm being too naive (after all, I did take $cumbag on his word), but if we have Pick 3, unless the teams with Pick 1 & 2 believe Jack is rated between 1-10, why would they risk it? I keep asking this question, but I'm yet to hear an answer that gives me anything to change my mind about.

Maurie - I think it was the Hearld Sun article (that started the shadow-jumping yesterday) that stated one recruiter believing he was in the 2nd half of the first round, but then another recruiter having him in the top 5 or so. Reality is, it is always hard at this early stage to get a true indication, as there are so many variables. One thing is for sure though, regardless of what Jack needs to particpate in over the coming months, it should be heavily monitored by the MFC, and the club should ensure that his "asking price" is not as high as it could be.

Maurie, the only way GWS/GC will force our hand is if they believe he is potentially worth a 1-5 pick. They will not force us to take him if he is rated at 5+, because there is far too much risk for them. Again, the MFC need to ensure this happens. Obviously I'm of the opposite view of some on this thread - I believe we have got GWS & GC by the balls, because we can actually control what the experts think Viney is worth. Here's the question that will make it clearer, would GWS be willing to risk losing Whitfield just to try and force us to take Viney with Pick 3? Who is a better player - Whitfield or Viney?