The Chazz

If North really want to offload him, we should be able to get him for cheaper than a 2nd round pick.

1 hour ago, rjay said:

I'm not sold on Brown, I think it's more important for us now to sign Jackson to a longer contract.

The pairing of him and Weid worked.

Then spend some more capital on another wingman and quick classy forward.

Let's not forget a couple of things about Jackson;

1. He is a kid that is still developing.  He has shown he will make it, let's get him working on his craft now.  Easier to do that either at Casey, or if he's performing, as the 3rd tall.

2. On that 3rd tall call, he's not your ordinary tall.  We can afford to go in to a game with Gawn rucking, and (Ben) Brown, Weid and Jackson in the forward line.  It can work, and importantly, it will work.

Moral of my story?  We need to get Ben Brown.  Totally irrationally, he has irritated me all his career, but I can warm to him if he's a Demon.

To be fair, Tynan and Neale could almost pass as twins.  Maybe we just read the wrong name out?

Selflessness and hard work goes a long way.

Free Agency is here to stay for the foreseeable future.  The only way out of it for us (the MFC) in the immediate future (1-5 years) is to have a collective of players that are determined to change the club.  We need to shake that "only Melbourne" tag that we rightly deserve after games like the Freo and Swans games this year.  Why would better players want to come to a laughing stock?

8 minutes ago, Jjrogan said:

Serious question, can someone explain how is the competition's fairness undermined by free agency?  Every team has to follow a salary cap doesnt it? Its not as if some clubs have extra dollars to spend, its about effectively managing the resources that you have?

If a player wants to take less money to go to a 'destination club' surely thats the result of the club having other positives to offer other than money.  Isn't that a reward for being good financially, on field etc? Seems more fair than arbitrary zones on a map or academies from which recruit players etc.  

The salary cap is a rort.  I know Geelong pay outside of it, and I'm sure other clubs are in the same boat.  Sadly, there will never be a perfect system.

Just now, Lord Travis said:

Clark as in Jordan Clark at the Cats? Are there any report he wants out or is up for trade? He's a first round pick who's only 1-2 years into his career! Hard midfield to break into down there at Geelong....

Yes, that's the one.

Geelong are linked to Smith (Hawks), Crouch, had a sniff around Viney.  A hard midfield to break in to doesn't get any easier for some of these kids if Geelong continue to look at topping up.  At some stage younger players want to play in the seniors, so while he's a little way down the order at Geelong, it's also $5000 a game in match payments that he is missing out on, could be an extra $100k a year on top of an annual contract, on top of playing more senior games.

The question has to be asked, and clubs like Geelong need to understand that there are consequences for a list management strategy that they have implemented.

13 hours ago, Redleg said:

Go hard for Ratugolea and Clark, who aren’t in their best 22 and Rat just got further away. Use Preuss in the deal to a minor extent and maybe Tom and to a lesser  extent Oscar become interesting to the Giants.

A big YES on the Clark call, not fussed about Ratugolea.

Clark has future top wingmen written all over him.

55 minutes ago, old dee said:

After the failure of our merger I don't think there will ever be one in the future. What will probably happen is a club will get into the Fitzroy position. The AFL will take it over and either move it or close it up. 

Our failed merger was 1996.  That's 24 years ago, and we are also in the middle of a global pandemic that has cost the industry millions and millions of dollars.  It's a totally different landscape now, Old Dee.

If the AFL want two clubs to merge, they just turn the income tap back and both clubs will have no option, which will then see the AFL  financially support.

I had this sneaky feeling (perhaps MFCSS) back when PJ was in charge.  A significant amount of our marketing/branding centred around us being Melbourne.  It was almost like they dropped the Demons.  Even now the Club tries to refer to us as Melbourne supporters, or the "red + blue" talk that I absolutely loathe.  I remember back then it felt like we were being set up for the possibility of playing one day without the Demons.  From memory, PJ actually said something along the lines of "there will always be a Melbourne Football Club", never mentioned the Demons part.

39 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Hawthorn's revenue structure would take a decent hit if it were to lose the Tasmanian Government funding.

 

The AFL would pay Hawthorn the shortfall that the Tas revenue brings them.  I'd imagine it would be less than what the AFL are currently spending on North.

North's alliance with Tas might be  blessing for us.  While I would give the game up if it happened, a Melb/North merger makes a lot of sense given both teams have the "Melbourne" name, and North have a home that is quite close to the CBD, and we don't.

But I think the work that North have done in establishing their brand down there makes that move a lot cleaner.  And if the AFL want to save more dollars, having North and the Gold Coast merge and relocate to Tassie would be a logical option.

The above scenario would mean an uneven amount of teams in the comp, but as we've seen this year, the fixture can work in a non-traditional format (such as games during the week).  It got to the stage where I had no idea what round it was or who was having a bye.  This solves the broadcasting concerns of one less game a weekend.

Personally, I can't see them doing anything to GWS, I think they are in it for the long haul.  Likewise I can't see a Bulldogs/Saints merger.

As a side note, I wish they would publish the membership numbers of full memberships per club, and not include the 3-game ones, baby members, pet memberships, etc.

50 minutes ago, DeeZee said:

Love love love Nev, but he has slowed considerably and there’s no way Goodie can guarantee him games next year.

In that case I think he has to get a two year deal with the Pies for his family’s sake and to extend his career.

 

I think the recent moves that Hawthron have made (such as Hodge, Mitchell, Lewis, Birchall, et al), should be seen as a viable option without damaging the reputation of either the player, or his original team.  It's why I'm hoping like hell that Nathan Jones toured the facilities at Metricon while he was in "hub life".  He could get a 2 year deal up there, make the 300 club, contribute in a young team - all of the things he won't or shouldn't be doing if he stays.

As many have suggested, if another team offers Nev a 2 year deal, and there's a strong indication that we won't be anywhere near that, then I'm sure we would wish him all the very best.

Having key roles in the space of wellbeing, engagement and personal development as part of the soft cap is a disgrace.  The AFL needs to continue to be better in this area, but if a Club is faced with the decision of either letting go a Wellbeing person or someone in Sports Science (as an example), most clubs will go for what's going to give them faster on-field results, over the often longer-term benefits, both on and off-field, that the wellbeing/player development role does.

Edit - this post wasn't intended to take away the terrible tragedy of losing a very talented, all-rounder athlete. Unfortunately Jacinda felt this was the best way to deal with her demons, but unfortunately has caused great grief to those close to her.

4 hours ago, Kent said:

yes and that worked out well

Which young Guys other than Oscar who was always suspect  Jetta Hibberd  hardly qualify for young

With hindsight it was a poor call in my opinion

Goodwin deserves the crack

 

Strong teams with strong cultures can carry average players like Dunn.  Because we weren't a strong team, we needed our senior players to set certain standards, which Dunn wasn't capable of doing.  He needed to be moved on.

That's not to take anything away from the  terrific achievement it was to be in the system at all, let alone as long as he was.

The original trade was Tyson to North for Preuss and pick 60-something from memory.

While it will go against the view of some, I'm expecting market value would be a 3rd-rounder for him, and anything better than that would be a bonus.

While I understand GWS' need for a ruck, he's still not very good.

1 hour ago, buck_nekkid said:

3 years?  Would want to be on low coin with clauses.  No guarantee he is coaching material, so who knows if he adds anything there.  Is even in the Dorks leadership group?

Would rather a 25 yo, otherwise develop Baker for the role.

Spend our money elsewhere.  He is a FA, so would cost us nothing in picks

Problem is, adequate 25 year olds playing that position at other clubs are going to come at a big cost, or aren't going to come at all as they are playing for teams in with a chance for a flag.

I do like what Baker brings, and can't help but feel that him learning from Smith over the next 2 seasons would be great development.  Baker will get opportunities throughout 2021/2022 to secure his spot, and if he can do so, then that's a positive for the team.

16 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Not sure how I feel about this to be honest..

I'm interested to know why you are unsure, Dazzle?

12 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Ok.

Since 2009, at an average of under 2 posts per day. Compared to your 3000+ in 15 months, and that's not including your previous account.

Now go and annoy someone else. 

6 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

How on earth do you keep abreast of what everyone posts :)

It's called unemployment.

8 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

 

Do you call Smith a Key Position Defender?

Cool.

1 hour ago, deanox said:

Look this is a pretty average post.

1) with no exposed u18 form, a comprised draft, no first round pick, and Lockhart and Brown as potential rookie upgrades, we are not bringing in lots of players from the outside to fill roles this year unless they are FA.

2) Its been reported OMac is on the way out, so we do need coverage for a 3rd defender (or even a May, Lever injury), with Tomlinson likely to be trialled on wing on the bigger, wider MCG, and Petty showing promise forward.

3) One year for Smith simply provides that cover.

4) Next year the soft caps are reducing, and we will be down on coaching structures. A player / coaching role for Jones is a way to allieviate this, while also having cover on field if needed. Do I think he'll be the best coach? No. But he'll be better than no coach. It's actually a pretty innovative option.

 

 

What do you want them to do? Dump everyone to prove they are ruthless then try our luck with pick 80+ in the draft?

What do I want? A list that has players that can play, or have the potential of developing in to a player. Smith is neither of those, and Jones' career should've finished st the end of 2018 (his 2019 was deplorable, and 2020 was worse).

Point 1 - surely we could've held off until we knew what might've been available through trade. Mitch Brown is a great example of a player being let go that had a little bit left in the tank. No club would've been asking about Smith, so we could've waited.

With regard to point 2, clearly if we are chasing a Polec/Isaac Smith-type, they are wanting another wing. This to me tells me Tomlinson is playing back next year. I think we have a number of back up options for that defensive role, and strongly believe Smith is about 6th on that list. Problem is that Goodwin clearly doesn't agree, and I feel we are a weaker team when Smith is in.

Reality is, my argument is irrelevant. He's on our list for another 12 months and no amount of me whinging will change that. Won't stop me from being disappointed though.

Goodwin said that we need to be a ruthless club. Re-signing players like Smith, to me, shows that we still don't known how to make decisions that smart clubs make.

Will only take an announcement that Jones has been extended for a year, and I'll put a freeze on my membership for 2021.

That's my opinion. Many will think it's a poor one, but it's where I'm at with this club now. I want greater accountability for poor decisions.

4 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

Tomlinson, Petty, Smith and honestly T Mac is such a liability by foot in the back half

Im not sure if you agree or disagree?

Out of that list of names, Tom is the only true defender in it. And while he might be a liability by foot, he's still better than the other 3.

Play Tom at CHB, gets the 2nd tall forward each week, and frees up Lever to zone off.

5 minutes ago, Kent said:

There are plenty I would sign before Smith

Not a footballer and a waste of a position on our lis> I have really tried to see what others apparently see in this guy. Unfortunately I haven't!

Really cant understand this signing

But there you go I haven't been able to understand very much of what our footy department do 

This is just another poor example in my opinion

Only thing I can put it down to is it was a part of Shaun's concussion compensation.

6 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

We have enough defenders but if he does trim up, then it definitely provides the option to swing him forward and back 

Enough defenders? Like who? May and Lever are our only locks for taller KP players, and even then Lever isn't suited.

There's word that Oscar is off, and we are hoping that Petty goes forward. And the less we see Smith in the team the better.

I'd rather Tom plays back, then if needed, we can swing him forward, rather than the opposite.