The Chazz

Saty - given the "offseason" for us is generally around 6-8 weeks in total, and looking at the way some of our players have come back (regarding fitness, body size, etc), at your next training session, can you please speak to whoever you need to to get a personal training plan for me? I'm willing to sacrifice 6-8 weeks of pizza and pizz if I can start looking like Jack Viney. It'd be my luck I'll come out with arms like Bernie instead and missed numerous weekends of said pizza and pizz.

No! I definitely don't have Howe in my starting 18, and to be honest, I had to think long and hard before I added him to one of the remaining four spots (he was closer to 22 than 19).

No it isn't.

Don't be silly LDC. By delisting Trengove, we get to take pick 53 to the draft and pick up the next superstar, who will make an immediate impact and we're paying him at the base $54k salary or whatever it is. (being sarcastic)

And to top it off, WTE, they're starting to talk about re-rookie list Evans. No, no, no, no, NO. This place has gone (further) mad.

That's because we won't delist JT. We can only "promise" to re-rookie if no one else takes them in the draft. Like with Jetta, Tapscott won't get picked up, so the option is highly likely. With JT, not so much. Plus, if we delist him, we'll have to pay out his existing contract. We would be officially terminating his contract. Good luck Tappy, ball is in your court from here.

Sounds to me he is expecting to be out for the season. How that equates to putting him on the rookie list has me shagged. I would bet my left one on Jack remaining a primary-listed player if I didn't value it so much.

RPFC, I think I'm on your ignore list, but I'll throw this out there anyway. You are making good points about the fixture being an important cog in equalisation, but you are only looking at it from one perspective, which, as you often point out, is too black and white for a matter that has many shades of in between. From a football/results perspective, we have been given a dream draw, probably the "easiest" in the league. We need to get this part right, first and foremost. The AFL know that, Peter Jackson knows that, I know that, I'm amazed that you don't. We start winning, and all those factors you mentioned, ie marketability, increase in crowds and members, player retention, it all has a positive impact based on winning games of footy. As far as I can see it, the AFL are being quite generous in the first stage of equalisation for a club like ours. If we take advantage of this, then find ourselves with a similar commercial draw in three years time, then I'd be questioning their views. Until then, I thank the AFL for giving us the opportunity to win more games, and in particular, giving our supporters/members more family friendly time slots.

Did you see Frawley, Saty? Did you ask him if he has made up his mind yet?

Maybe it's time we started to alternate home games with Collingwood for QBD, with the agreement that we get at least 2 of Hawthorn, Carlton, Essendon and Richmond games as home games. I have no doubt the AFL are using our QBD home game request as a way of justifying these other games as "away" games.

I'm as passionate and as one-eyed as anyone on this forum. I'm also passionate about the code. Currently on a Friday night, I much prefer to sit back and watch the bigger clubs play, as generally, it's a far better brand of football that what we dish up. If it's a lower club, I'll watch for the first quarter, see what the quality is like, then decide if I should continue to watch, or flick over to SBS for a bit of T&A. I'm quite appreciative that the MFC aren't playing Friday night games at the moment, because I would find it hard to watch the whole game. If I feel that way, what would the average Joe, who doesn't follow the game religiously, feel about watching the game? That's what the AFL is dealing with, and that's what the commercial TV giants are dealing with.

Absolutely no excuse for Victorian-based members not to attend games. A lot of games in the Saturday afternoon timeslot, and even the Sunday games are generally early. The standard of our play is absolutely impacting the free-to-air side of our draw, as we don't play a brand that other supporters would sit back and watch. What we have, however, is a draw that gives our supporters no excuse not to go to the games. While it is hard to front up each week when we are not winning, we need to initiate the change that we are calling for. Get bigger crowds to our games, which will then give us more bargaining power when we (try and) negotiate with the AFL about better draws.

Think you will find Eade knows what it takes to win one, which is mostly "cattle". I liken it to the Malcolm Blight situation going from Geelong to Adelaide. Regular chokers were the Cats in Blight's era, came close but couldn't get a flag. Blight moves to Adelaide and within a short time, he wins back-to-back. It'll be interesting to watch the Gold Coast over the next couple of years under Eade - if there's an available coach out there that can get them a flag, there isn't many better than who they picked.

Am I the only one that's hoping Essendon's next announcement will be welcoming Barry Prendergast to their recruitment team?

Trengove to have surgery. Wishing him all the very best for his recovery. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-27/trengoves-surgery-call

Putting him on the LTI, leaving him on the primary list and advising the media/supports that his return is "season" or "indefinite" is achieving the same result. He will still need to go through the National Draft for us to then hope to pick him up as a rookie. As he has already been a primary listed player, a club can give him a one year contract, rather than the standard two minimum. The risk of getting Jack on the rookie list is far greater than that of Jetta. Nothing stopping Richmond "wasting" a pick in the 80's, even though JT will determine his wage. In 12 months time they could easily delist him if his injury has not healed. It's a lot less risk for them using pick 80-something than the proposed pick 12 they were originally offering. We are achieving absolutely nothing by trying this tactic. We are not disadvantaging ourselves by leaving him "as is". Why don't people understand that???

Go through the list of players picked at 53 or more in the National Draft (that weren't rookie upgrades), and compare that to the list of players picked up in the first round of the rookie draft. In particular, do this exercise pre-compromised drafts. You will find the rookie draft has a far greater success rate at producing an AFL standard player as opposed to those players picked in the ND at 53 or more. And the best part is they are cheaper and only require a one year contract.

Apologies B59, you are correct (in regards to the bolded section above). So we are going to delist Trengove to use pick 53 in the national draft. Don't forget, a rookie-listed player, taken at pick 2 in the RD, will have 1000% better chance of playing in 2015, as they will be potentially be elevated when JT is placed on the LTI list. I still stand by my expression of FMD.

So let me get this right, we/some want to delist Trengove, on the provision/promise that we pick him up in the rookie draft, and pay him above the standard rookie wage, with the main reason to pick up someone in the national draft. So we/some want to go in to this year's draft freeing up pick 83 (we will use 2,3,40,42-Stretch,53-Jetta), which they want to give that player the standard and minimum 2 year contract, with the view that they may make it. As opposed to leaving Jack on the senior list, putting him on the LTI list, upgrading a rookie who, as we have seen yesterday, can be delisted after 12 months. In simple terms, some want to delist Trengove with the view that pick 83 will be a worthy recipient of a 2 year contract, at higher pay than a rookie-listed player. FMD.

They mightn't use an early pick B59, but they may use a pick in the 80's. A pick they otherwise would've passed on, would know a lot more about his injury than any other club, and could put him on a 1 year contract at minimal pay. Not a huge risk for any club, but a bigger risk for us if we delist and he recovers.

For us to delist Trengove (any player for that matter) and pick him up in the rookie draft, they have to go through the National Draft from what I understand. They would also be considered a Delisted Free Agent. The player could always put a dollar figure on their head so that they try and put off other clubs picking them up, but it's literally out of our control, and a risk if we still want him on our list but in a rookie capacity. If I were in charge of List Management, I'd put him on the LTI list for 2015, and reassess at the end of next season. I wouldn't stuff around with delisting at the risk of someone else picking him up. JT's case is a fair bit different to Jetta's case last year. With Jetta, the jury was out about his ability, and it was a fairly safe bet no other club would pick him up. With JT, his ability won't be questioned, it'll be a matter of his recovery. If he comes back 100%, he's best 22, simple as that. We're making this call presuming that his chance of returning to full fitness is minimal. I, and everyone else on here, are in no position to form an opinion on that. For the first time in many years, I'll be happy to trust the club on this one, which they will decide to keep or delist. I can't see a rookie option being a discussion point.

I will take stalking training reports to a whole new level, one that Saty didn't know existed if I'm lucky enough to be around when they are here. This is going to be fantastic - I have said to my wife how I want to cryogenically freeze Dom Tyson, and defrost him in about 24 years when my daughter is looking for a husband. I might need to extend an invite to BBO to come up and give me a hand getting Dom in the back of my car without any eyebrows being raised.

Can someone please confirm that the Maroochydore camp will be later January? I live in this area and are heading "back" to Vic for about 3 weeks from Christmas. I'll be seriously pizzed off if the camp is when I'm away!

I don't think people are saying he is the worst on our list. What people are saying is that if we were offered Pick 6, they consider that way overs for what JH is really worth, and would do the trade in a heartbeat (or less). Prior to the trade period I said that he was the best player on our list for us to trade as clubs would be willing to pay way over his worth. I don't think he's in our top 10 - I have actually got him on the interchange in another thread, so if we were in fact offered that pick, I'm amazed we just didn't sign, then worry about what we would do with it later. The concern I now have is that if JH has an average year in 2015, I think the footy world will start to realise he's just not that good.

I can't wait for the year that we do this and we don't feel obligated to put in our first round draft pick/s, a developing player we picked up in the trade period, and a delisted player that "slipped" to pick 2 in the preseason draft. We are getting there, still a little way off yet, but it's happening.