The Chazz

I find it amusing that BBO rates Stuie so low that he's even sticking up for Moonie to get to him!

Olisik - are you calling Tyson "another run of the mill hardworking midfielder"?

Did you wear the jumper to bed last night Saty, or did you make Mrs Saty wear it? Either way, she would've been horrified reading of Nev's new contract.

Saty will be beside himself. Well done Nev.

Interesting to career, one of which I'm not sure how I feel about it coming to a close. A fact - umpires used footage of Moloney as a training tool when cracking down on bumps. They would be shown more of Moloney than any other player, so it is quite fair to say that, for a period of time (especially in his early years at Melbourne), was umpired out of the game. He then formed one of, if not the best ruck/rover combinations with Jamar in "that" year. From memory Jamar and Moloney led the league as the most dominant ruck/rover combinations, an excellent achievement. At this point of his timeline, I'd say he was in line to become a Melbourne great through my eyes. Then, it all turned to crud for me. He had as much to blame for 186 as anyone. The darkest day for the club, driven by (senior) player (in)actions. If reports are correct about his relationship with Neeld, and in particular about doing the opposite to what the coach wanted, then I hope he never returns to the club, other than to buy a membership each year. While Neeld had many, many flaws, one thing I have no issue with was trying to enforce a rule that the players did what the coach said, rather than what we have seen for the past 20+ years. Moloney had two options (as a few posters have already suggested), you either put up with it and do what you're paid to do, or you leave. He left. His passing shot at Neeld through social media probably confirmed to me that I was glad he had gone. Poor taste, regardless of the history between the two. Now that I/we are reflecting on Moloney's career, the latter part of it has done not much else than confirm that Neeld got some things right. Bye bye Brent, it's such a shame your mouth was bigger than your heart in the end, especially as most of your career it was the other way around.

Trengove will be our best option on the half back flank in 2015. He can make this position his own for the next 3-5 years. (Presuming he is 100%)

Thanks Saty, I forgot you had secret codes with Misso, Roosy and co about what can be published on Demonland and what couldn't be.

Would the club (Misson) appreciate you confirming that certain players won't be playing? While I appreciate it is selection day, there's nothing to say Pedo wouldn't be named with no intention of him playing, just to "attempt" to throw the opposition off a bit. I realise it's Hawthorn and they wouldn't GAF who we named and who actually played, but don't think it's your best work Saty. Also, I wonder if those training in the Casey team are going to be dropped, or more to give them a better match up (ie Riley might've tagged Jones, which would be better than tagging Nicholson). Make sense?

All clubs in the AFL need/have a "face" or "voice" of their club. This will come in the way of a president, CEO, coach, or superstar. Someone that, as soon as you see them in the paper, on the news, or doing their groceries, you automatically know who they represent, regardless of who you barrack for. Rarely would a club have more than one person that this applies to. In 2014, it's been the first time for years that we've had one - Paul Roos. That's why I couldn't give a toss if GB was a stuttering idiot (which would probably qualify him to be our next Prime Minister).

Jake Spencer. That is all.

Bailey copped a hiding on here years ago when he spoke about winning more quarters. I never understood why so many on here hated the talk of winning more quarters.

RPFC - I think you have far too much time on your hands. Given you live in Canberra, I'm presuming you would work in a government department, which would explain the time that you put in to this thread. That said, I'll propose a couple of additional equalisation measures that I think would be the best starting point for Gill. 1. Football department expenditure cap. I think that the amount that the rich clubs can spend compared to the poor makes it harded to play catch up. That said, a cap shouldn't be introduced to totally disadvantage the rich clubs. For example, if we spend $35m a year on FD expenditure, and Collingwood spend $70m, a cap of around $50-55m could be introduced. It means the poor clubs aren't getting off lightly, but it is giving them something to strive toward, an achievable goal to allow them to compete with stronger clubs. 2. Football science/supplements. A clear, brief list of what supplements are allowed to be used, quantities of each, etc. That's it. While I'm sure we have our own supplements (legal) that we use, if other clubs are using more "state of the art" juice, then it is totally unfair. 3. The fairest way to do the draw would be to have an 18 round fixture, playing home one year and away the next. This won't happen. But I don't see how, in the current state, where we play the same team twice within a 6 week period, yet there are teams we haven't played at all. This cannot be fair. Bring back when you play all teams from round 1-17, then round 18 sees teams play who they played in round 1. Round 1 of the following season would see teams play who they played in round 6 (or whatever it is) from the year before. It'd be like a 5 year rolling draw until we all played each other 4 times, with 2 games at home, and 2 games away. Hope that makes sense. I can appreciate the AFL scheduling large crowd-drawing games, and to be honest, I don't have an issue with it. While I would like to see the MFC playing more Friday night games, the reality is that we stink at the moment, and neutral code watchers would be put off by what they would see. That's not good for the game. We are part of the "group" of clubs that need to accept a lot of responsibility for where we are at. We shouldn't be given things on a platter to compete with sides that have performed better than us. Therefore, equalising very specific things such as a FD cap is a fair and resonable start, and should be close to the number one prioirity of Gill (in my view).

I would live to know who said bands are irrelevant. I certainly didn't. Poorly played, again. You pulled me up for talking about specific picks for previous compensation, basically demanding I talk in bands rather than pick numbers, yet you too talk about specific pick numbers. I have brought this up because of the amount of posters who think we will automatically get a pick after out first one (aka band 1). I think it'll be borderline with an end-of-first-round (aka band 2). You argue for the sake of it, and often with no actual reason. You're arrogance and self proclaimed importance is tiresome. I think you need to stop reading Caro articles-she's running off on you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you talking about draft pick compensation as opposed to the band compensation? Interesting...

Ah, ok. So clearly I think we will get a "Band" 2. Happy now? Same shite different smell in my opinion. Now, if you don't mind, can you please go and annoy someone else? Thanks in advance.

B59 - who will pay that for Frawley?

I can't help but think that if he were to leave, we will be compensated with an end of first round pick. If this happens, it's a significant loss for us. The only thing you can look at in regards to compensation is any precedence set in the past, and even then it's still a whole world of grey. Dal Santo is on around $450k for 3 years. St Kilda received a 2nd round pick Dale Thomas around $625k for 4 years. Collingwood received a first rounder. Buddy $10m/9years - 1st rounder Sylvia approx. $350k a year for 3 years - we received a 2nd round pick (which we all thought was way overs) Goddard 4 years @ over $3m - first round Port got a second round pick for Danyle Pearce, but I'm unsure of the dollar value and length of contract. In theory, anything above $550k a year for 4 years should get see us get a first rounder for Frawley, but I wouldn't be taking that to the bank. Would "finals" teams, remembering that if he is to leave it's to go to a club playing in September, be willing to pay these sort of dollars? The biggest issue will be our finishing position. If we stay 16th, we get pick 3. Will the AFL want us getting a pick straight after that? As RPFC bolded above, the committee has the power to recommend alternative outcomes when the formula produces a materially anomalous result. The question they, and some on here should ask, is Frawley worth Pick 4?

RPFC - will the AFL's compensation formula be adjusted accordingly with the increase in TPP?

Dockett - his resume has bugger all to do with what compensation we will get. Most of the secret formula is based around the size of his contract, in both monetary terms and years of expected service. We need to hope someone is willing to pay well over $500k a year for 4 years to get a sniff of a first rounder. Not many of the top clubs would be willing, or able, to pay much higher. That article confirms just how important Frawley is to us, and also confirms why I have him in the Top 5 of our most important players. Yet some are satisfied with our backline without him. Astonishing.

As I said, he's very lucky that Toumpas, Strauss, Blease aren't performing well. Wasn't there a game only a few weeks ago where most were calling for Howe and Watts' omission? Then two weeks ago when they interviewed Roos at 1/4 time Howe was again number 1 target for a spray, and again at half time. How anyone can rate his season as "A" is kidding themselves. Our whole backline gets a "B" in my view - which is a fantastic effort and massive improvement, with Dunn an "A" and Macdonald "B+". Jetta gets a "B+", after that it drops off significantly. But as I said earlier, my expectations are clearly higher than some, but I do think mine are more realistic with the AFL benchmark. To this stage, I would be terribly suprised if Howe was in our Top 10 of the B&F. Even in the Demonland Player of the Year he's ranked 11th, with players like Macdonald, Pedersen and Jetta below him, who I would argue all have had better years than JH.

If Hogan can get back to play the last 4 games, there's absolutely no reason why he can't win our leading goal kicker, and I'll even consider a few dollars on him for the Coleman.

It is near impossible to have a discussion about this with someone that clearly has lower expectations than I do. Come to think of it, it's almost impossible to have a conversation with you, period. I'll give you an activity RP, take a look at this week's "named" backline. In round 19 (roughly) when we hopefully will have Hogan in, Jetta in, who comes out of that backline? Dunn won't. Macdonald wont. Frawley shouldn't. Jetta won't. That leaves Garland, Grimes, Howe and Terlich fighting for 2 places (both flanks). Grimes plays as he is captain. Howe has the ability to go back to HFF, but does he have a role in a forward line that would consist of Dawes, Hogan, Pedersen, Watts? We need a small forward, so that leaves a HFF spot to fight out with the likes of Kent, Matt Jones, possibly even Tyson (when Cross is back). Howe is at this stage depth. Injuries and poor form from others has helped him maintain his spot this season. I'm not willing to give him this excuse of learning a new position-isn't it a view of yours that the HBF is the easiest position to play?

RPFC - kudos to you for working out where I have rated Howe this year. You're progressing. He is by far our most overrated player, and the gap between his good (which isn't great) and bog-ordinary is very wide. Has there been a player this year that's copped more blasts from the coach? I doubt. If we had more depth, or more to the point, if blokes like Blease, Strauss, Tapscott and even Michie were pushing harder at Casey, I would not be surprised if Howe was not in the senior team. I should add Terlich in there somewhere too, but he's obviously played in the same team as JH, so I probably shouldn't add him in there. Our backline is being held together by Dunn (clear standout) and Macdonald, with Jetta playing some great roles. Garland is down on form, Grimes is as hit and miss as anyone, and Howe (see above).

Howe is FAR from a great player, and I honestly don't think he has what it takes to be anything but a B-grader, and that's not meant to imply he's at that level as yet.

Can't say I blame him or the club for not wanting him to come back through Casey given their present state. Think he would be licking his lips with the last round's opponent. He's already shown he loves playing against North. Slot him in for kicking 6!