The Chazz

Jesse Hogan - "I don't want to sign an extension yet because I just want to concentrate on my footy". Leaves us with nothing more to say/ask on the subject. James Frawley - "I will leave contract talks until the end of the season so I can see which direction the club is heading", and "football is a business", and "if Roos signs I'll sign". I've fixed it for him now, but unfortunately because he keeps coming up with negative reasons for not signing, it's just feeding the (media) masses and creating uncertainty. Perhaps a simple, "we've got a new coach so I really want to focus on playing my role for the team, which will hopefully see the MFC being more competitive/winning more games/rising up the ladder/etc". From memory RP, you and I both thought that $cummy was going to re-sign, so I'm not surpirsed that you are taking Frawley for his word. But let's be honest, do you think he will be playing for the MFC next year? You know, what's your head telling you?

I believe he is going. I believe it has been agreed to well before the start of this season. I think some players genuinely do leave contracts to the end of the season with no malice intended. I also think some players leave it to the end of the season because they have no intention of staying. I think Frawley is in the latter, which is just my own opinion. Take a look at the "Discovered" clip on the MFC website. He talks about being a country person he will bring loyalty to the club, but then talks about footy being a business. Let's have an honest look at Frawley's "business"; * He will get paid as much at the MFC as he would any other club * His life-after-footy won't be damaged by being an exclusive MFC player, and if he were to move to a different club and become a "premiership player", it's not going to increase his business value when he retires. Let's face it, he's not going to make an AFL coach, he absolutely won't be used in the media, he might get a job coaching at local level, which will pay as much if he's an ex-premiership player or not. * Basically, James' business is footy, that's it. He has a window where he will have the opportunity to earn a significant wage for the next 5-7 years, and really set himself up for the next phase of his life. De needs to decide if he is happy to play for the MFC, and help drive them to finals, especially given he is a "leader". Or, he has to decide if he wants to chase immediate success with a genuine premiership contender. I won't begrudge him if he did leave for those reasons, but to use "football is a business" as his reason for delaying contract talks? Please.

Equally, it also brings in to consideration that a decision has been made, as clubs get FA details early in the season, and probably earlier due to their own workings out. What's your point?

I am in no doubt that he has already signed with someone, most probably Hawthorn. Hogan is clearly capable of playing the role that Frawley is playing now (will play it better), so it's a replacement in 2015 that doesn't require time spent developing someone to play it. If we left him in the backline, and built a defensive model with Frawley in it, it would be a bigger loss if/when he leaves.

As opposed to what he does in his spare time now? As opposed to Trengove? As opposed to Grimes? We are talking at the start of 2012, WYL, not when Jones was a 16 year old. Edit - spelling.

The closest player-type that I could compare Dom to is Pendelbury. Just watch how good Dom's hands are in close. He handballs it to where the players need to be, which puts them in a world of space. I said it last week, players like Toumpas, Salem, Viney and Trengove should become very good friends of Dom's - he will make them famous.

Just another example of Dunn's leadership qualities, that I for one didn't know existed. Probably common sense for a player to do what he did, but he was the only one that did it.

While I hate bumping old threads, I would love someone to bump up the "why Jones shouldn't be captain" thread from a season or two ago. There will be some classics in that.

We are planning for life after Frawley, and at the moment (based on the figures in the OP), we will be ok. In response to the OP, I think the opposition's inaccuracy has a lot to do with where they are required to take their shots from. I know with the Gold Coast match - we forced them so wide that they were taking low % shots at goal, which will result in a behind more often than not.

My prediction is, and always has been, that there will be a Tasmanian team playing in the AFL at some stage in the future. I have come up with many different scenarios, which mostly revolved around a current club relocating. A number of the scenariors are quite complex, which ironically was the word that Gill mentioned in his interview. The "fear" I have is that the MFC aren't immune to a potential relocation. We werr/are the first of the Victorian clubs that have had AFL people employed to get us right, so we need to make sure we do just that. You think a team, who will play greater than 50% of their home games in a different state, won't end up being based down there? Wow. The club in question won't have any say. The poor clubs are jumping up and down for equalisation, the big clubs don't want to give too much of their wealth away. If North try and knock back the AFL's package but in the next breath cry out for equalisation, I'm sure the big clubs would REALLY love that. Imagine Eddie if North knocked back a mulit million dollar deal to play 6 home games in Tassie, then went to the AFL asking for some of Collingwood's money as an equaliser. I think I know who Gill will bow to.

No mention of not relocating a current team, other than the possibility of a Victorian-based team playing more than half of their home games down there. I do appreciate you finally realising that a new team based in Tasmania doesn't automatically mean that it will be a 19th team. Only taken about 12 months for that penny to drop. I presume you haven't heard from your relative about anything going on down there?

This quote is the one that you are refusing to acknowledge; "We have an ideal model which is a single team representing Tasmania. Who that is and what format that takes is a complex question," McLachlan told The Mercury. Why would they want Hawthorn being the single team that plays 6-8 home games down there when their Melbourne home games attract decent crowds? With the AFL now taking over the management of AFLT, it'll be a lot easier for Gill to dictate who does what in the apple isle. 2016 won't change? As I have been saying, 2016 is the perfect storm, this from Gill aswell; "Everyone understands (the Hawks) have another two years on their contract to run and I feel very confident North Melbourne will renew their arrangement for at least another couple of years in Hobart and the appropriate time to review that will be post-2016." What else finishes at the end of 2016? TV rights. Interesting you post a link, but can you provide me the one that states he doesn't think there will be a Tasmanian team in the next 10 years.

Don't shoot the messenger Sue. From memory, Carlton had to apply for special consideration after Nick Duigan retired after the last list lodgement, this was to allow them to elevate a rookie to replace him. They were able to place Duigan on the LTI, meaning they were free to upgrade a rookie. I'm not sure why we have made the decision that we did, but one would imagine it has a lot to do with the size of his remaining contract, and how this could impact our salary cap/list management decisions going in to 2015, especially with Frawley no doubt seeking a payrise.

P-Man, the overall objective is the same in your mind as it is in Roos', just that you have different routes to get to your destination. You believe that we need to kick a higher score than our opponent. Roos believes you need to keep your opponent under your score. Same same but different.

Not sure if this has been addressed in other threads, but I believe now that Mitch has been officially delisted, that we can no longer upgrade a rookie to take his place (Mitch is no longer on the LTI). We had 3 players on the LTI - Clark, Pig Dog and Trengove, and only 2 rookies elevated. Now that Pig Dog is off the LTI, and Clark is off our list, that meant we only had 1 player on the LTI, Trengove, which meant we would've had to drop either Jetta or Georgiou back to rookie status. By placing Hogan on the LTI, means that it has opened that upgrade spot up again which Georgiou was able to take. Hope that makes sense!

Not at all. There will be relocation bullets flying around everywhere at City Hall, we need to make sure we are wearing our best armour. If Gill is going to spend millions trying to save clubs like us, North, Dogs, he might as well spend it on relocating one of us to Tasmania where it gives him another state representing the sport at a national level. PJ will only be able to get us breaking even for a short time if our onfield performance doesn't improve. That's where North are the ones in a very dangerous position - they will be pushing for a Top 6-8 position this year yet they are still struggling offield. That's a major concern for the AFL. At least when we are pushing for finals, our balance sheet doesn't look too bad.

To be honest RP, I find it ironic you think there are grey areas with our injury management decisions, yet you are so black on this topic, based on your insider trading. As I said, saying that it won't work is plain ignorant. I appreciate you confirming my conclusion. Also, I neither like nor loathe, but what I can tell you is that it is far from a "good" line.

A possible way they could relocate North is to basically have them doing the opposite to what they are doing now - play 8 home games in Tasmania and 3 in Victoria. They would be required to change names, but will still give them a "connection" in Melbourne. Not only will the Melbourne-based supporters get to see their 3 "home" games, they will also get another 5 or so games played in Melbourne as "away" games.

Seems pretty clear to me, he says he wants a strong, national competition, but at the same time thinks that 18 teams is enough. Having a team based in Tasmania and quite possibly the ACT, will ensure he gets his wish. With him commenting on "new" stadiums in Western Australia, Tasmania and I think he said ACT, it highlights that there is a strong possibility the the latter two states are being earmarked as potential homes for some our our current teams (on more of a permanent basis). Clearly, if the poor performing sides (offield) don't lift their game in the next 1-5 years, the simple solution will be relocation of some of those teams. This has minimal impact on any future TV right deals given the number of games per week will remain the same. To sat it won't work is plain ignorant, and it's even worse if you think we're safe.

A great initiative by Roos to start sending players off now for post season operations, having them ready in time for the 2015 preseason, rather than waiting until Round 18 when all other clubs who won't make the finals do it. Less questions will be asked about our "list management", which in turn should see us net Pick 1 in the draft, a priority pick for poor performance, and no sign of a $500k fine for doing so. The man is a genius.

I wish that was the real score...

Playing him as a key forward dropping simple chest marks inside 50 not humiliating enough? Watching him play in one of the other 17 positions where he picks and chooses his contests, where the whole football public can see it, is that not humiliating enough? How is putting him in a position (as a secondary option too I might add), where he has no option other than compete, going to humiliate him? He has one expectation in that role - compete. It doesn't matter if he wins or loses the contest, he needs to put in 100%. Name another position on the ground where that applies?

Interesting that you mention about if you lack lower strength, then you need to be quick, have a good leap and have courage. From what I've seen, Watts ticks two of those "alterntaive" boxes. I disagree to some extent about the courage requirement. And no, I haven't played ruck, but some of the best rucks I've played under have been tallish (not the tallest), skinny, far from courageous, but have those other qualities that you mentioned (speed and leap). Don't forget, I'm saying 30-40% of the time, I'm not saying full time. 40% may be a bit too much to ask, so I'll adjust that to 20-30%, but still expect critics. The centre bounce is a genuine 50/50 contest. Jack just needs to focus 100% on the ball, use his jump and win the tap. He's more than capable to do that. At boundary throw-ins he is asked to provide a genuine contest. At stoppages, he is again asked to provide a contest, but an expectation of a third-man-up to assist. I can't believe how soft some of you are toward Jack. we all want him to be this and that. and we don't want him dropped, but when someone suggests putting him in a role where he has to show that side of his game, you're busy trying to find softer roles to protect him. He's 196cm & 90-odd kgs, he would need to put in 100% if he were to contest against someone 10kgs heavier than him. He will learn more from putting in 100% against someone bigger than him and losing the contest, as opposed to putting in 80% against someone he should beat and lose. One last thing on it, let's look at this week's game against Adelaide. Who's their back-up ruck? Jacobs played 89% of the game, so who rucks for the other 11%? The most likely candidate is Josh Jenkins - do you really think he will "monster" Watts at a contest? I would be very disappointed if Watts couldn't at least compete with him. It's highly likely it won't happen, but some of the reasons why people are against it are quite limp.

Controversial? Absolutely not, you're entitled to your opinion. Out of curiosity though, did Dawes have an affair with your wife or something?

For a start, he would rarely be against Jacobs. But even if he is, Watts should kill him around the ground and at ground level. It's also not to put him in there to look at the win/loss column of the hitouts, it's getting him to compete in a contested situation. He he can compete, that's his main goal. He's soft because we are soft on him.