DeeSpencer

The business started as liquor run - they delivered alcohol on scooters and Joel even drove the grog himself. A good idea but low margin and I'm sure with regulations it wouldn't have been easy to turn profits. I think even Joel would admit there was a huge amount of luck in hiring the right IT guys to set up the software which became incredibly valuable at the right time and is now the business. Full credit to him for recognising that and growing the business, especially with the way he's gone overseas and really taken it on.

The whole thing is a bit of a fluke but good on him for starting a business and getting lucky. Strauss and Bail were also involved, hopefully they kept their shares. Also it's not real money if you can't sell your shares, so it might be a little premature.

Carolina Tenn New Orleans

What does that mean? It gives us a reputation of being popular with Damian Barrett, who cares? Players join clubs for money, success and opportunity, not because they make trades quickly. And yes it matters because every time you pay a bit more you lose in the draft order. Might only be a few picks here or there but that's the difference between getting your man or not and over time that adds up. If it's little bit by little bit eventually you end up with missing just 1 or 2 good players who might be the difference. Nailing the occasional 2nd or 3rd round pick is how you stay strong and win flags. I really feel we need to nail 2 of our picks this draft period and I hope being down the order doesn't cost us.

He's good below his knees and has a nice side step but I don't see him being a midfielder. I wouldn't be adverse to giving him some time on a wing against smaller teams. In anything just for some development of being around the packs and moving the ball inside 50, plus we need a wingman! That said, I'm a big fan of shuffling the magnets in general, there's almost no player on our list who I wouldn't try in different spots on occasions.

Pats Packers Deep regret in not doing my tips before TNF Bucs I guess. Was tempted to take Indy, I don't hate how they are playing as much as I should.

I don't buy that logic. We gave up 6, future first and 29 3, 10, 43 The 29 we got for Howe. Making the Melksham deal early in the trade period did nothing for us. We could've done it on the first day or the last day just before the deadline. Essendon were never going to ask for more. They really couldn't. Yet somehow we decided it had to be done to move on to extra business, like we are incapable of doing more than 1 thing at a time.

What's that bad taste in my mouth? Oh yeah it's Brett 'the Birdman' Burton reaming it down our throats. Lever isn't a one on one defender. The hope will be the game shifts to 1 key forward and his intercepting and rebound becomes increasingly valuable. Time will tell.

Melbourne give: 2017 1st round (pick 10) 2018 1st round 2017 2nd round (pick 27) Melbourne get: Jake Lever 2017 1st round (pick 18) - from Brisbane via Charlie Cameron Given the strength of the 2018 draft and our unpredictable results - we could finish with pick 6-16 I'd say, it's a strong no deal from me. I think Charlie Cameron might be worth more than pick 18. If Brisbane are willing to pay pick 12 for him - he's in contract - then that's a deal I'd be willing to consider, although I'd rather keep pick 10. I'd also like some kind of swap of 3rd or 4th rounders just as a show of good faith back. Pretty much, if the 2018 first rounder is in play then the Crows need to show us some love back the other way. We also better make sure Jason Taylor has some quality names on his first round draft board. If he's not beating the table excited about a range of names available for pick 12 then it's a no deal.

I think in this draft kicking 7 in the TAC grand final and having good athletic ability won't get passed pick 30. Maybe even top 20. Not sure about the name but the guy can play.

Bills Jaguars Vikings

On the Lever money issue I think if he plays like a 750k player there won't be any issues. That's every chance of happening. Prestia was bought to Richmond on big money and people weren't happy mid way through the year but after a solid end to the year and obviously the team success no one is questioning it now.

I think he's right that players should try to maximise their wage whilst also understanding quality of life is important, as is family, as is injury management, as is development etc. The most money up front isn't always the smartest money. Same with his take on loyalty. AFL clubs can be very loyal in terms of caring for players post career, looking after families, taking the high road defending players. Loyalty is a key part of business - when you treat people right as a business they keep coming back. Players who do their best for clubs will be rewarded with longer deals, clubs who do their best for players will often see those players happy to stay. He's spot on about when players have no value they'll be moved on, I think it's overplayed as a modern concept, that's been happening in footy for decades.

They might because they are keen to avoid having to use a good pick on father-son Patrick Naish. If they upgrade one pick to 10 before any team bids on him then they get to pick a guy they want before giving up later picks for Naish anyway. I think they'll ideally want to hold one over for next years stronger draft but if that's not achievable they might want pick 10 now to get someone in like a good midfielder who can given them a bit of extra depth for another September run.

I'm convinced 10 and 27 is a fair deal. So our job is to offer something lower publicly and then we can go up to 10 and 27 and save face with the Crows who have lost a heap of young players and need to look tough. Of course we can't make an offer public until Lever declares his interest to us and the trade period starts.

It's a shallow draft, I think if he proves in testing that he can run like an AFL player that he goes in the 2nd round. Might be why we are trying to get an extra 2nd round pick.

??? Giants ????? Titans ????????????? Rams This isn't an easy week, then again, I don't find any of them easy

Walls might've got Kelly and Lever confused. I rarely saw Lever fumbled. Got the ball knocked out of his hands and dropped a mark or two he could've taken but didn't fumble. Of course it was a clear free kick. Martin and Rance have become protected species who can do whatever they want. It's the star player rule and it's a good incentive for the Dees to get a couple of true superstars.

Watched him closely at the ground and he played reasonably well considering the cards he was dealt. Tagged all day by Townsend who belted in to him with elbows off the ball non stop. Lever often positioned himself in front of Riewoldt's space and took away Riewoldt's influence on the game. Talia couldn't go with Jack on a hard lead so it was important. Townsend would hold Lever non stop to prevent him jumping at the contest. The only time Lever returned the favour with a little tug of his shorts he was penalised a soft free for a goal. Mopped up well under pressure and didn't fumble and had some aggressive kicks, went at 80% DE. Still not sure how you can project him as a key defender with any confidence but I've got doubt he's a super smart football who can play the interceptor role.

I feel like either Melbourne or Adelaide could just turn 10 & 27 in to 15 and 16 themselves without all the other stuff. 10 - 1395 27 - 703 = 2098 15 - 1112 16 - 1067 = 2178 Very little difference between that as it stands. And the Tigers want to shift those picks to avoid matching a good pick on father son player Naish. Pick 10 might be high enough to get them ahead of any bid for him which they'd then only have to match with pick 27.

Rumours were the Dogs and Pies were both heavily in to him. I think the Dogs lost out on salary cap space but I think he chose us over the Pies. There was a lot of talk for both teams before the finals started after which the media have only mentioned Melbourne. The Pies are also salary cap strapped. Hawthorn around 2009-2013 are about the only club I've seen as a true destination club where players were lining up to join them at a cut price rate. Even the Swans had to pay huge money for Buddy. The salary cap has rocketed up and with free agency players know how much others are getting when they are out of contract. The only players who will be signing somewhere below market rate will be experienced veterans keen for success. No 22 year old will move club for a less price to go to a destination.

Talia and Hartigan were on those talls most of the game though. Lobb isn't a smart footballer. Not sure about that actual contest but I'd expect another player was on Patton and he came in 3rd up.

Lever plays half back flank for the Crows. The position is changing and he has great intercept skills - reads the play beautiful, strong in the air and then whilst not a great kick he gets the ball moving quickly. Has an excellent side step. What he hasn't done so far in his career is ever (from what I've seen) defend a tall opponent one on one. He might become that but he hasn't done it yet and so it's a pretty blind leap of faith if we are going to use him in that role. Making him accountable to a tall would limit a lot of his strengths - particularly his intercepting and attacking drive. I think he's worth a lot of money (not stupid 900k but a lot) in his current role and that's how I'd use him. Maybe once he fills out he can transition to a tall defending role but for now I'd keep him roaming on a flank. There's always the draft, trades and delisted free agents to find a decent lock down tall.

AFC N: Steelers dragged down a level, Ravens and Bengals yuck E: Pats rolling, Bills frisky S: Titans steam rolling, Jags and Texans have something W: KC firing, Denver and Oakland not as convincing, poor Chargers NFC: N: Looks a fun division. Packers need to stop the injuries. Vikings need reliable QB play because the rest is great. Lions somehow are now dependable in some odd way. Bears will live and die on getting easy run defenses. E: Big test for Cowboys tomorrow. Giants are such a waste of talent. Eagles need a run game, hope they found it. Washington aren't done yet S: Falcons scraping in again. Odd games elsewhere else. Think it could have a few twists and turns W: Could the Rams win it?

My thoughts on the 10 second run off rule are if it's 1st or 2nd down that's really unfair because I'd back a team to line up and spike the ball within the 8 or so seconds that were left if they had to. The Lions were on 3rd down so if it was called a no score correctly the first time they would've had to be seriously quick to get lined up and run any kind of coherent play and so the 10 second run off makes sense. In this situation I guess you have to always throw so it ends up in the end zone. The falcons defender comes off his man and makes one hell of a tackle to stop him short, so credit to Atlanta for a great play as well. The 10 second rule is logical and consistent if not always fair I guess.