DeeSpencer

Of course. But PJ put a 10 year prediction on how long AAMI would suit our needs didn't he? And a 3 year commitment to Casey? So that means we need to be looking for a VFL base now if we wish to move at the earliest and we really need to start to planning for a long term home now as well. Especially if the goal is a 40million dollar facility. We'd probably need 10 mil of that by ourselves then to go hunting for loans, public and private funds etc. So it's time to be looking now and probably time to be putting 1 mil per year away if we can find it.

Think he was a chubby kid who then went a played local footy and then was only at Box Hill for 1-2 years. Certainly wasn't draftable before we took him. Max Gawn has a great photo on his twitter of a chubby young Jones. Whether he played the game or had talent as a junior I don't know. His kicking certainly could've been improved the earlier he started working at it. But really it's the early teenage years or 'tween' years for a lot of that stuff. There's only so much AFL clubs can do, even the good ones.

These days that's even too late! For set shots you have to be in position whilst the kick is on it's way. For general play you have to be getting in to position for a rebound as soon as you finish your defensive responsibility. Roos says it best when he describes our players as defending really hard then looking for a breather as soon as we get the ball back.

1. The Scorpions aren't happy or well supported now, they are likely be less supported as the Casey Demons2. The VFL team has actually had some regular season success of late (until last year) and the MFC community program has been slugging away, yet it hasn't translated in to support or good development of MFC or Casey players (no draftees) 3. The Hawks particularly had success capturing the outer East when it was booming, but they played at Waverley. Our AFL team isn't going to play at Casey and after watching the saints at Seaford I doubt we will ever move to Casey, it's simply too much to ask of players and fans 4. PJ has alluded to the 'traditional base' being neglected. Whilst I think we should grow we are already close to 40k members. If we win games and fire up the base who says we can't get to 50k just by getting everyone in our traditional suburbs fired up 5. Without near total control (see Hawthorn at Box Hill) I think you are at a disadvantage being alligned and not having your own team Now even though we have an eye squarely on the exit door I think it's the first time we have equipped Casey with a probably staff and with respect. Justin Plapp mentioned the talk of players being sent back to the VFL compared to dropped to Casey. Byrnes is a good hire. The midfield depth in particular should provide Casey with a backbone of a team and players fighting for spots professionally not going through the motions. So just by accident it might all work out and Casey becomes our Box Hill and we have he best of both worlds - a well support reserves side that is also it's own entity and has amazing junior development and kids coming from all over the state (and interstate) to be part of the system and getting drafted. That's the hope. We save 500k a year and we retain our presence in Casey and a great alternative training venue when required.

Yeah with Byrnes the last two years and Rodan the year before I don't mean this is a negative way, but he's the typical athlete turned in to footballer. And his endurance is ok but not amazing (which is true of most younger talls who aren't Tom McDonald). But he'll have to work on his kicking, marking and reading the play to beat the best forwards. Size, speed, toughness and competitiveness are some very good building blocks for a key defender though.

A potential suggestion for a long term home +/- a VFL home ground would be to enquire about sharing the Melbourne Grammar Sports Complex with them in Port Melbourne. To my knowledge the kids aren't there during the week in school hours. So a change room and perfectly good main oval (plus a 2nd oval) sit there only to be used on weekends and maybe some after school trainings. Now it would get some heavy use on a Saturday for school sports but we could request Sunday only VFL fixtures which wouldn't be too much of a hassle. The entire area is due to become residential with the closing of the docks/factories etc so maybe we could purchase neighbouring land for a pool/gym/administration facility and secure funds from the council to provide public access to the pool and gym. Then we share the oval with the school who are happy as it seems underutilised currently. I have no idea if the school or council would be interested. Both ovals also do have cricket pitches. But maybe as part of developing the land next door in to a shared facility we add a 3rd oval without cricket. The nearly 40 million dollar price tag to build our own facilities scares the heck out of me. I think that's impossible any time soon! We need to look at shared facilities that we have equity in but also can dramatically lower that price tag and secure public and private funding.

All fine. But we have to look at the requirements. For a VFL team we need an oval with change room facilities and also the capability of being fenced and gated as well as facilities for the supporters. To deal with a local council in a desirable area will mean spending a lot of money and we have to ask what exactly is in it for the community and clubs. Inner city local councils are particularly protective of their ovals and park area and all less likely to shell out cash like Casey! The other thing that we would be wise to do is not spend big money on a VFL team facility and not have it as a permanent base. It's why I suggest the Albert Cricket Ground as it would really only be for our VFL games and require less spending to get up to scratch than modifying a council oval/park.

The great man Saty answered that one. Said it simply wasn't an option in the contract. Unfortunately our President isn't on the Olympic Park trust board so we don't have as much leverage as others!

Went past the other day, it's small, but I'm not a regular so I'll do some reserach. According to google maps it's 142m long by 133m wide. Etihad is 160m by 129m. The MCG is 178 by 148. Glenferrie is 160 by the very narrow 106. So yeah it's about 20m short of an optimal AFL ground. But that means a great opportunity for our young players to play contested footy! And to take risks via the corridor. At Sandringham it was the Sauntner. At Casey it's the wind and the distance. I don't think there will ever be a perfect venue. The Albert ground would give us somewhere the fans can get to, with a link to MFC history.

Too many people are worried about the equations and the calculations. And yes there are lots of permeations. But that's why clubs hire recruiting staff and list management staff. And if they have to hire a statistician then so be it. At the end of the day if the player is worth it they'll take him. Roosy is just looking after us knowing that Jake Lovett is coming! And looking after Sydney knowing when he's done in Melbourne he still wants to be invited to the parties up there!

I enjoy watching father sons. But I didn't enjoy Geelong winning 3 flags in 5 years largely due to Scarlett, Ablett, Nablett, Blake and Hawkins. Essendon will have 15 years of Joe Daniher as a key forward, all for the price of pick 10 when he was a gun junior. There's no harm in making them cough up a fair price for a blue chip prospect. You can see how much the Dogs had to give up to get Tom Boyd.

I believe we should be looking at another MCC controlled facility for a potential reserves team. The Albert Cricket Ground Close to the city Fenced off MCC controlled Melbourne have played there before Not currently utilised by a footy club in winter but instead a lacross club that surely could work around or find a new home http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Cricket_Ground It's too small and too important for cricket and tennis to be our permanent base, but with a little work would make the perfect VFL home for 12 games a season. Thoughts?

So we'd need to infiltrate the state government appointed MCG trust (see link below) and then get them to examine the lease which they now hold and see if there was a way to get a Melbourne VFL team access to the ground. http://www.mcg.org.au/About%20the%20G/MCG%20Trust.aspx Sounds a bit unlikely to me.

The numbers needed for there to actually be a problem are very high, it's amazing what is scientifically put down to just bad luck. But when you think about it if you get millions of people to keep flipping coins someones going to get 100 heads in a row. So it's probably not the time or place, but my thoughts are it might be getting to a stage where someone needs to take a look, not on a witch hunt or for the point of proving something, just for a good honest appraisal. A full scientific investigation, maybe not, but the club doctor to review some cases and speak to experts as well as the club to pay for a good poke around junction oval by work place inspectors would be a start. We are natural to be suspicious here on demonland, we love the club and our people, even our ex people. It's best the club is out ahead of this and pro active. As for Darren- a benign tumour, an easy resection, a smooth recovery and health and prosperity including some decent cash from the block is what I hope for!

The draft talk isn't that relevant to this thread, but .....remember Joel Selwood had a dodgy knee. Probably still does. The guy is just the type who wouldn't stop anyway. And you can analyse a guys perseverance, but you can't analyse a guys response to injury, some degenerative knees hold up and can be played through, some turn to bone and the player just can't cope. But injuries should always be taken in to account even if you then decide to go with that player. I think your second point is disrespectful to recruiters. Of course there is a confirmation bias that sucks some of them in. Inexperienced types more likely than not, which is why I was glad we got Jason Taylor from Collingwood where he was 2IC recruiting instead of picking a person from some other footy role who hadn't been involve in the dedicated process. But remember they look at these kids for 2 years without knowing who they will pick and where they will pick. The year we picked Morton at 4 over a host of good players we then had pick 14 for Grimes. So there's no way we wouldn't have been looking at every single player who was going top 10 etc. The recruiters line up a list, that's what they do. Towards the draft they may well save time by not interviewing or closely monitoring certain players in the months of Oct/Nov when all games and testing is over. That's just being realistic. But clubs don't just plain ignore good prospects. Remember each recruiting team features about 15 people in various states with different preferences etc.

1. Who owns Punt road oval? And if not RFC who controls the lease? 2. Do we have any leverage over them? Richmond might consider leasing our VFL team the rights to play there but I expect it would come at a high price. Tiger fans would be very angry so Richmond would have to placate them by showing it's a great result for them. I would think it might cost up to 1 million a season to rent for our 10-12 VFL home games. Anything less would not be a significant result for Richmond. Whilst in reality 500k or even 200k would be a fairer price it's not a price that would pay off the significant member backlash that Richmond would face. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So according to Wikipedia the ground is owned by the Melbourne City Council and operated by Richmond. I presume they have a valuable long term lease and it's probably not one that can be pressured. If anyone thinks of a way for us to get support from the City of Melbourne then I'd like to hear it.

Unfortunately has a brain lesion causing him to be unwell and requiring surgery and now awaiting biopsy results. We've had too many ex Melbourne people get sick of late so I'm hoping he gets through this. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/former-collingwood-the-block-star-darren-jolly-in-cancer-scare/story-fni0fiyv-1227212321066 Firstly let me say he made a call when it was him v Jamar re leaving, so I've got no qualms there so I don't want to hear about it. He then had a fair crack at Collingwood on the way out, but hey nothing wrong with that. And if he and his wife want to make fools of themselves on reality TV for potentially good cash then good luck to them! So none of that overshadows the horrible news and whilst I'm all for a bit of black (and particularly black and white) humour I think we should avoid directly criticising him!

My last word on draft accuracy is that it is accurate. It will never be perfect, but it already follows a pattern. And that's why you get the picks distributed for every round and every year. Toumpas might not be great. But Petracca might be. Or at least together both are better than two pick 15's. Pretty much I think you're planning on flipping the junior development and draft age etc etc when there isn't much to gain. To allow kids to finish school and start other study/work is noble. But there's nothing stopping them from rising to the challenge of doing both how it is nor anything that will force them to study seriously. You're aware of how all NFL players have attended college yet clearly many are not scholars!Back on topic. If we have strict tampering rules and you can't sign free agents until after the season then it would be a foolish player to signal their intentions definitively before the end of the year. As it is in the US sports players openly ponder whether their contracts and pay will have them back in town. So I'm fine with that. There's a difference between discussing hypotheticals and announcing that you wont be back and have already signed to the opposition. The issue we have with contracted players should be countered when free agency becomes more open and accepted. Teams will deal players with 1 year to go or keep them based on free agency compensation OR being able to replace them at the end of the contract. Expanded free agency should actually counter against the Beams style situation where a player forces a trade as the alternative is them being traded a year later or the PSD. Compensation or a viable market place for a replacement will get rid of that sillyness. Of course the compassionate case for a player to be released or trade from a contract might still come up, but that should be an individual case by case thing. You talk about player rights. At the moment clubs are not allowed to sack players mid way through the season. It's only happened rarely and usually with just cause (see Josh Bootsma, Dayle Garlett etc). I know players will still be playing and finishing contracts but I think along the same lines I don't think players should be able to effectively give notice of their next job whilst still finishing out their current contracts. There wont be anything to stop a player telling their current team they have plans to leave if they can secure a contract elsewhere. I don't buy that clubs will be shocked all that often. Typically if a player isn't signed up ahead of time then they are unlikely to change their minds at the last minute. I just don't see the benefit for the fans in allowing players to sign with new teams mid year and I think it will actually harm some of the players anyway if they sign early before opportunity and form changes. Let's get used to players moving around and open up their rights in regards to that first, then we can worry about mid season deals.

If it's not feasible then it's a bad idea. That's living in the real world. Evaluating character and resilience is part of recruiting no matter the age. Cooling expectations are part of smart development. Knowing when to trade out of the top picks if possible is smart list management. None of that should significantly change with more mature kids, particularly as they'll be playing 3 years in a development league, just how more mature will they be? Until they are thrown in to the deep end you can't tell if they will sink or swim. If Toumpas fails it will likely be because he's a limited athlete and not gifted enough at winning the footy against fully grown men. These things should've stood out on tape. He seems dedicated and committed to being the best he can be. Over preseasons he'll develop his body and with more exposure he'll develop his ability to win the footy. If it doesn't work out then we should review his contested ball winning percentage and his athletic potential, maybe his mentality as well to see if he had/has the confidence in himself to make it. He's still largely on track to play quite a few AFL games though, so it's all relevant to expectations and outcomes. The NFL draft which requires guys to be 3 years out of high school produces first round busts year after year. From the same draft as Toumpas we have Kent and Viney who are both doing pretty well and have played games where they've been amongst the best players.

So commercially viable whilst paying players 1-2k or more per game. Looking at a few million dollars turnover per club. That's going to take a heck of a TV deal and a good crowd and it's all to compete against the AFL from within. Plus it kills the state leagues that are still very popular in WA and SA. How do you work out which player goes where? Do you have a draft to start this D league? Then there's this belief that junior footy isn't AFL footy. I think you've taken some words from Paul Roos and run with them. No doubt AFL is much more defensive. But half of that is work rate and tackling. Important skills, but it's winning and using the ball that still makes most of a footballer. JKH and Salem both did pretty well last year and you could see their talent. They don't need 3 years in a D league to learn to chase and tackle like AFL players. Even if Roos thinks they do I bet that Ken Hinkley has an alternative opinion especially if you tried to take Wingard and Wines out of his team. Being older and more physically mature I'm sure the players would be more ready to go and impact games. But I'm not convinced it will sort the issues in the draft. What are the issues anyway? We completely botched our picks and our development, but every other team seemed to do it pretty well. Port and Richmond were down the bottom, now are back up. Gold Coast and GWS are building on the back of great picks. Even the dogs seemed to be making some progress and you can see their top picks adding to the side. The draft works. The best players get drafted the highest. The best clubs develop them the smartest and they go on to have long careers. The smart individuals study or gain work experience part time and come out ahead whether their career lasted 3 years or 13 years. This is games played per draft pick. Just because Melbourne found a way through culture, development, recruiting etc to completely botch the system it doesn't mean it's broken.

Let's deal with this one first. Why would any coach back themselves with a 28 year old TJ when they've inherited a side that needed serious rebuilding post the Daniher years? He had to go and it was a great trade then and still a great trade now. There were enough leaders (younger and older) to carry the club forward without TJ. There were a number of mistakes, the biggest being James McDonald, but TJ wasn't one of them.

Some 18 year olds can and do play AFL. The rest need to be in professional systems. That means serious money if they aren't in the AFL system. Which means people watching (on TV or in person) this new league. Unless it's a US college style league hooked in to a system no one will watch it and the chances of a college league working here are pretty remote. Neither the NFL or NBA or any other draft that I'm aware of is any more accurate than the AFL draft despite kids coming in at a latter age. It's still a crapshoot. It's an advantage over years to equal the comp not some magic bullet to gift great players to bottom clubs automatically. I can support raising the draft age to 19 to let kids finish school and start a trade or studies. But after that you are just restricting good athletes from being where they should be. I don't get how you can support free agency but not support letting 20 year olds do what they are damn good at doing. Travis Johnstone was right to be moved on. He played 3 ordinary years at Brisbane playing out his contract whilst we got Jack Grimes. As was Yze, White and Robbo. The handover then went to Bailey and Schwab and it was up to them to foster the environment for leaders of Bruce, Green, Moloney, Rivers, Davey, Jamar. Up until 2010 it was working fine. We hit hurdles in 2011 and the crap hit the fan. I'm not defending those who did that and the mess it left us in. But to say somehow that AFL players deserve more freedom based on the way we treated senior players back then is crap. We gave them freedom and we were punished by players enforcing the existing trade/free agency rules when they left us. I totally understand that and understand those players. I'm not arguing free agency, I'm arguing that it should stay at the end of the year. In fact be pushed later in to the end of the AFL calendar year and to have stricter punishments on tampering.

I'm not against free agency, but some of that is complete trash. AFL draftees get a good deal. Most get more than the 2 years. But for those who get 2 years it's hardly 'ethically wrong'. They get well looked after and can go in to study and pick up exactly where all their school friends left off after 2 gap years and with some cash or a commodity in their footy skills and some great life lessons. If they sacrificed schooling to go all in on their footy careers then that's personally responsibility or parental. It also isn't anywhere near the decisions that young tennis and soccer players have to make at much earlier ages, throwing in schooling all together to move to expensive academies with no promises. Which of our veterans were tossed out like used rags? The ones who played like used rags? Yze? White? Robbo? Green? They were all finished. Bruce ran off to Hawthorn. We made one wrong call on James McDonald. A very bad call. But the failures to develop the next generation came on Bailey and Schwab after clearing out the old players, which worked very well for Hawthorn and plenty of other clubs. All of those players had opportunities to continue their careers with other clubs, we didn't hold them hostage. Only McDonald did. For every player in a mature quality team playing well who announces mid season and carries on playing with full support there will be a player in a lowly side who announces mid season he's off to a better club. The first player will be treated with respect. The second will be treated with disdain by supporters and depending on circumstances might be treated the same way by coaches. I don't think it's a necessary thing to bring in.

I much prefer the NFL rules with strict tampering rules and free agency not starting until well after the season is over. You sign a contract, you finish the contract then you can sign another one. I'm aware that does open up players to risk of injury towards the end of their contracts but if they wish to avoid that they could've extended longer with their current side or moved at an earlier time.

What do you think Roosy will say if Macca calls Hogan then next Hawkins and Petracca the next Ablett? We will get the standard interview at some stage I'd think. Probably not in any hurry though. And Macca will hopefully say all the nice back handed compliments about how unexpectedly good our coaches, players and facilities are and how he's happy to be here. A video going through some of his development techniques and drills with players would be great. Enough to be interesting without giving away anything top secret. In fact if we could cut up some training highlights once a week leading up to the NAB challenge I think that would be really welcomed by fans.