DeeSpencer

1. It doesn't have the MCC. For MCC members you have to pay GA or otherwise to go. 2. It's soul less. One big concrete mess. No members wing or southern stand or punt road end 3. The staff are consistently rude and incompetent 4. We often play North and the bulldogs there and their fans make the staff look pleasant 5. From the Eastern suburbs that extra 10 minutes on the train is a real pain - ok I'm precious but deal with it 6. The ticket prices and seating change at a whim and therefor for non regular attendees there is no familiarity 7. The food seems even more expensive and the beer even more watered down And most of all 8. We never win there! You are right above all it is the players/team. If we had a good record then I'm sure I'd go watch more games. If we were top 4 playing a top 8 Brisbane side then I'd be there. But right now I don't know how long it's been since we've won a game there and that's a huge turn off.

Well they didn't give us 2.7 million, in fact once you take out what we will pay them for the rubbish tanking fine they only gave us about 1 million. And Peter Jackson wasn't some hidden AFL man. He came recommended for sure but he wasn't gifted to us as a charity. So far they've given us about 1 mil and helped us get a board organised. They will then take away about 1 mil from us with this commercial disaster of a fixture.

That's much better than a crowd of 15,000 and writing a cheque to play the game. I want a draw that is both fair in terms of football and commercially. At the moment the 5 teams we play twice are GWS, Bulldogs, West Coast from the bottom 6 and North and Port for the other teams. No problems with the first 3 but then the other 2 are 2 of the lowest drawing teams around. Of the top 8 teams we play home games against Freo (2nd) and Geel + Syd (3rd and 4th) and Coll (8th) yet play away games against Carlton, Richmond and Essendon. (5, 7, 9). Explain how that is helping us win games? From the bottom 8 we play away to Adelaide and St Kilda, 2 teams that would help with crowds, and then home against the 2 Queensland sides. That may well be the AFL's way of giving us a shot at winning games. But to mitigate it they put the Brisbane game at Etihad. Then we also get stuff all prime time and not even one token away game on a Friday night. We get 2 home games on Saturday night channel 7 but they go with Sydney and the dogs? Hardly making it an attractive game for neutrals. I get the Sydney one with the Roos angle but the dogs one will likely be a turn off after quarter time for everyone watching affair anyway. We start winning and the crowds will stay strong and we are a shot to make enough out of the gate plus the NT trips to keep the bottom line in tact. I just worry about how big a hole we will be in if we haven't got 2 or 3 wins by halfway through the season.

Giving us enough rope to hang ourselves maybe? It's a bit early for the conspiracy theories, but the AFL have given us some help but also made it clear we have to dig ourselves out. Time for us to start digging.

We play all of Hawthorn, Carl, Ess and Rich as the away team. Then have home games against North, Brisbane (at etihad) and Geelong. I know I'd much prefer the away games against North, Brisbane and Geel and the home games against 3 teams that will help us get some cash in. Plus 0 Friday night, minimal Saturday night, a bunch of twilight games. We've been given a life line with a good football draw but it comes with the huge handicap of the commercial draw being a disgrace. The overlying impression here is that the AFL is saying win some games and then you'll get your share. But if we don't win games this year we'll be so far in the red it might not matter. I don't think it's over the top to say we have to win 3 or more games in the first half of 2014 or we'll be one foot solidly in to game over.

If I was running the club that would be my number 1 request every year. Except I conveniently not that our bye sits just before the Alice Springs game. Which may be part of the terms of the game that we come up early and promote as we've done with the Darwin game. I don't like that. Either we turn up for the game or we dont. Please dont make us do addition stuff. If that's needed to get people to the game then we might as well not go.

I'm predicting we squander opportunities in those first 3 games. Then hit some form either side of the bye before a long stretch of losses with a chance at one last win against the giants. We win even one or two of those first 3 playing a good brand of footy and we become a shot at that 7+ win season we are all dreaming about. If not then we will be doing well to get 4 or 5 wins.

Back to back Sunday twilights in July at the MCG. FFS AFL you've got an indoor stadium. You even have us playing a home game there. In the middle of stinking July put your twilight (which is a word that should only be used in summer or early autumn) games on at the G? Eventually selling games for TV audience (which is what the AFL do) will diminish the product so badly that the TV audiences will drop. If the AFL changed it to 1 Friday night game. 2 Saturday night games. 2 Saturday games starting 2.10 local time. 3 Sunday games starting 2.10 local time and rotated the teams through the time slots in an even distribution then we might actually have a competition again. Arrrgh end rant.

The Freo Darwin game better make us some money as well! But yeah really it's the two NT games and the Collingwood game that will bring in coin. No Hawthorn, Richmond, Essendon or Carlton as home games at the MCG. That's a slap in the face. Commercial nightmare.

Key position defenders - Frawley, McDonald, Pedersen Medium defenders - Garland, Dunn Small defenders - Grimes, Terlich, Clisby, Strauss, Jetta, Nicholson Key position forwards - Clark*, Dawes, Hogan Forward/ruck - Clark*, Fitzpatrick Medium forwards - Howe Small forwards - Byrnes, Tapscott Forward/mid: Kent, Bail, Blease Rucks - Gawn, Jamar, Spencer Stoppage midfielders - Jones, Viney, Vince, McKenzie, Tyson, Michie Outside mids: Trengove, Watts, Toumpas, Evans, Matt Jones, Barry What we need Defense: Another key defender would be nice but Garland/Dunn can play tall. Another mid sized defender would be my first preference to replace Dunn in the team. Could easily play 2 key defenders and 2 Garland's and use one deep, one up the ground. We also need to clean out some of the small defenders. 6 guys for 2-3 spots doesn't make sense. Draft some young midfielders who can develop as depth defenders ie. Zak Jones Forwards: 1 dangerous small forward, as many as possible midfield/forward players, same as for defenders. Draft guys with the ability for both roles Rucks: A young ruck to replace Jamar. Either a 198-200cm guy who can play forward as well or a 205cm primary ruck either is fine Mids: Just more!

Just a better Nicholson. All he does is run around in circles and gather the ball and either kick short or turn it over. I'm hoping with who we've brought in and the draft that Dalziell wouldn't be a guy who improved us.

If Roos is 110% for winning from game 1 and thinks we are just short on that defensive forward position then the idea isn't so crazy. He's probably the best free buy defensive forward out there. Good trainer and high work rate guy. But I'd rather use Byrnes or Bail in that role considering we've already got them or play the extra developing midfielder.

I'm 110% confident that in his first 5 or so games and most there after in his debut year he played forward pocket/half forward with minimal time at all. I remember him a couple of years later then starting on a wing but that didn't last long. I also remember him doing time tagging Cyril in the midfield one day. This year he played back. All in all I think most people realise that Jetta, with his tackling skills and decent ability in close is more of a midfield player than either end of the ground deep. Doesn't have the deadly speed you need as a small forward or small defender. Then again I don't see him as much of a half back with that lack of size and inability to take bigger opponents not to mention he doesn't get enough of the ball. His best ever game was as a high half forward in a game at Darwin where he got 20 odd touches and 3 goals I believe. Who knows, who cares really.

Adam Simpson likely keen on the Hawthorn style game plan that relies a lot on very accurate kicking from half back. Therefore better to get rid of Morton and Dalziell now. Only need to look at Garland and Birchall and Isaac Smith to see how tall, hard running half backs or wingman can be very good players but Morton just had 1 or 2 flaws too many.

Instead of 1000 threads for a bunch of guys half of which wont get picked if you've got a guy who shouldn't be in our first 3 picks but is a good rookie prospect name them here. Aidan Riley (Adel) Delisted today I really like the way this guy plays. He's a clearance and tackling beast who has the explosive clearance game at SANFL level and I think can progress to AFL as a stoppage player who has the athleticism to play as a forward as well. Skills aren't amazing but that's not his game. Only 21, previously a rookie and NSW scholarship player. Unfortunately broke his ankle at the start of only his second game this year (10 in total) so will need a long time to rehab but for a rookie pick I think he's more the worth a chance. Bernie Vince could give us an understanding about his work rate and personality but to make it from a NSW scholarship player he's likely made of the right stuff.

Michie - 2010 draft and Tyson 2011 draft obviously gives us 2 players back from that age group but still we are one of the worst teams of all time and are hardly stacked with guns under the age of 22. No doubt Cain would help but the question is how much? If you had to pick Cain or Kent for last year we'd all go Kent right? Cain might have given us more consistency but Kent within 1 season probably got up to Cain's level and now can give us 10 years not just 5. I'd be happy with Cain at pick 57 or 40 for that matter if we had already had 3 or 4 picks before then but the reality is we don't. Just my view on playing the long game as well as the short game. I don't want to see Roos bring us up towards the 8 but then we end up stuck going nowhere as teams like the saints (3 picks inside top 20) go past us.

It's a myth teams aren't building from the draft. It's just GWS and Gold Coast took so much away. But Hawthorn and Freo both built the majority of their teams from the draft. Hawthorn were just is such a strong position at the end of 2008 that they then decided to fill holes through trades rather than drafts because they had a core premiership list besides the holes. With weakened drafts it made sense. So did the Collingwood side before 2010 and they've now made a huge effort to get back in to the draft. Same with Geelong. Built like crazy from the draft and then added some really nice picks especially in 2009 I believe. Port - young star midfield - Boak, Wines, Wingard, Hartlett, Broadbent, Gray, traded in a young Ebert who they would've loved to drafted at some stage etc. Richmond have built up through the draft. Same for Essendon with their talls and North with a bunch of young players. Sydney have been the only side who didn't strictly build from the draft and I think Roos has used this period to try to stabilize the list but will probably now look towards the draft until we climb up the ladder a bit. If we finally become competitive and win 5 or so games this year then maybe 7 or 8 the next it will be too early to make big trade moves. He'll go back to bargain pick ups as appropriate like you Rhyce Shaws and Josh Kennedy's.

Load of crap on NDS. He would've got the same money next year if not more at the saints than North. Then would've been all but guaranteed another year after than as Hayes retires. Every chance to get the third as well that North offered. But there is no way he left for money. He left for opportunity and the saints played the reluctant game but were happy to let him go when they worked out it would be Dal Santo out and Longer and Delaney in. North might not be real flag chances but they are 4 years a head of St Kilda at least. If the saints wanted to keep Dal Santo they would've and he might have mentored the kids etc. But they traded their first ruck FFS, they signaled their intentions.

With picks going awry from the 2010 (Cook and Davis), 2011 (Taggert and Tynan) and only 4 kids taken in last years draft (Viney, Toumpas, Kent, Barry) plus mature talent added over the last few draft and trade periods I think we really need our first 3 picks this year used on young guys plus Hogan. These trades we've made and picking guys like Terlich and Matt Jones help us be competitive sooner rather than later but we have to invest in the picks as well. So I'd be looking at the rookie draft for Cain. At some stage we have to play the long game and draft and develop a crop of kids. Pick 57 sounds pretty late but a lot of clubs will be out of the draft and promoting rookies or passing by then (Collingwood, GWS, St Kilda) so the plan will to hope a top 30 talent slips to pick 40 and then a top 40 talent makes it through to pick 57. The likelihood that Cain is a top 25 player on our list doesn't necessarily mean he should be in the top 40 of our draft order list.

One preseason, presumably limited by not stressing his back isn't enough for him to get full fitness. I'm not too disappointed by this decision just surprised. Jetta's VFL season was no better than Taggerts.

Well according to me Taggert has size, skills and injuries wiped out his first season so he's only really had 1 year to prove himself. He's not a serious talent but might be worth another year. And nor was his dismissal unfair but might have been premature. Nicholson has now had 3 years in which he's had opportunity at AFL level in all 3 and hasn't improved since his first game. He's proven thus far he's not a good close checking defender and whilst he can find the ball he struggles to use it. He also has moments where he shirks contests and generally has poor decision making. So yeah I think it's pretty fair to label him incredibly lucky. And considering he's bottom 3 on our list and we have the worst list then yeah he might well be right in the running for worst player in the AFL.

Taggert's problem wasn't his ability to break in to the MFC side but his inability to play consistent VFL footy. 5 goals one week, 10 touches for the game the next. The players at Geelong developing along slowly at least manage consistent VFL performances. A lot of us did stipulate that more midfield time at Casey might have seen an increased level of play but for whatever reason he wasn't given that shot. In a lot of ways though we look at a guy like Kent who in a very early game at Casey kicked a few goals and had 30 touches. That form demanded him to be promoted to AFL or at least given more Casey midfield time. Even Toumpas would have a bad week at AFL but then get 25 touches at Casey easily. Anyway I'm all for giving Taggert a 3rd year as a rookie to see if a preseason and opportunity in the midfield at Casey can help him.

I'm happy for him but would've rather used pick 57 in the draft than the last rookie pick and kept Clisby on the rookie list. The reality is their is rarely a period where someone isn't on the LTI list and you can promote a rookie half way through the year. One way or another he would've got plenty of opportunity.

Keeping Nicholson and Jetta over Taggert. Are you serious? Out: Davey, Rodan, Macdonald, Sellar, Gillies, Davis, Tynan, Taggert, Magner ®, Stark ®, Couch ®, Clisby (promoted) In: Hogan, Vince, Michie, Tyson, Cross, Clisby (promoted) So at the moment we've got 2 senior list spots - Pick 9 and Pick 40 and 4 rookie spots. I would suggest using a rookie spot on Taggert wouldn't be a bad idea although the history of players dropped down to the rookie list and then making it back is very disappointing. Everyone says this draft is weak after pick 40 though so maybe not much point even having pick 57 or the PSD pick but I'd rather use it than a late rookie pick if we can flick another player back to the rookie list in Jetta or Nicholson or just delist them.

Disagree on Clark. There are no stay at home key forwards any more. Cloke even playing deep forward puts up over 10km a game. Mitch would be the same. And ruck contests aren't nearly as physical as they used to be. Boundary throw ins are pretty soft with this new 1m rule and in the middle they often don't jump anyway. In a lot of situations the way Mitch throws himself at the ball in the air he'd be safer roaming around the ground playing on a lumbering opponent than big pack contests as the key forward. Remember he injured himself going for a mark inside 50. If Clark is back to full fitness then he plays in the role that helps the team. If he's not then he's pretty stuffed anyway. I also can't understand the Jamar over Gawn selectors. Maybe it's a Paul Roos thing? Because besides one game on a wet night against the strongest ruck in the league Gawn faltered but he did very well in quite a few other games. He marks the ball, he follows it up at ground level and around the ground and his ruck work is improving as well. His size means the only way he'll ever get consistently beat up in a game is if he hits the wall as he did against the dogs. Plus he's both getting games under his belt and young enough that improvement can be expected. Jamar on the other hand went weeks without any meaningful possessions. Has limited ruck work and can't seem to catch a cold yet alone take one of the strong grabs he used to back in his glory season! I'd have Spencer just edging out Jamar as well based on some glimpses of talent he showed in 2013.