Rogue

I doubt he'll play, given his form for Sandy 1s on the weekend.

Haha, nice call :D

Even if Grimes doesn't play a game, it'll have been worth the risk (ignoring the 'culture' arguments with regards TJ's off-field shenanigans). TJ won't be playing at AFL level in 3-5 years, let alone 5-7.

Bay Riffin suggested that personality-wise, Watts would be a good recruit. Bailey's said that we'll be looking to draft 'good people' into our Club. With mousey's post that the Dees are looking at taking Rich - which can be taken with a grain of salt, and I agree with torpedo anyway - I'd be interested to know what he's like personality-wise.

It makes sense for all parties to do a trade, even if it's for negligible value to us - ie. Geelong/St. Kilda trade involving King ie. Walsh to Port Adelaide

Anyone heard anything re: Rich, as a person (as opposed to as a footballer)?

I'd prefer a pick upgrade, but yes - if he's to be delisted anyway, we'll take whatever. I wouldn't mind doing a Geelong/St. Kilda, to ensure he gets to where he wants to go.

You did say 'same with Fev', indicating you agreed re: Green

That's fine, as long are you're prepared to have it bite you back.

Yes - while some might think that's soft, it's going to come back and bite you if you don't play ball. I'd trade, but nothing I wouldn't lose sleep over giving up. Perhaps a pick in the 30s?

If you could turn it on and off like a tap, you'd simply play well all of the time, surely..?

I don't know why we'd give away CJ + something else for Warnock if we had the opportunity to get Warnock for 'free' (PSD) if Freo didn't want to play ball (ie. take Weetra ).

Firstly, I disagree. However, if we take your assertion to be true, what's the point in being carried into finals by Green and other old players if they're going to be done and dusted when our flag tilt opportunity opens up? I mean we made finals in '06 and a few people got excited about what was to come, but it was clear we were not going to progress after '06, given the state of our list - our key players were all past their peak, and we had too many young and inexperienced players in our best 22. If we can't get there on the back of what's currently our younger brigade, who will be at or approaching their peak in the projected premiershop window, we're wasting our time. If Green's around for our next flag tilt, I suggest that he'll only be some icing on the cake, not the cake itself. If he'd had a poor year we'd be getting nothing for him come trade time this year.

Why do you find that strange? Next time you go to the footy, loiter outside the ticket boxes for a couple of minutes and have a look at how many people have to buy tickets to the match, rather than just scan their membership card on the way in. 45hotgod knows the score. Here's an article on the Ray Morgan research I referred to - http://www.roymorgan.com/news/press-releases/2008/760/

I knew you liked McLean, but wow - what are you trying to tell us?

Let's work off Stynes' projection - finals 3-5, premiership 5-7. Green would be 30-32, 32-34. A draftee we pick up would be 20-22, 22-25. There's no guarantee Green would be playing come our next tilt, let alone at a high level. If we pick a young player, he should have played 50-100 games if he's made the grade. If the draftee doesn't make it, we're missing a 32+ year old Green for our next flag tilt. In the intervening years, Green may have been able to find success at another Club. Worth the risk, IMO.

Garland's the option if you want to move one of our young backman forward. I'd like to see Martin play out the season in the backline.

I do, so you're wrong It's interesting that he's pulled out his best game this week.

I read an article in which Monaghan (Football Operations Manager?) said that there wouldn't be many changes. From memory, he suggested Garland and Dunn should be fit to play, while White was 50/50.

I would have thought the AFL would have some rules regarding things like that, in order to safeguard a Clubs investment in a scholarship holder.

While that might be true of some, the comment you responded to didn't imply that Green was asking for too much, and thus didn't 'taint' him.

Fair enough - you might be right when you say that 45 has got it wrong with regards the new Board's involvement in 'football matters'. My initial post was simply replying to your assertion regarding the new Board's involvement in the footy department, which was backed up by involvement in post-match celebrations (at least, in the post I replied to ). I don't know enough about it to have any sort of firm view with regards making a comparison between the previous and new Board when it comes to involvement (interference?) in on-field matters. Is the revelation in the Members Update that Leoncelli and other directors are to form part of a subcommittee that is to oversee football operations an unusual one for the Melbourne Football Club? Since you're suggesting that the new Board is much more involved in the football side of things, how did the previous Board's modus operandi differ when it came to the on-field activities?

Your comment regarding Board members - presumably Stynes - getting involved with the team in the rooms post-match doesn't add substance to your suggestion that there's any more or less 'separation of powers' under the new Board. Singing the song doesn't add up to interference in football department decision-making. Hope that explains it. You hadn't posted it when I clicked reply. However, I'll bite... A Director(s) involved in overseeing football operations isn't uncommon - ie. Free at Richmond, St. Kilda. Are you suggesting there's an unusual level of interference in football operations since the new Board took over? Do you think it's a negative to have the football department accountable to the Board?

That's where Casey may help, but we won't see the fruits of our labour for decades. As for lapsed supporters, I've heard from someone involved in membership at the Dees that we've had the lowest churn rate the past few years. According to a national survey done yearly, we've got a relatively small supporter base, but do relatively well when it comes to % of supporters as members.

You're probably right, at least when it comes to the public's perception. Bruce is probably our most highly-rated player by non-MFC fans that I know.