Hot as Hell

This reminds me of the Tom $cully dialogue of a couple of years back. Lots of speculation, cloak and dagger whispers etc with the reveal at the end of the year doing nothing to stop the speculation that he was gawn months earlier. Managers do what they do, so I don't blame Chip, but as time goes on I think we need to also plan forward on the basis that JF will not be with us next year. For the alleged big bucks he may command, he is probably worth more to higher placed clubs than he is to us. Og great importance will be our effective use of the compo pick we get for him.

SPR, Unfortunately, a number of the players lost in your list were players we actually moved on ourselves. The AFL know how dumb we have been in the past and I don't think will be moved to reward us on that basis. Winning bugger all games during the same period is why we were given a PP in the year we chose Tom $cully and Jack T (leaving Dustin Martin for the Tigers). I know it always easy with 20/20 vision but we have made our own mess and will likely be told we need to live with it. Our case for a PP still remains fairly lacklustre I fear.

I agree with the sentiment SPR. The key would be what argument could we mount to warrant a PP? Losing Clark, uncertainty re Hogan injury will be helpful but not necessariy pursuasive. naturally, the Saints will also be pitching for a PP. It will be interesting. In the absence of a PP, as a quid pro quo, we should be able to get a high pick if Chip should leave us (?)

Looking to the future and our memberships, and our confidence and our player retention etc etc etc. our performances in games will be more important than our position on the ladder. If we should end up on the bottom of the table by playing lousy footy, that will hurt us more than help us. On the other hand, should we lose to our lowly opponents by a whisker, or a bad decision or whatever, we willl be able to take away the positives along with some cheap lessons for next year, without losing the faith of our supporters. I don't mind where we finsih, but I do care how we finish the year off. Whether we got Draft pick 1 (and a PP????) or pick 2 or 3 will not critically alter our future trajectory. WE just need that trajectory to a solidly UP.

GT, with respect, I do not know (or care to know) the nature of your involvement in AFL football. From a distance, cynical remarks, supposedly to be taken as fact, do not constitute an argument. I suggest you speak ot Jesse Hogan when you next see him. "Around that" is what you will be told, straight from the player himself. In good circles, the exact arrangements are not asked or answered. The player managers of each of the high profile players are versed in "manager speak" and have confirmed reported player payments in a similar way. As this season comes to an end, I will try to keep you in mind and elert you to specific confirmed situations as they arise.

There will be other "senior" players available at year end if we want them. I am uncertain as to whether a total reversal of our "play youth" strategy of 5 years ago will be successful when our real problem is talent, not experience. That said, I respect and like most totally saupport the strategy that Paul Roos believes is best for us. He calls the shots from the inner sanctum of an AFL club. The rest of us make up the mob outside, screaming for blood, success, change or whatever the fever of the day may be.

Whilst you make a valid observation that posters are not privy to the intricacies of the MFC salary cap and its consequential list management strategies, you should also leave some room for some posters to be aware of the contracts offered to various players in the comp especially when they have been made public. Excluding product endorsements or player services arrangments (which are clearly confidential), the playing contract values of many high profile players is public knowledge. The financial arrangments for guys like Ablett, $cully, Tippett, and more recently Frankiln who have changed clubs is public knowledge and therefore sets a benchmark for the remuneration level of the competition's (so called) elite players. Ranking players value below these benchmarks, while arbitrary, is certainly possible. No one would pay $10 for a can of coke, probably you'd pay up to $4-$5. But if you were dying of thirst, the value naturally goes up. In the case of Frawley, we arguably know roughly where he sits in the general player rankings. He is in the 40-60 of the comp. Not elite, but in the top quintile and certainly one of lowly MFC's better players. That would set a "market value" salary of at least $550,000 p.a. Beyond that, his premium value, either to hold or to get, could range from $100k -$250k depending on how "thirsty" the interested clubs are. So he may well be worth $600 -$750k p.a. The then question each club must face, MFC especially, is if they pay this level what does that do to their salary cap over the period of his contract. After all his contract was front end loaded by MFC at the trime CC was expecting to make room for the "young guns" we had recruited 3 years back. Again, this is public knowledge as it was stated at various Foundation Heroes functions at the time. That front end contract now bites us in the bum because we may lose him to free agency and our crew of "young guns" have either left, underperformed or are injured. That's life. We tried to manage our list and salary cap, but fate intervened (i.e. Mitch Clark now gone). I like Chip and want him to stay. He is worth somewhere in between a defined range of $550k - $750k (not rocket science). Can we fit him in the cap, of course we can. Do we have the $$, maybe maybe not. If we do fit him in at top dollar, that means we have less to offer existing players as they mature/develop, and of course less in our pocket to entice new developed players to the club. We can't compete against the expansion clubs or Sydney who are afforded concessions and $$ from the AFL. We can't stop Geelong (for example) to pay over the odds as they think Chip will be a great asset to release Taylor up forward. Oh, and lastly but most importantly to this whole question is actually, what is Chip looking for? Money will be only one element, but clearly enjoying on field success will be just as important. If the Hawks made an offer of less $$ they may get Chip's nod for their potential to win a flag. It could be Adelaide or the Swans or Freo. Same deal - finals footy, classy colleagues etc etc may tip the scales. On the other hand, has Chip bought into the Roos reformation? He would undoubtedly love to be a one club player, but will that club ever play finals? His managers will naturally be looking to get top dollar for him and a long contract to secure their own best interests. Now ain't that conflicted remuneration at its best! I would hope that you could accept some resonance of intelligence and logic amongst posters to throw some numbers into the ring for argumentative purposes. It demeans your argument to bark out loud "STFU". You should be mindful that neither you nor I know exactly who the posters are on this site and what they know or don't know. I am certain you know the play on syllables about what can happen when you "ASSUME" too many things that you are not certain about. And I am glad I got that off my chest!

Much as I hate to see players go. I accept this will happen. We are moving on past J Frawley. Prefer he stays at $550k - $600k but I won't blame him if he can get a whole lot more. This is football in the 21st century. Many older posters (including myself) simply have to get used to players now playing for the money, not the jumper.

I for one am happy with the emblem we have. It is the quality of the playing group we need to work on.

I'd say all indications point to Roosy being coach for 3 years. Based on his speak and body language on FC he quite clearly would like his successor in place for the 2014/15 pre-season. Whether that happens or not we will see.

I think the stats sheet doesn't quite tell the full story. Often it depends on where and when the stat is accumulated. An ineffective disposal in the backline can be twice as damaging as one in the forward line. Likewise, 3 good kicks in junk time aint worth 1 good kick under pressure. The best scholars of the game probably use their vision/experience first and the stats sheet second when forming opinions on performance. Both add depth but only one is truly important.

Different players, different attributes. I actually believe we could replace the role played by Scully with another player (albeit not as talented). I simply don't believe we could replace LJ. I agree you can build a team around one of them for 10 years, whilst the other looks "fragile". The comment about a player changing a match and the player changing a season is quite right. Nevertheless, you would walk on hot coals to see LJ work his magic, and it is all natural. If we had to lose one to the new northern club, I guess I know which way i'd lean. Even Barrass believes it would be "better for the game" (which i can't believe he said about a 1 yr out 19 year old). Ideally, we'll keep both.

With the spotlight takeen off him, and with the advantage of time & maturity, I feel Jack finally feels he is part of the MFC. He has off field community roles, which he clearly enjoys and his body is catching up to his ability. I think Jack has found himself and sees his place within a very exciting group of young players. He has had to withstand a torrid 2 year AFL debut, with inadequate patience shown by members, which undermined his confidence and self belief. We now have another player in our 22 who wants to be there and can change the course of a game. Well done Jack and to all those that supported him.

As posted on Demonlogy yesterday (Friday 11th Feb) I have been disturbed by the thought that our well managed advancement both on & off the field could be so deeply derailed by the issue of young Tom Scully and his playing future. Until a week ago, this and all forums were upbeat about our prospects, our potential and our likely performance and win/loss ratio. Now all we have is "will he/won't he/has he" scuttlebutt and a less favourable perception of a fine young man. The Scully issue demeans the value and spirit of the other 40 odd guys on the list. And that is disappointing. Nevertheless, I claim no "superior" knowledge of this situation than any other speculators except acquaintance with a person who is a friend of Tom's uncle. The word relayed to me this afternoon, is that Tom HAS NOT signed any letter of intent (or anything else, with any other club. He has been upset by the speculation and is under instructions to distance himself from all media. He does not read/watch any media speculation on his position as he remains focussed on doing his job for Melbourne Football Club. As has been said many times in this thread, which I have been told is true, he wants to stay in Melbourne and he wants to play for Melbourne. It is pretty much as simple as that. Tom's management have muzzled him, presumably so that he does not add to, compound, or create further controvery and personal distress. He is a genuine fellow who just wants to play footy. The suggestions he is mercenary or screwing the club are simply untrue and totally inconsistent withhis character. I agree with those that have said that a personal statement from Tom that he wants to be a Demon, would be sufficient to restore the team and its supporters' focus back to footy. I cannot cliam to be entirely comforted by the news relayed to me, but I must say I am less concerned that any "ink is dry" on a contract. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing our boys play tonight. Go dees, unleash hell! Postscript Am very pleased the "other 32 guys" last night took the limelight off the Scully issue. The Jurrah or Scully thread on 'Land really is a brain teaser. If we had to lose one of them, I'm not sure I would so easily give up LJ ahead of Sculls, especially if keeping Sculls put pressure on our salary payments to adequately reward our other emerging young guns.

Mono, I have seen Jack F a couple of times at Casey. He moves quite well for a big fellow but is still not confident to get into the thick of things. It is too early to make any judgements but he is certainly the right body type for a mobile ruckman.

I really would like to have seen Brocky out there. I have no malice against him, but would have enjoyed seeing our younger faster blokes catch him and bring him down. Maybe next game.

Hi All, Just taking a break from demonology where same thread is getting a run. It seems the Demonologists are not quite as supportive of DB as you guys. I think it is smart to give DB the extra year so that he concerns himself with developing the group, rather than worrying about his job. In any event, he's had nothing to caoch in the last 2 years but the remnants of the side left by Daniher. As others have alread said, 2010 is really his first year as a genuine coach.