pitchfork

Great decision - the anti-viney decision. No real damage done, but shirked duty of care and hit above the shoulders. Viney=unavoidable accident, Boomer=avoidable 'accident'

Reports that Frawley has been offered a 7 year contract bring up important questions regarding contract formulation. 1. There is a salary bubble that is going to burst - or simply shift talent to other clubs when present heavy hitters are unable to fit stars under their cap. Or 2. Front-loading has to be regulated by the AFL. Either the entirety of the contract should be distributed across the length of the contract (you can still pay a player more in year 1, but on the cap it will appear uniform over the length of contract) or the practice is regulated in some fashion. It is totally ridiculous that a player can make close to 2 mil in year 1 and 25% of that number in year 4,5 of a deal. There are instances where this may be ok (i.e. a contract signed when someone is 29 includes years 33,34 at reduced rates) but young players taking on contracts that merely allow the club to creatively account for unfair advantage has got to be fixed. It's in the interest of the league, the players, and about 10 clubs.

My housemate brought up the issue of 'if the doctor says it's bad to be at Melbourne, how can you stop him...i.e. a Employee could leave for a different job." Assuming this is serious advice, I believe we are obliged to allow MC to play at another club. However, Melbourne operate in a closed market governed by collectively bargained rules, and have a duty to the members to do their upmost to compete against 17 other clubs. I think it's totally reasonable that if MC cannot play for the dees next year that he be allowed to (on health grounds) play for any of the thousands of footy clubs around the country, just not one of 17 other AFL clubs. When an amateur player wants to move clubs having played the previous season, he requires clearance from first club. Almost never an issue, but that card is still on the table. MC is contracted and the dees have a lot at stake. *I'm no lawyer, but this doesn't seem to be 'restraint of trade', he is of course perfectly able to ply his trade.

I think that unfounded speculation about an individual's drug dependence sparked only by his disappointingly non-committal status as a demon is low in anybody's book, don't you? Unless the source is Juddy's grandma, it seems unfair at this stage.

Just when you thought some posters couldn't stoop any lower...

The honour of receiving the no.11 from the great man will never disappear, but surely the 'pressure' of the number disappears after the first quarter. We have in the past placed too much pressure on young kids by anointing them saviours, but I don't think it was an issue for the club or Mitch expecting good production from a 600k per year player. The issue, it seems, for Mitch was not being able to get on the park.No matter who he plays for (and I still hope it's us), Mitch will be in a better place if he can work to getting on the park in a stress free environment and then actually stay on the park. performance doesn't seem to have been his issue.

Malceski can show him the ropes... Keep...It's very hard to assess players without a functional forward line. IF IF IF we can get Hogan, Dawes, Howe fit and playing regular footy it will be a much easier judgement to make. Toump will be the perfect player to run onto our backward hand balling style once we actually have a target to hit. We can't undo the Wines mistake, but we shouldn't hold it against Jimmy. Reckon a re-brand from Jimmy to Dimitri would do wonders.

If you wish to defend bigotry, some straight talk would be appreciated. Don't hide behind phrases like 'political correctness' that are just a way to divert the conversation. If you don't think you're a bigot, show that. If you think the majority are just oversensitive to your bigotry, you are still a bigot.

We lost vs Port because JW played only one quarter of footy. We almost won vs Port because JW played one of the best individual quarters of anyone all year. It's baffling...but we need to stick with it.

Maybe Hogan is unwilling to give up 50 scoring opportunities and only kick 96 goals next year.

If any coach would be bad for MC, it would be Lyon. Doubt it was on the cards.

Does anyone have a sense for how much of a dilemma this is? Given we're making a few delistings, isn't MC worth a spot on the 42? Every year we end up elevating a rookie anyway. If the list was brimming with talent, it would be a precious spot...but there are guys on the list who appear to be interchangeable with a rookie.

That's what pre-season is for. Everybody has the same degree of match fitness in early February.

Isn't compensation determined by the value of the new contract not an arbitrary measure of player worth? I understand those who feel MC wouldn't be worth a first or second rnd pick as a result of only playing 15 games in 3 seasons, but if another club deem him worth a $500k contract, than that's what he is worth. Because of this I think the best case scenario for all involved is a one year contract that allows him to test-the-market in 2016 if he so wishes > he'll get a contract that reflects his true value, and we'll get to keep him or get proper compensation.

The incentives on the part of management mean there is always the potential for perverse outcomes. Yet ultimately the decision is Mitch's and if he feels he owes us and that the terms are fair (to him), he'll sign. Once Mitch is clear with his management, they'll do what he wants.

manager takes a percentage of the contract, so he'd already paid for his services.

I feel that MC would probably sign with us if we agreed to a contract that matched whatever the offer is from some other club. But it appears that we would want him on a rookie contract. This is completely reasonable for a player that needs to demonstrate he wants to and can play a full season, and still needs to get into footy shape. (I get the feeling that Mitch knows that the MFC have gone to great lengths for him and that there is a sense he owes us if he returns) Deal should be 1 year at a reasonable price (~150-200k?). This would allow Mitch 1 year to play. After 1 season he can walk as a u/FA or re-sign on a deal commensurate with what he shows in 2015. Would be fair for all.

Mitch in another jumper of a Melbourne based club would be super disappointing, but he always gave 100% and played for the jumper like few others - just want the best for Mitch. Let's get the best result for the club whichever way it goes. Just saw what Gaz said on that video with mr. piggy, totally agree with his tone and comments.

There's got to be a push for those 90s red training tops with the MFC in the middle. Alleviates every single clash we have. If the dogs are allowed to do it, why not us?

Good for you, but for most, there may be times they have trouble. Even if it's just once, it's worth having a proper clash strip. I don't think anyone doubts that we lost a game a few years back because bartram handballed to an umpire wearing identical pink socks. We should be able to distinguish with ease team A, team B, and the umpires. Anything less is unprofessional. It's nothing like half time entertainment etc. In the amateur leagues teams will wear a clash strip if needed - no club tradition has been destroyed because of this. Just have a common sense policy that allows us to wear the traditional colours away against teams where there is no clash, fix the moronic dark/light policy, and it will be fine. There isn't another sport anywhere that has wasted so much time on this. The

Thanks 'land...because of this thread I've managed to convince myself Mitch is playing for us next year. Now I'm likely to be shattered.

Does anyone else find the preciousness that some clubs (and posters!) have regarding the clash jumpers a tad absurd? I prefer we played in our traditional jumper (undoubtedly the best one in the league), but if we are playing away than we should be wearing a uniform that provides sufficient contrast with the home team for spectators and players alike. We can debate about the silly administration of uniform issues on the part of the AFL, or even whether you like the club's alternate strip, but the principal is correct, right? Don't know why the league put up with such rubbish.

Let's find the few things we have to look forward to and complain about them. also, Why hasn't Salem contended for the Chas? I say performanced based contract, no chas in three years -> he's out. Same with Hogan...no Coleman in 2015, we trade him to Freo for whatever we can salvage.

Would be surprised if private school comp gave a much better indication than TAC cup in this regard. The football is a significantly lower standard as there are many kids running around that have neither the ability nor desire to play at an elite standard. Would think that the state carnival is probably the most valuable scouting venture for KPPs.

I honestly can't put this all together - I asked a lawyer friend, he wasn't exactly sure what their whole case is. Even if the AFL/ASADA process was improper, and perhaps even outside ASADA's legislated powers, it still doesn't seem to call into question the legitimacy of the original tests, and doesn't appear to prevent ASADA reissuing the show-cause notices. All people should be able to fight charges they feel they are innocent of, but even if Hird and the EFC are in their right to fight this, it seems a small matter compared to the looming punishment of 30 employees. ------ Also, the EFC surely have an interest in protecting the state of the game. They benefit from it. An Essendon win is a loss for the code, and in the end a loss for Essendon. I wish this was over.