hardtack

and beyond......????

Yes... he said he wants to end his career as a one club player.

Apparently Scully has said there is nothing on the table and that he is fully committed to the Dees for 2011 and beyond. Has said he wants to end his career as a one club player.

That facepalm deserves a facepalm... that's an orang-utan, not a chimpanzie :-)

Yes.

What's the cut-off point for Young Australian? Has anyone ever won both Young Australian AND Australian of the Year? Is there any way we could have LJ do that? ;-)

Great letter D'land. If I have a criticism it would have to be the line "Apart from issues about living costs in Sydney being greater than in Melbourne which i feel detracts from an otherwise sound set of arguments - I really don't think that is an argument at all when you are earning almost $1mil per year... I live in Sydney's inner west and am surviving feeding a family of four and a servicing a sizable mortgage on what I can assure you, is nothing like the sort of money young Tom is purportedly being offered... nowhere near it :-)

MOTY/GOTY: Liam Jurrah

Can we also pencil him in for Young Australian of the Year?

I really want to see Jurrah rested. An injury to him could cause major issues for our finals hopes.

Maybe we could also stop him from training? After all, he could do himself an injury there as well... and maybe we shouldn't have him play the first few games of season proper as we don't want him out of action for the business end of the season.

Sorry, but I really don't like these suggestions that certain players shouldn't go around because they might get injured... football is what guys like Jurrah do... let them play, let them enjoy it and let them get match fit.

Premiers for '11: Doggies

Most Goals for Demons: Liam Jurrah - 72

Leading Goalkicker in AFL: Buddy F - 86

Final Ladder position: 6th

Wins: 14

Most tackles: McKenzie

Most marks: Jared Rivers

Most handballs: Bartram

Most kicks: Aaron Davey

Most 1%'s: Jared Rivers

Best first year player: Tapscott if he stays clear of injury (does he count as first year?)

Bluey: Tom Scully

Biggest crowd: 87,000 - Melb v Coll Queens B'day

Wooden Spooners: Lions

Worst Journo: don't usually read them so no idea

Best Journo: Martin Flanagan (based purely on the quality I have seen in the past)

Biggest news story for '11: Pendlebury to go to GWS.

Quote of the season: "I love it here at the Pies and will never go to GWS" - Scott Pendlebury

Leadership does mean you are ensconced in the 21.

I doubt you would think that way - "if you are in the leadership group, you are in the best 21".

Brad Miller will tell you you can be dropped and be a leader.

Point taken, but I would still think that as he has only just been given a leadership role, he is probably considered by the club to be in the top 21, as I am sure that they will expect him to lead on-field as well as off. It is now up to Jones to use that promotion as an incentive to continue to make improvements to his game in 2011 as he did in 2010 and not rest on his laurels - Miller I think blew that big time and Jones strikes me as being a very different beast.

They all have their plusses but none have established themselves in the 4, 6, 5, and 5 years they have been at the club.

So Jones was promoted to the leadership group purely on a whim?

It's really not brain science...

At least that's better than rocket surgery :-)

Now before you all shoot me down please note that I am passing on what I heard with the other 100 people on that day.

So, did he stand up and make some sort of an announcement, or was it just a very crowded tee?

I note that the figure being talked about is now 4 mil for 5 years. Seems his value in media circles is dropping.

No, I think they finally found someone who actually has a grasp on mathematics... they have always stated $800,000pa, but for some reason always rounded it out to a much larger figure.

I suppose what I was saying was that they were perhaps editing to produce a piece that looked slightly amateurish... and now seeing that intro you mentioned, perhaps they are just generally trying to paint it in a bad light by giving a readers a preconceived notion before they have a chance to read it. I might be wrong, but it certainly looks that way.

I suggest you post a comment on the AFL's Facebook page to the effect that they are misrepresenting your views in their lead-in to the article. (on the off chance you are one of the few who has resisted the urge to create a Facebook account, I'm more than willing to do that on your behalf).

So you agree with me?

The fact that a panel of ex players decided picked Jamar in the All-Australian team last season (read: "they decided Jamar was the second best ruckman last season") doesn't change my view.

Ignoring the All-Australian team and looking at what actually matters, namely Jamar's performances in a Melbourne jumper, do you disagree with me? If so, why?

I do disagree with you. In as far as a ruckman can be a star, I believe Jamar is.

While someone like Sandilands is a star, he has a significant advantage when his height is taken into consideration. Jamar however, punches well above his weight and to lift himself to the level where he attracted the attention of the AA selection panel while playing for a team that won the spoon the previous year was, for want of a better expression, a "star turn".

If he maintains that level of performance this year and proves it was not a spike, then yes, I would continue to be happy to label him a star.

Yikes - it is up !!!!

not one article but two - seems the hackles were raised by the challenging of AFL.com's impartiality!!!!

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/108525/default.aspx

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/108528/default.aspx

Excellent... but I'm a bit concerned (and maybe I'm just being paranoid) at the fact that some of their "edits" have altered the text/grammar to make it look somewhat amateurish (look above and you will notice these two cited examples were just fine in the copy sent to them):

"It is understood that the extended salary cap given to the expansion clubs is needed to the draftees whose contracts will all expire at similar times."

and

"In the name of evenness, perhaps they should be asking why the likes of Martin and Scully came to at their respective clubs."

...However, he is not suddenly a "star" that can be relied on week in, week out, to put in top level performances, and I doubt he ever will be. That's fine and I have no problem with the guy. In fact I really respect him for how he has improved his game and lifted himself to the level he is currently at. Doesn't make him a star like some seem to think he is.

Yes, I suppose they are handing out All Australian status like candy these days. The guy had a very good 2009 season and he then backed that up and took it to a new level in 2010... I see no reason to believe anything other than he could do equally well in 2011 (whether he can move it up another notch is probably less certain, as where do you go after reaching All Australian status?).

Not too much - one part about the player auction has gone - but all in all - feels the same. I am pretty sure it will get aired as he said he will squeeze it in. ( what will be interesting is what my byline says as I gave him three alternatives for the sign off).

When it gets an airing I will be interested in feedback on whether it differs in substance from what I presented.

Note - thanks to Hardtack as his edited version was submitted.

Hey Nutbean, you're welcome! After all, I had a vested interest in this as it was my original post on their Facebook page that prompted their "response" article :-)

And well done on getting it that far!!

A quick edit for you (take it or leave it), hope it helps ...

EXPANSION CLUBS, UNCONTRACTED PLAYERS AND FREE AGENCY. EVENNESS? WHAT EVENNESS?

Andrew Demetriou was recently quoted on the subject of free agency as saying, "The agreed model is fair for all concerned in that it gives players more flexibility but also contains safeguards that will help maintain the evenness of the competition".

Perhaps the latter part of this statement should have read, in true Orwellian fashion, "maintain the evenness of the competition as long as the GWS and GCS franchises are little bit more even than the established clubs".

Can the same litmus test of evenness be applied to the access by the established clubs, to uncontracted players that the GWS and GCS franchises have, compared to the free agency agreement ?

Whilst it is understandable that the AFL want the expansion clubs to be successful, unlimited access to uncontracted players (barring the numbers that can be taken), together with a significantly increased cap available to the expansion clubs, flies in the face of Demetriou’s desire for evenness.

With regards to the extra money available in the cap - "What's important about that is it's not a bucket of spare money and down the track you pay players over and above the odds," Demetriou stated.

"I mean they actually need that money because they’ve got more players on their list."

These comments fail to point out the obvious – that the expansion clubs have a disproportionate number of new draftees on lower, fixed salaries, meaning there is more to spend on uncontracted players.

As to the comment about paying players over and above the odds, no one can deny that this is exactly what happened with GC17 and will happen again with GWS.

That the expansion clubs have advantaged access to 17 year olds and the cream of the crop from the national draft, is not so worrying to supporters generally as GWS and GCS still have to nurture and develop this talent.

Whilst it is understood that extra money given to the expansion clubs is also needed for retention, when this same extra money is used to lure players from other clubs, then the AFL is basically saying that all bets are off regarding a level playing field. The GWS and GCS franchises are rolling up to player auctions with a lot more AFL cash in their pockets to spend than the established clubs.

By placing restricted access on free agency but not doing the same on access to uncontracted players for the expansion clubs, the AFL has created a farcical situation where the likes of Dustin Martin and Tom Scully can be poached. In the name of evenness, perhaps they should be asking why the likes of Martin and Scully are at their respective clubs. These players were high draft picks, picks that Richmond and Melbourne received due to repeated poor performances, in an effort to even up the competition. That there is a possibility of any second year player leaving a club, especially high draft picks that are meant to improve ailing clubs, is ludicrous – evenness apparently doesn’t stretch too far.

So what is the answer?

With the AFL determined to give the expansion clubs a leg up with extra cash to spend, why not at least protect the established clubs by limiting access to uncontracted players by length of service, as the free agency agreement does.

Why not give the expansion clubs a year’s head start on free agency? Whilst players will head north, lured by the promise of very attractive (some might say irresistible) pay packets, at least the players will have given appropriate service to their clubs. This will at least provide a more acceptable solution when it comes to maintaining the evenness in the competition that Andrew Demetriou keeps espousing.

1. Even on a relatively bad day, Jurrah could still manage 3 goals and a specky (puts him easily in the 60+ zone for season proper, fitness permitting)

2. Bartram looks like building on the improvement he showed in the 2010 season

3. Maric is starting to show some very promising consistency

Also have to say that the chance to be a leader seems to sit well with Rivers who tried to lead by example (even if the others didn't follow).

People love to be dramatic and dress things up in life solely to separate themselves from the masses and sound important when the simple explanation often suffices...occam's razor anybody????

Explaining simplicity/succinctness (whatever you like to call it) by using Occam's razor as a reference point, is in itself doing what Occam's razor says you shouldn't do - now I'm really confused :-)

Yep thats the best I could muster, that being said, I think my complete disdain for the person who came up with this MFCSS is still quite evident in the post. Why cant you allow supporters to be disappointed with a poor NAB cup showing without trying to label as something greater. Hell i reckon its quite a natural response after being promised the world by players in the press during the week and then they fail to deliver. Is a disappointed supporter exclusive to the MFC or would you say that all club supporters may exhibit disappointment from time to time??? If all club supporters get disappointed then it ceases to be solely an MFC syndrome.

Then I tend to think you might be misinterpreting the "syndrome". It's use is not generally directed at those who express disappointment because most of us do and one time or another, but rather it's directed at those who see the entire season as gone, on the basis of a single poor showing (probably the same supporters as those that will call for Bailey's head on a platter as well). Perhaps it should be called the Chicken Little Syndrome?

Yeh totally agree some munter thinks he is creative coming up with that. Tonight I finally had it explained and now am much poorer for the experience.

If that's the best you can come up with, at least learn the meaning of the words you choose to use; or are you simply (operative word) being "creative".

Martin, Warnock, Strauss, Jones and a couple of others are complete dead wood and I hope none of these blokes get seen in the red and blue this year.

Jones dead wood????? He was one of our best and most consistent performers last year, was promoted to the leadership group on the back of that, was coming back tonight after a very serious back injury in the final round... a bit harsh I would think!! Then again, you have written off our season already, so no surprises there I suppose.

I thought Rivers, Grimes, Maric were all good and Bennell started to show a bit in the second half. There were a lot who were off the boil tonight, but it's hardly worth fretting over.

Boy am I sick of this comment whenever someone is negative. We were terrible tonight and there was plenty of evidence, nab cup or not, that we aren't as good as many believe. I don't have a problem with people expressing that.

Couldn't give a toss really... I don't mind negativity, but when people start writing off the season (which was the impression the post I was responding to gave) on the basis of a poor NAB cup showing, then that is the right time to wheel that comment out as far as I'm concerned.