GOLF

Over 6 million in debt Ron Joseph tells the AGM last night. With a small supporter base.

The AFL have backed them to survive, but where will that be. I am fascinated to see how where this goes.

Could have been the MFC 4 years ago....We got lucky-Let's keep it that way....

There is luck and then there is gold. We didn't get lucky, we got Jim Stynes. And he is gold.

Doesn't matter how much Tom's management try to keep him in the dark, one thing he would know is whether he has signed a contract with GWS or not. He must also know how much this sort of unresolved speculation can damage a club. So if he has signed, he should say so. If he hasn't signed he must say so. A simple dignified statement saying "I haven't signed anything, I will negotiate and sign after the 2011 season ends" would be perfect.

I think DB and the club management are perfectly within thier rights to as him to make the announcement if he hasn't signed anything. The longer it goes on without such an announcement, the more worried I get.

obviously youre challenged. Have yo any real thoughts ? Can you express them ??

I can read perfectly well what 16 says. It is his opinion.. 2010 was 2010 .. to rate Jamar as being lesser value than some of those others is , to me, stupid. Given costings and bang for buck Jamar will out gun Fraser..( useless) Mumford.. not bad on day but not as polished. . Do you get that ??

Why would you even bother picking a kid who'll get smashed ?

cant wait for your reply.... Im guessing i know it already

Re-read the post from No16

Please try to get a meeting of your minds. Jamar was 2nd best ruckman in AFL, but 6th in Supercoach terms. If you were picking a side to play AFL he would be good value. If you are picking a side to perform in the Supercoach fantasy, then his relatively high price is a bit too much for 6th best supercoach ruck.

We aren't going to make top 4 this year. Too young and ineperienced. But we can, and should, make top 8. It won't take many more wins than 2010. Then I hope to see top 4 in 2012, and GF in 2013 (Jack Viney BoG).

If Scully does leave I might put that schedule back a year, but not more.

Green is best at FF. Jurrah can play anywhere near goal.

Scully is going to be a top player if everything goes right for him. But at the moment he is a young kid (albeit of huge promise) with one year of AFL under his belt. He is about to start his second year at Melbourne.

If he were to leave at the end of the year, I think it would be realistic to put the opening date of our GF window back from 2103 to 2014. It would also lower our chances of flags in the years 2014-2018. But it wouldn't put us into throat-slitting territory.

In 2011, lets look at three scenarios for him:

1) He has the season we all hope for him, top 3 in the Bluey, double digit Charley votes, improvement in skills and hardness.

2) 2nd year blues, doesn't quite get there, but still full of promise.

3) Interupted season due to one or more injuries.

Its only after scenorio 1 that Sheedy, even if he is rapidly descending into senility, would offer the 6x6 package. But I can't see the six years. Try 4 max. The last really long term contract was when the Lions signed up Alistair Lynch as FF for the term of his AFL life, and he earned one third to one half his true market value per year.

After that scenario we would be offering 3-4 years at a good whack. 1.5M over 3 years? 2.?M over 4? What do posters think would be a realistic offer? Remember that after 3-4 more years, at age 23-24, he would be at his peak, and may well have a Brownlow and a flag (or two) at Melbourne. You might compare his case to Ablett's then. And so might he.

If scenario 2 comes about, then the gloss may well come off the silly money offers being rumoured. Me, I'd still make him the same offer to stay (maybe only the 3 year option, but) and it would look a lot more competetive against a reduced GWS approach.

Scenario 3 would require careful consideration and analysis of the injury. I'd think GWS would drop out of the picture, so it would be an internal MFC deal. Length of contract and dollars balanced against chance of recovery and impairment of function.

So it is only the scenario 1 situation the really causes pressure IF the rumours are true. If we would have offered 1.5M over 3 years, and 2.?M over 4, how much higher would we go to retain him in the face of GWS offers? Please bear in mind that the last time we paid up bigtime to retain a player for fear of them being poached was with Woey, and that did not turn out well.

So to put some perspective into this thread, what is a 2-year, 45 game Scully in top form worth at the end of 2011, and how much over those odds could we go to keep him if GWS are bidding?

The only other suggestion I have is to spend a much smaller amount (say $100,000? or the equivalent in Swiss Francs?) on a bonus to Scully's management if he stays here. Wouldn't want them to be giving him wrong advice just because they might make more money. And any such payment would be outside the salary cap as far as I can tell.

Lets assume Campbell gets fit and stays fit. He is still there as insurance against Jamar getting injured.

If Jamar goes seriously lame, and gets put on the LTI list, them we can promote Campbell, no drama. The only reason to promote him otherwise would be if we need him to fill in for a short term injury to Jamar or to give Jamar an occassional week off during the seasdon to preserve him. Do we need to promote him now for the full season to achieve this? Maybe look for someone else to go LTI instead.

I want to see Jamar rucking with Spencer mostly, and maybe a try out of Gawn, Fitzpatrick or Martin. Not Newton. He's 192cn. That's a garden gnome when it comes to ruck work. So that we finish 2011 with one or two final games, a fit Jamar, an adequate backup in Spencer and a couple of youngs (Gawn & Fitzpatrick) who have had a taste of seniors.

Anyone who went to school in NSW will know that full size Rules grounds are just not there in schools. They are fairly much unheard of outside the Riverina (aka Daniher country). If, as one poster above suggested (and the rest studiously ignored) 11-a-side Rules can be played on soccer/rugby pitches, then it makes huge sense to try it out in Sydney.

Whether the game with the smaller team on the smaller pitch would be a minuture AFL style game, or whether it would turn out to be something quite different (like rugby sevens) will only be known if it is tried.

But if it can tap into shool players in the lands of darkness where proper ovals don't exist, then it is worth trying.

Top 8 in 2011. Top 4 in 2012. GF in 2013 (Winning?). Window then stays open for 3-4 more years.

Spend 2011 learning to win interstate, to win at Docklands and to beat North. 3-5 extra wins = top 8, not top 4.

The most importanr para in the linked article is:

"Assistant coach Josh Mahoney said that although Campbell was drafted as insurance for Mark Jamar, the 28-year-old would still be considered."

Campbell was recruited as insurance. He can do this by waiting as a rookie in case Jamar is seriously injured and then being promoted, or by being promoted from the start and being able to cover individual games to give Jamar relief during the year. I think the FD want to use Spencer as 2nd ruck, and if he were injured, give Gawn or Fitzpatrick a run. Or even Martin. That's the way of the future. By 2013 (when the window becomes slightly ajar) we want Jamar as first ruck, plus one of Spencer/Gawm/Fitzpatrick/Martin as the ruck division.

I really don't think there will be a Jamar/Campbell combination in the seniors in 2011 unless there are woeful injuries amoungst the young talls.

There is a difference this year - he could still go to another club as their "after the NAB Cup" rookie.

Why would this happen, and how could it be effected?

Let's assume that even the most rabid Lions fan will now conceed that they have no chance of a flag in the next 3 or four years. So many players leaving, rotten coach, rorted drafts. Since the only reason for getting Fev was that Voss thought he might help them to a flag, they would now love a chance to get rid of the embarassment if they could only avoid the $2 million payout of the contract.

So they find a club that really thinks they have a chance in 2011/12/13, but lacks a spearhead. There is always at least one club dellusional enough to think this, and to think they can set someone like Fev straight. And the Lions offer to pay the idiot $750,000 in 2011 and $250,000 in 2012. Stupid club then only has to pay Rookie money plus appearances for Fev in 2011, and (if everthing is going well) maybe $500,000 in 2012. Might even get away with less if Fev is desparate for the gig.

So Lions halve their money exposure to Fev, and a stupid club gets what they think will be a bargain, a salvation, a silver bullet.

I don't guarantee that the numbers above are the final answer, nor can I say it would be a good thing for Fev or the club that took him, but if they started working on it now I reckon it could be done in time for the late rookie pick.

So lets put him in the Casey 2's and see if he can make the ones. If so, lets see if he can crack it in our highly rated senior midfield.

My bet is we won't see him in the seniors for a couple of years yet.

Not true.

Bruce has left a spot so a rookie can be upgraded immediately if so desired.

Also another rookie can be upgraded at the midpoint of the season, regardless of injuries.

A b it more fully:

We have 8 spots not counted in the senior list that can be filled by veterans or rookies. If you have no veterans you can have 8 rookies, and two of them can be nominated for senior selection even if you have no injuries. If you have one veteran you can have 7 rookies and one of them can be nominated for senior selection without having any injuries. If you have two veterans you can have 6 rookies and none can be nominated for senior selection unless you have long term injuries. If you have three veterans you can have 5 rookies .... and so on.

In 2011 we have 1 veteran (Green). Therefore we can have 7 rookies and one can be nominated for senior selection withoiut any of our players being on the LTI list. While I am unsure if this must be the same rookie all season, or if we get the chance to change during the season, it does mean that we can go into round 1 with one of our rookies available for senior selection in round 1.

If during the season we get players injured and out for at least 6 weeks (ie, on the LTI list), we can n ominate another rookie to replace them on the senior list. That rookie must then revert to rookie status when the injured player retirns.

And just in case all that is too simple, after round 11 we can elevate one of the rookies to the senior list (as we did with McKensie this year).

Robbie Campbel is insurance in case Jamar goes down with injury. Full stop.

He will not be playing afl next year if Jamar plays 22 games, and that would be ideale.

If Jamar goes down, and we are forced to play Stefan Martin or Dunn in the ruck, who'd get killed, we'd lose matches bc of it, and it would stuff up how our midfield operates. That's why a competant mature age ruckman is an important back up.

To me it was very obvious we were going to take a mature age ruckman, and I have no problem with taking Robbie Campbell.

The fact he's a quality person with leadership skills is obviously an extra bonus. In fact I noticed Prendergast consistently emphasise outstanding character traits with regard to many of our draftees, it is clearly an important aspect of drafting

Sylvinator has got it right.

If Jamar stays fit, we won't see Campbell playing Seniors next year. We need to get game time into Spencer, Gawn and Fitzpatrick. We will see one of those sharing ruck and forward time with Jamar each game. Might even give Martin a run if he recaptures fitness and form. But I want to see 10 games at least for Spencer, and 3-6 each for the others.

Campbell will play at Casey and prove/improve his fitness unless Jamar is injured. Then Campbell will step up to first ruck, and we will continue to play one of Spencer, Gawn, Fitzpatrick or Martin as second ruck, because none of them is yet capable of filling the first ruck role.

Campbell will continue in this role through 2011. Unless one of our young ruck prospects comes good by the end of 2011 (would most likely be Spencer if it happens, but it probably won't happen) and could take on first ruck duties if Jamar got injured, Campbell will continue as a rookie as insurance for Jamar through 2012. During those two years he can hopefully be of use as a ruck coach/mentor for the young. The beauty of having him on the rookie list is that it is a one-year-at-a-time situation.

That is what we got him on to the rookie list to do. I hope his fitness allows him to fill the role.

There is one alternative scenario. If he proves to be fully fit and still has the peak form he showed at Hawthorn, then it would be possible to select either him or Jamar as first ruck, but to continue to use Sepencer/Gawn/Fitzpatrick/Martin as second. That way the young still get their development and Jamar gets enough rest to see him through the next year or two relatively unscathed. Maybe play Campbell instead of Jamar in the week before and the week after each of our byes to give Jamar long breaks.

But overall. Campbell is there for insurance, and looks like a good pick for it.

Can't believe no one has mentioned The Wiz in this thread.

The risk inherent in players being "on the fringe" is at the start of their careers. If Gysberts, Tapscott, Blease and Strauss don't get at least some senior game time in 2011 they will question the value the club places on them and their future with the Dees. Similarly for Spencer, Gawn and Fitzpatrick by 2012. Also maybe Howe in 2012 and the other young talls we drafted in 2013. That's when Casey won't be a big enough areana any more, and they would start looking around. At the next rung down there are players like Bail, Bennell, Jetta and Maric who haven't yet cemented regular spots.

It needs management, not money. These players must be given a chance to show whether they can make it at the top or not. If they are good enough, but we really can't fit them in, then we should assist their trade aspirations.

We have to regard 2011 at least partly as a development year, and give these players some senior games, even if it means rotating regular "best 22" players out for a week or two.

The value (and turnover) of the poker machines may decline if Wilkie/Xenephon get their betting limit scheme legislated. Remember that much of the turnover/projit is from people with gambling problems, and placing a limit on what they can lose in a session will reduce turnover.

Even if this legislation never gets up, $14,000,000 is reduced by tax (30%) and costs of running the venues. It's good, but not a goldmine.

I would support something like a continuation of Debt Demolition to establish capital reserves for specific purposes, such as Equipment, premises/training facilities improvements, and even superannuation for players. If done, it should be based on regular, relatively small donations from fans to increase the sense of involvement and ownership.

Bingo. Lifestyles between Gold Coast and Western Sydney are world's apart. GC would be a great lifestyle for someone between 20 -30, WS not so much. The allure of WS would be nothing to that of the GC, the only thing that WS can offer is a heap of cash. Sure money talks, but it sound better when it is coming from your yacht/apartment in Surfer's rather than the rugby league heartland of Blacktown.

Being originally from the Western Suburbs of Sydney, I can fully support this argument. Blacktown is pretty much the pits. Except for some of the nieghboring suburbs such as Doonside (as in: no oop-side) or Rooty Hill (no comment).

But if Tom talks to his manager, the message he should be getting is something like: "If MFC make a reasonable offer for 2-3 more years, take it. You will be worth far more at 22-24 than you are now." It behoves us to make a reasonable offer and then achieve so well that he won't want to move at the end of the extension.

If the tested kids are planning to play AFL, then at least 10 of the 120 should have been set aside for a "Tollerance of Stupidity and Inconsistency of Umpiring" category.

Damn. I thought it was going to be unisex shower rooms at the new docklands facility.

Still, good news. And up you GWS.

It will be interesting to see which team will be the first to lose to the Gold Coast and will it be up there or interstate. Also will they be good travelers, or will they be like Freo and Melbourne and lose once they leave their home ground?

I'd back it in to be Brisbane. Even if they play at the Gabba it will still be "home state" to GC, and Brisbane are likely to be a total rabble in 2011, having lost there B&F winner and a couple more, having a coach who shows no clue, and with both their star forwards likely to go down with injury (and in Fev's case, off field indiscretions) at any moment.

Yeah. Dustin Martin was good last season. Better than Trengove. But I can't believe how over hyped he became. He had a good first year in a really bad team. Should be a good player in years to come.

But was Martin + any other ferals player better than Scullgove?

I wouldn't be surprised to see Howe line up at some stage next year. He has a mature body and is that little bit older.

He may be in for a game or two, but not as a regular. While it is true he is a couple of years older that the other three recruits, I don't rate the strength of the South Tassie competition as highly as the VFL. Howe will start out at Casey, and play most of his games there in 2011 unless we have some dire injuries.

Remember we have a bunch of young ruck hopefuls who should get time in the senior forward line next year to see what they are made of and to let them see what the required standard is. At the moment, would you rate Howe ahead of Dunn? Ahead of Bate? And they may not make it as a regulars in 2011.

And never forget the AFL guarantees of our debts. If those had not been in place, the club would have been trading while insolvent, a situation from where you do not pass GO or collect $200.

Irrespective of whether they are 1yr or 2yr contracts I still think you have made an interesting point Forge.

We may try to strike a balance here. You'd think that unless a rookie was absolutely terrible they would probably be given another year simply for development anyway so it means we may needlessly end up comitting to too many unlikely prospects if we go too deep. Possibly at the expence of 1 or more promising rookies the following year. We have 6 spots, I don't know if there is a minimum requirement but perhaps we may fill about 4 of those spots as a guess.

If we made a commitment to rookie Tom Mac then we are down to 5 spots. This year we are allowed to defer one rookie selection until after the NAB cup, so that leaves 4. If one of those goes on the Jamar Insurance mature bodied ruckman, there are three left.

Normally rookie lists are used for players who we want to watch developing (eg, young beanpoles who haven't learned to tie their own shoelaces yet without falling over) or real under-the-radar smokies (eg, JL, Aaron Davey). This year we have already stoked up with talls (especially if we get the insurance ruck) so it's down to the smokies.

At the end of 2011, we will either promote Newton (if he comes good) or delist him (if he doesn't). Probably the same with Tom Mac. If we think Spencer is good enough to step up for an injured Jamar in 2012, then we might delist the insurance as well. If not, they will have fullfilled their purpose by end 2012 and would go then. So there will be 2 or 3 rookie spots vacant at end 2011 even if we keep all the smokies for a second year. If one or more of the smokies are good enough to promote to the seniors (remember its another compromised draft in 2011) we may have additional spaces.

So overall I can't see there is a major problem with filling our rookie list, leaving one spot for an ends-of-Nab-Cup selection.