Slartibartfast

Another point of difference in an otherwise aligned commentary. Can win his own ball, can tag, can lead. Cruelled by injury this year playing with difficulty and when he came back did some terrific jobs on Ablett and Griffen to name a few. No play maker but will play 150+ games for us.

I don't know about others but I'm so sick of the "skinny kid" syndrome.

Then he'll have a decision to make won't he. He can go to MFC or stay at GWS, it would be his choice. He may well stay until he's uncontracted an then try again.

I think they may just say "NO" to show the other players you just can't walk out. They may not get as good an offer if he does go later but the statement to the rest of the list is strong.

Me?None I'm afraid. Once you're out of the loop you're out!

No. The links show WJ treating Hazy with no respect.

You're forgetting Watts, he'll be very outside by all accounts!

Bub, sorry for offending, I just needed a bit of levity. Do you think we should target midfielders, I reckon that's what we should do.

Ok, let me get this straight. 1. You've been thinking 2. Because we are not a desirable destination we have to offer more to a club than a desirable club. 3. Because we are not a desirable destination we have to offer more money to the player to play for us. Good thinking. Keep it up! PS: I'd send this advice to Todd and Roosy, it could be a game changer.

I think the article says a combination of players including 2 premiership players. It could be more and I'm wondering about Jed Lamb who has been starved of opportunities and when he has played can't get a run in the midfield anyway and plays half forward. I also wonder if Smith can play midfield. The other player that they have drafted early was Dean Towers from memory and I was wondering about him. Does anyone know anything? I agree with Master that in our situation two or three mids who can play competitive footy now is the type of solution Roos will go for. If you look at the make up of Sydney's 2012 premiership team there were only three top 20 picks although there were some F/S. Doubt Roos rates picks much.

Actually it doesn't have to. And if we get Smith and Parker I can't imagine your interest in the club will diminish. Just guessing!

There are a lot of dreamers on this thread.

Todd Viney.

Then we'll get the second best player in the draft. What's the problem?

Thanks

Now that Col is gone am I right in thinking that if we bring in Daniel Cross that offsets part of Col's value or because Cross has been delisted there is no offset. If there is an offset we should trade for him.

Stephen Hill, Brent Harvey, Robert Murphy say hello.

Viv Michie Update

Agree, so there has to be a "go home" factor.

its a rumour thread!Have you takn any of it seriously?

I don't think one mode of equalisation means the next mode is not needed, hence my reference to 100% salary cap. I just think Rome wasn't built in a day. I haven't done any research on individual club's exposure in relation to ladder position but there is a commercial reality for both the TV stations and the AFL. If people don't watch the footy on TV then advertisers won't buy time and the AFL won't get the revenue from TV. If the revenue doesn't come from TV then equalisation measures are much harder to implement and we will be significantly worse off. I'm in no way dismissing your concerns but it's a balancing act. We just differ on how good a job we believe the AFL is doing in balancing these things. I think they are doing a good commercial job giving all clubs the chance to succeed. I also think it's unrealistic to achieve perfect balance. I'm just thankful the AFL have a socialist view to football and not a capitalist view. If I supported a successful club like Hawks, who have sold games to Tasmania to survive and thrive, I'd be dirty that the clubs that didn't make sacrifices were on life support. But that's just me.

I agree with your comments on COL adjustments, sharing of crowd revenues (both of which I mentioned) and stadium deals. I agree with the objective of 9 games all 50/50's. The only comment I'd make is your view on the influence of TV and the draw. TV wants the best games with the best players. We were much more attractive to them under Bailey with Jurrah. We figured regularly If you're successful with good product to sell then you'll get good commercial results. In 2007, the year after we were the best performed Victorian club we played in the season opener against Saints and then had Hawthorn all to ourselves on Easter Monday the next week. Good clubs get the attention. It's why I've been on about our management who for too long were second class and we've been swamped by other clubs. We'll get airtime when we improve. Whilst many look at PP's as an important concession from the AFL much more important has been their role in providing us with good management - Jackson and Roos. That's where we will see the most improvement. I believe the AFL is addressing equalization, they've done it with us significantly this year with pseudo tanking penalties and they continue with money and management. It's big picture stuff. It may not be happening quickly enough for you but IMO it's moving steadily in the right direction. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next period regarding club's ability to pay 100% of the cap. That is the next "doable" item on the agenda IMO.

I take no issue with the criticism of the cost of living allowance given to Sydney and GWS. IMO it's wrong. There are clearly other things that are wrong. Father son comes to mind allowing teams to pick up players below their real value. The draw, the split of earnings from crowd attendances, the Sydney academy and so on and so forth. These are issues that in medical parallels range from ingrown toe nails to broken arms, they can be fixed because the body is strong. In a business as complex as the AFL who is dealing with 18 self interested clubs (just note the hypocrisy of Carlton's Buddy comments), State and Federal governments and drug and other authorities the landscape changes continually, reasons for decisions change and mistakes will be made. Perfection in relation to the smaller issues is not what I judge the CEO of the AFL on. I judge him on the big issues. Aus kick numbers have never been higher. Attendances are close to historical highs. TV ratings are high. Facilities that clubs now have are exceptional compared to a decade ago. Stadiums have been developed and if you happen to be in SA or go there as I do the move to the Adelaide Cricket Ground and the brokering of the move from AAMI Stadium is a wonderful thing for football. AFL has a greater National presence under AD with two new teams Revenue has grown from about $170m to $440 in his time allowing money to be poured back into the game. Player welfare is much greater and support for players who leave the game is now available. There is now a coaches association. Struggling clubs are now supported rather than extinguished or moved. In short, the AFL has consolidated its position as the premier sport in Australia despite the challenge from world codes like soccer and basketball. While many look at the performance of the AFL in terms of how it effects their club I don't. I look at the overall strength of the game. PA have shown this year that with good management the AFL provides an environment where teams can prosper. No PP there and no COL allowance. We have shown that with bad management teams can suffer and I suspect Saints as well. Hawthorn were worse than us in 1996 and rejected our takeover. The path of the two clubs, operating under the same conditions, shows the difference management can make but the AFL have provided the opportunity to all. If we fail it won't be because Sydney had a cost of living concession. It won't be because we were denied a PP, which, by the way, was an AFL decision supported by the other clubs not determined by them, it won't be because of the draw. AD has given us an environment where we can succeed, we just haven't. Aussi rules has never been stronger. That's AD's primary objective and legacy and he's done it very well.

Ask Fitzroy and Swan supporters how they view that era. Anyway, we can agree to differ.

Club membership have never been higher, interest in the game has never been higher, AD has made football a year round event, good for us because we don't do well in winter. AD has established the code in NSW and Qld and while many think this is silly the same was said of expansion into Sydney. The tanking saga saved our lives. Got rid of people who were not the required standard and cost us nothing. The AFL paid the fine and funded the removal of those that had mismanaged us. We now have Jackson and Roos - thanks AFL. And in an investigation that focused on rorting for draft picks have a look at the penalty. NO loss of draft picks. So for tanking we got Scully who went to GWS and we got two comp picks. For those two picks we got (about) Hogan and Barry. What more do you want. In terms of handouts we get it in spades and yet people still whine. Those complaining about AD's salary are just plain silly. Good people get good money. AD has kept the competition flourishing and MFC alive. Not a bad effort. And Mono I agree about the Sydney COL allowance. But I'd rather Sydney have Buddy than GWS. GWS are who we are competing against at the moment, not Sydney.