Slartibartfast

What do you base this on Ben? I've not seen him play this year and TBH can't remember much of him in 2011. And I've never seen him live I don't think unless it was against us when I didn't notice him. He's seems to be out of favour at NM as Gys is with Neeld. No point having players on the list in that situation so I support the trade but I rate Gys and always have. But I like players who get the ball inside and make good decisions and I think you can impact fitness and attitude especially when you are dealing with 20 yo kids. But you can't teach them what Gys can do. That's why I'm disappointed we aren't backing ourselves with him.

Olisik and RPFC please stick to the topic and stop the personal point scoring. The threads are big enough without having to wade through your pointless posts. Agree to disagree. Thanks

It's both good and bad. The bad is that 4 FD think he is an AFL quality player. The good is if there really are 4 bidding for his services we will get a better deal. Of course, it might all be bunkum.

Yes, I've probably taken it far too seriously! But I like him and I'll be disappointed when he leaves.

Well one thing I admire about this footy department is they aren't afraid to make decisions. The endless debate in this thread about Gysberts will play out if he continues his AFL career. I like blokes who can get the ball inside and make good decisions. Gysberts has done this from day one but the FD have a view that he can't succeed at AFL level. It's their call and will be judged on it. Prismall and a 4th rounder? That looks like just getting him off the books and we are being forced to take Prismall as part of the bargin. I'll follow his progress with interest. I think he'll have a very good AFL career but the lack of genuine interest from other parties suggests I'm wrong.

Topic locked. Plenty like it on the DD Board.

The AFL see all the details of all clubs and would be aware of the details and would adjust accordingly.

Just thought he deserved a mention.......

Jordie McKenzie, three times winner of coaches pet!

Who says we'll get Wines? My mail is that Whitfield, Toumpas and Wines will go in the first three. GWS will trade a ruckman in and won't draft one is the thinking. I'm surprised but it's a very educated view.

Nothing new here, please use an existing Scully thread. Closed

Interestingly there wasn't a person on our coaching selection panel who had coached an AFL game. I take your point.

BH and R please keep to the topic. The forum doesn't need to cluttered with chest beating. Thanks.

This has been done often. Closed.

Locked.

Have a look at the third paragraph of this article. I'd imagine the club website hasn't changed his job description from last year. Ian Flack hasn't been there for 9 months. http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/129472/default.aspx

Moloney couldn't either and apparently there are 6 clubs interested in him. We'll get market value for Gysberts and that will depend on how many other clubs rate him. He won two rising stars in just a few games. He can clearly play but would seem not to fit Neeld's vision. We may get something a bit better than you expect.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/deecision-on-the-run-20120521-1z1di.html

Not for me. I'd rather do without our "General Manager - Strategy" and one of our two "Community Coordinators" than short change the TPP. The TPP should be a cast iron non negotiable expense because if you don't pay it you have less talent on your list than every other club that does (one of the reasons Sydney is so consistent is they have a higher salary cap than us - and they are beautifully managed as well). If you have to cut back in other areas so be it. If a club says the TPP is not a cast iron expense it's not serious about winning a flag. But you may not see it that way. I do.

The issue is that the club says it hasn't got enough money to pay 100% of the TPP unless it receives a significant cash injection. I say that is the wrong allocation of resources and is a management issue and not a promotion issue. The message I got is despite paying off $5 million (a saving of significance), despite receiving extra money from the AFL, despite an increase in membership, despite a better stadium deal and despite what would appear to be increased sponsorship we still can't find the money to pay what a club has to pay to win a flag - 100% of the TPP. One way or another that's not good. What I'd love is the club to come out and say "we are dead serious about winning a flag. We will pay 100% of the TPP but in doing so we need contributions to assist in the development and recruitment of the best players. Please help". That tells me that they have allocated resources right and I'd feel as though I was giving our players the best possible chance to reach their full potential. That's the way I see it. In the interest of sanity I won't now give a full critique on Daniher as coach, Gardner as a Chairman and Richard Griffith as a recruiting manager.

Robbie I dips me lid to you. I put in a reasonable amount each year (obviously not enough to get to this dinner) and TBH when I contribute my money I'd like to know I'm supporting a well run club that has the right objectives and is being run efficiently. I don't want to think that I'm supporting a poorly run club that is just using my donation to cover up inefficiencies in the budget or what I would consider discretionary or speculative spending. A bit like when I pay my taxes. I want to think that the money is being wisely used (but of course that is just silly). If our TPP in a current year is only 95% of the TPP and there are a few expenditure blowouts or revenue shortfalls during the year then I reckon the 5% will be under significant pressure. It's a very soft target and nobody will know. Good management would provide provisions for this expenditure and cut elsewhere but I don't have the confidence this would happen. TPP budgeting is done, we know before the year starts how much we will pay in the following year bar a few injury payments and incentives. If you genuinely saw this as a core expenditure why wouldn't you pay the 100% through the year rather than wait until the end of the year to make the commitment? Accordingly I believe Don. He says he needed the money to pay the TPP and that's good enough for me. I've contributed to many a fundraising to provide gym equipment, other FD equipment and at one stage to allow us to have an extra rookie and it's always been itemised. Why would they start misrepresenting it now? It only makes them look bad to those that see it my way. Anyway good on you and I hope it pays off.

You didn't answer the question. Not surprising really.

I'm taking Don at his word, is that wrong?

The business of the MFC is to win games of football and Premierships. I know people don't want to hear this but at the moment we are a laughing stock. And we are a laughing stock because after 5 years of rebuild we look like winning one game of footy this season against non development clubs. And MFC is profitable because of the generosity of its members, not through the recurring revenue the club generates from its business. We owe a lot to those that contributed last night.

I think you've missed my point. I congratulate those that donate year in and year out. It's a wonderful contribution to our club and their interest is in hoping we succeed. Well done to them.