Slartibartfast

I'm not a fan of Blease, if we get steak knives for him we will have won IMO. But lets not get too critical. Melbourne's game plan this year led to 6 games where we scored less than 40 points. I don't think we kicked 100 points once. We were the lowest scoring team in the comp. If you think our game plan is the same as PA or Richmond I think you're wrong. If you think it's purely personnel I think you're wrong. Sam should have bought in, no doubt. But like him, I don't like our game plan.

I don't know. Ask Josh.

NM enquired about Watts some years ago.

One doesn't necessarily preclude the other. I like the idea of Merrett and I like the idea of Frost. Merrett takes one spot, perhaps the last on our list. We can have him and develop. And we've no depth in our tall backs.

I doubt it. But speaking to someone who is involved in junior footy he seemed to think Petracca was a clear no 1. If he knows that we know that and will plan around it.

I haven't spoken to anyone for about 12 months so I've no idea what the thinking is this year. You should know me well enough that if I did know anything it wouldn't be posted here or anywhere. My comments are based on a general conversation, nothing specific. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Hard to reconcile the two statements, the one you've quoted and the one further down in the article. I'll go with "discretion" because if we didn't qualify last year I can't see how anyone can as our performance over 7 or 8 years is as poor as any in the AFL's history from the time the draft and salary cap were introduced. It also accords with conversations I've had with senior footy people. Thanks for the article.

I don't think there are any hard and fast rules - there is no new formula as I understand it. I think it is at the discretion of the AFL taking into account all the circumstances. Can you show me where there is a hard and fast rule?

Emma has an article in this mornings Age saying that Collingwood are no certainty to take Darcy Moore at pick 8. I presume that those who think other clubs will nominate Billy so as to force us to take him would now be advocating we nominate Darcy so as to force Collingwood to take him. I also suspect that prospect would be (rightly) rejected. Same goes for Billy. There isn't a club in the AFL that is worried about us getting Billy for a bit of a bargain and who would put themselves at risk by nominating him early. Billy will go where he is rated by other clubs and "forcing" our hand won't come into it.

Rather than rattle on I'll try and just dot point a few things: If the argument is that we deserve a PP under the rules then I think that is erroneous because nobody has ever satisfied the new rules to get one. Quite simply we don't know what they are. Therefore whilst Jack has eloquently established how poor we have been over the years that doesn't establish entitlement to a PP. Jack's Hogan comparison is therefore misplaced. If the argument is that a PP will significantly help us and we NEED it to be successful then I think that is misplaced. One pick is not the answer, something I think we've learned over the journey. If a PP is awarded I'll be happy. I'm not about knocking back what help is offered. I just won't be in the slightest bit upset if we don't get it and I'm not sure we need it or deserve it. I'm keen for our Club to regain some respect and dignity and I don't think getting a PP helps that. I recognize the inequities in the competition. But others have succeeded from our position so I don't see why we are special as to need what they didn't get. What is perhaps a completely separate discussion but has been raised is inequity in the competition. But Collingwood and Hawthorn (amongst others) have made a lot of their own success. If it didn't matter how successful you are at promoting your club because of equalization then I think the game would suffer because a major incentive would be removed. All good discussion points and it's a discussion worth having.

North are no more financial or higher profile than us and they are in the top 4 and will get benefits next year. I well remember Brad Scott saying MFC should not be getting all the attention when both were cellar dwellers. Rather than throw the drowning man a brick to toughen them up I'd teach them how to swim. I'm surprised so many think Jack's piece is "balanced". I think it presents very well one side of the argument. I just don't agree with the argument and wanted to present the other view that many MFC supporters know support. Much more important than a PP is the ability to fund a well resourced FD. It's why we stuffed it up so badly, we just couldn't afford or attract quality people. I think those days are behind us and we should act like a club that is confident it can achieve success without special assistance.

Carlton tanked so it was ok for us to. Carlton got PP's so it's ok for us to. I don't want to be like Carlton.

I don't think the PP is an issue. What is an issue is who we've picked. Hawks and Collingwood, as you point out, got it right but sadly we got it so very very wrong. The PP concept was wrong and that's why they changed it. I've been told the PP is there for "extraordinary" circumstances. It will be interesting to see if Clark fits that catagory. I doubt it unless he gets to another club for nothing and even then it's hard to see. He's just had a significant injury but not nearly as bad as Alex Johnson or Moribito. Time to stand on our own two feet and get some of our picks right. We've had about 13 top 20 picks since 2007 and I reckon we've got about 3 or 4 that can play, none of them anywhere near A grade. One pick after the first round is hardly going to make a significant difference and I'm sick of getting handouts.

I think you'll find none of those players were free agents. FA has hurt Hawthorn, they lost Franklin and got pick 19 and we lost Sylvia and got 21(?). Don't reckon the Hawks would be pleased. I think coaches hate it for the same reason the supporters hate it. When you draft someone you like to be able to keep them and not be subject to having them hijacked. Clarkeson would hate the fact Franklin walked for pick 19 compensation but I reckon what he'd hate more is the fact that Sydney get someone for nothing and that might cost them a flag. Hawks have done the hard yards and developed a sensational list. Sydney come along and whilst they are no slouches in list development they have plucked Tippett in a PSD and Franklin in the FA system. They are arguably the two best players to change clubs in the past 2 years and they went to the Premiers of a couple of years ago for one stupid PSD pick. That system doesn't work at all for me and I doubt anyone would support it including the Swans - they have just been smart enough to exploit the loopholes. Pick 3 for Frawley is good compensation. We got well compensated for Sylvia. FA is an imperfect system because the club gaining the player doesn't have to pay for them in drafting terms. That's where it stinks.

That's music to my ears!

Gee that's a hard comment. I can think of many worse players - ones who never played seniors for a start. Very underrated footballer who polarized opinion a little like Watts. If you were a fan there was plenty to like and if you weren't there was plenty to dislike. I'm the opposite to you Joeboy, thought he got the most out of himself and played many good games.

Some interesting comments by all. My view is slightly different. I think that until the "receiving" club has to give something up of similar/equal/meaningful value then the system will be flawed. Frawley should be able to leave to pursue success but whoever gets him should have to give up something of meaningful value for a marque player. Otherwise the possibility is there for the good clubs to get better and the poor clubs to struggle. Building in GNF's tiered structure could also be used but this disadvantages the player and I'm a believer in their rights to chose an employer. Having said that MFC is a scarce case. We, along with Richmond, are really the only club to butcher their early picks to an extent that the rebuild failed completely. That was probably in part due to an underfunded football department and not being able to attract an experienced recruiter. Hopefully funding is now available. I have no issue with Friday night footy being given to the better performing clubs as long as there is some financial compensation. Ultimately the AFL is a business which must make the most of its commercial opportunities. If we were winning games we'd get Fridays. Our view on equalization as a group will be tainted IMO. We have failed and think what is happening to us is "normal". It's not. Look at how even Bulldogs and Brisbane are recovering and are competitive so much quicker than us. The draft and the salary cap do provide equalization except when the management of those areas are inept, which sadly, we were. In trumps.

Agreed. Boy, did we blow it.

Hallelujah, you've finally realised!

I can't Handel all this.

Thanks.

Have a look at 1997. Travis, Brad Otten, Croad, Bolton, Power, Tarrant, Cornes, O'Bree, Stevens, Simon Black, Adam Goodes, Matthew Scarlett, Andrew Kellaway, Nathan Thompson and in the rookie draft you can add Chad Fletcher and Lockyer.Not a bad list for one year.

I'm not sure what this means. Melbourne to nominate Billy Stretch as father/son draftee Are we committed? Why would we declare our intentions? Full preseason? If we are committed we must be confident of where he will be picked.

My biggest disappointment for the year was the complete failure of Roos to get anything out of our early picks - Strauss, Tapscott and Blease. He got something out of Watts, just not enough and of course Trengove was injured although he was dropped to Casey prior before retiring for the year. Neeld as we all know was not a coaches bootlace and I hoped that his approach was the reason these guys had faltered. I hoped that a couple could come good and turn into good AFL footballers. But no. Interesting, in talking to two people involved in FD of other clubs this year Blease name came up. One said he wouldn't have picked him if he had been the last player in the draft and the other said they were stunned when we picked him at 17 as they didn't have him in the top 60. Having said that he did polarize opinions as when I was at the club and Blease was injured there were a lot of enquiries from other clubs about him. I'm not blaming Roos for this failure by the way, I'm blaming Barry Prendergast. He clearly was seduced by skilful footballers and overlooked competitiveness. Watts, Strauss, Blease, Gysberts, Cook were all early picks who really lack AFL competitiveness. In his defence 2009 was a terrible draft in retrospect and 2008 hardly a good one either.

Nice effort Joeboy, I always read your 3 worder. Another shocking season gone, finished and dusted. I'll miss not going to the footy next week.