Slartibartfast

I'm not over Tommy. I love him. I'm just hanging out for the contract extension.

Temper temper!! Sorry to offend. It was just an aside. Hope your weekend gets better.

I reckon you're right. I'll find out. And if we use our second pick? Will you commit suicide? Thanks. That's what I said. Next time feel free to press the "Like" button.

Clubs will rate all the players in the draft. If there is a club that rates Billy before our second pick we'll have to use it. There won't be any "punting" by a club. Why would they risk getting a kid they don't rate as highly as others just to stop us getting a bit of a steal with Billy? Can you imagine us doing it to another club? I can imagine the response on here. We got a kid we didn't rate as highly as others to stop (say Bulldogs) getting a bit of a steal in round 3. That would be madness. We'll get Billy as a result of where he's genuinely rated by others. For what it's worth, and I don't watch much junior footy, in the match yesterday there was a bit to like about Billy. Ran to good spots, very clean hands, good composure, good decisions, quick and apparently has a motor. Kicking seemed ok. But it was his hands that impressed me.

I don't like the MFC headline using the term "locked in". Suggests to me a custodial sentence. "Commits" is much better. And others will think of better words. Great news. Can't wait for the messiah to make his debut.

I didn't do that and you should check your reading of my post and your comprehension. I attributed the blame to the MFC (" In its wisdom the MFC insisted he attend the China trip") and the football department ("Football departments objectives are to provide an environment for players to be as good as they can be but for Gysberts the opposite was the case"). For heaven's sake, Neeld wasn't there for the China trip! My two references to "Neeld" both referenced the period of Gysberts decline and I identified the cause as both the MFC and the football department. Hope this clears it up for you.

The Gysberts story has not been written and probably only known to a few.Gysberts averaged around 20 possessions per game and after getting 26 and 27 disposals respectively in his first 2 games he injured is back in the third and missed the rest of the season. In his second season he played 15 games despite missing most of the preseason with a back injury. In its wisdom the MFC insisted he attend the China trip despite having a disk problem in his back and the subsequent travel worsened his injury. His stats and his performance in his second season were exceptional despite the mismanagement and he regularly obtained more than 20 possessions and achieved 30 in one. His numbers are not dissimilar to Jack Viney's. Of course we then needed to toughen up and Neeld arrived. Gysberts promising career ended and despite going to North Melbourne at the end of the season the damage had been done and his interest in an AFL career gone and he finished his career going through the motions in the VFL with no desire to go further. He is probably the biggest loss of the Neeld years and the greatest example of mismanagement I've seen. If Roos had arrived at MFC in 2012 instead of Neeld we'd have an A grade mid. Football departments objectives are to provide an environment for players to be as good as they can be but for Gysberts the opposite was the case. Say what you like but he was a kid who against Geelong, a powerhouse, in his first game showed he had one of the most important skills in AFL footy - he could get the ball and use it pretty well. Although he wasn't a long kick he was proficient over shorter distances, he had very clean hands and he had vision. He is vilified here because he promised so much early and people are disappointed but the reality is he was grossly mismanaged and a great talent was lost. Comments like "it was all downhill after his first game" are just wrong.

I know someone who sees one the players regularly. The players did mention it and when question were told Hirdy, Corcoran and Reid had ticked it off. People trusted them and it's this breach of trust that is so sad. Such is the trust once held for those involved in footy clubs. Let's face it, if Paul Roos and the club doctor said "we've double checked it and it's fine" would you have question it? All this critique is being done in hindsight and mostly by people who have no idea of the complete trust that players and parents have in the club and in this case in a club doctor of the highest repute. That trust has now of course been broken and those with limited knowledge and no understanding of a footy club environment will not understand why the players didn't realise something was wrong.

My reading is that's it's even worse Franky. The players are being told to come and talk and accept a 6 month ban without seeing any evidence.

No, I want the right answer. If the players knew they were taking banned drugs I want them out for more than 6 months. If they didn't take banned drugs I want them to be found not guilty. If they did and didn't know then a judgement has to be made taking into account the circumstances. There are very few who know what happened. Certainly nobody here does. The players are being asked to take a ban not knowing the evidence against them and they have no idea if they took a banned drug or not (unless they were complicit in which case they should be banned for a significant period). As for wanting the "desired" outcome, I suppose there are plenty of those.

To try and get the right answer. But not many here are interested in that.

Essendon R15 2010. BOG and 3 Brownlow votes.

Saty I think too much is made of the cost of a stand alone team. Peter Jackson has come out and said our core business is football and we need to get it right. I've only seen a couple of Casey games but it appeared to me that the Casey stand alone players are not up to it. That means the structures MFC players are trying to put in place don't stand up and it's therefore difficult to develop those standards and systems. As far as I know we will have a total turnover of around 40 million this year as a club. Half a million dollars is 1.25% of total turnover. Let's call it 2.5% to deflect any mathematical argument. If footy is our core business and the Casey alliance is hurting us then for 2.5% of turnover it can be fixed. The club must look to raise these funds or cut costs in other areas. If Casey is not a problem and we could get more benefit spending the money where it is or elsewhere then Casey remains. Jackson and Roos will have a much better idea than us what the right outcome is but I find it very hard to believe it's the dollars. My belief is the best result for MFC would be to play our own team out of Punt Road. Those not wanting to put $$ into RFC miss the point entirely.

I said exactly this months ago. What we are dealing with here is the players but most want to see "Essendon" flayed. Essendon have been dealt with. Not to my satisfaction and not to many here I'd imagine, but their penalty has been determined. It's the players time now. And Redleg I would have thought you of all people would understand the inconsistencies in penalties under any legal system.

Absolutely no news. I just think he's very very important.

Tom McDonald.

Saty has Jesse Hogan fallen apart after you told him about the 30 page thread on Demonland?

Thanks Steve. Couldn't have made my point better. Enjoy the game against the Roos. Cheers BB

He's a smart dog and smarter than many that post here. Not you though Moonie!

The point I was trying to make is that he won't go to Saints for more money. But I know you knew that!

Agreed. Obviously once he reaches the highest level of compensation it can't go higher. I want to ensure he reaches that level of compensation. He will leave for finals and success, not money. The more teams in the hunt for him the better our position is.

Because they will bid up his price which will increase our compensation.

I had exactly the same thought. I don't think McKenzie has the speed to go with Harvey and think he'll go to Swallow or even perhaps Dal Santo. Nicholson has the speed and engine to go with Harvey but he's not a tagger by nature and gets drawn to the ball too easily. It would be high risk as if Nicholson doesn't do the job well he is limited in what else he can do. As for Blease I reckon he's garnish and I don't think Roos likes garnish in his team.

Jordie has a challenge to become are regular in the team particularly with Trengove coming back and Roos stated desire for more quality mids. Jordie knows that as well. Both Stanton and Jordie had about 13 possessions on each other. Jordie had more impact as I've evidenced. Who at Demonland wouldn't have taken that result before the game? Too little credit is given to players who can effectively shut down opposition players. Too many like the sizzle but not the steak. Jordie was ordinary in his games against Carlton and GCS but in his defence he did play against Ablett. Prior to that he beat Ablett, Dangerfield and Griffen in 3 or his last four games last year. Interestingly Roos has used Jones and Vince in tagging roles this year. That has surprised me. Cross is usually our first pick tagger but he's much less effective in shutting people down as Zakarakis showed. Jordie's future will depend on how Roos sees his taggers working in future. Jordie is the best "shut down" player at the club but not as offensively orientated as Cross. Cross won't be around as long as Jordie. It will be interesting to see how it pans out. One thing in Jordie's favour is his character. The coaches and the players love him because of his work ethic and footy smarts. As you say I'd be surprised is Roos doesn't just develop him and try and make him a core part of the team. But one thing I'm pretty confident in is that if Jordie doesn't succeed at MFC he'll go somewhere else and prosper.

Keep posting Saty! Don't worry Franky, when Jesse sees you walking down the road he won't recognize you as a Demonland poster - and one of the better ones at that!