binman

This is exactly what i'm confused about. This post seems to be similar in tone to others where Moloney seems to be portrayed as some sort of victim. What exactly does he have to complain about? What do you mean others will getting a reprieve? The report is that he is quitting! We're not sacking him (yet). I'd be more concerned for the fellas like Pettard who probabaly won't get a reprieve - and who haven't used their managers to put rubbish out to the media a day before our last match of the year when our focus should be on winning a game of footy, not Moloneys intentions about his future - yet another example of putting himself before the club - a club he's supposed to bleed red and blue for. I bet his team mates would be really impressed - not.

To be clear, the reports are that Moloney is 'quitting' the dees - we are not sacking him (yet). No doubt this is manoeuvring on his and his managers part, but he is the one wanting out.

I don't know about the trade bit. Are you sure? Even if if it is technically possible i can't see how it would work in practice. If we made him an offer, which he accepted, in order to trade him to another club, then couldn't get a trade done we would be stuck with him. Not a scenario club or player would be happy with. Like Cloke Molnoey may have snookered himself. What club will be be prepared to play top dollar for a player who is slow and is coming off a poor year. His form is completely exposed - unlike a player who has been playing seconds beucase he is on the outer. Ask the question - where will he come in this years bluey? Top 10? No? Why is that, given he has been injury free, is a mid fielder in a side with a weak midfield and is in the prime of his footy life.

I'm with RR on this - scary but true. What is this business about somehow Moloney should be aggrieved or he has been hard done by by the MFC and specifically Neeld. Neeld played him almost all season, only dropping him near the end of the season, when on form he easily could have been dropped way earlier. Even if there was a big chance he was going to go Neeld gave him the chance to maximise how much another club would offer him (which we would had to match if we wanted to keep him). As someone about to come a RFA this was a fantastic opportunity. If Neeld wanted to make life hard for him he could had left him at Casey all season. So he was dropped from the leadership group. So what? Don't forget he was also dropped from the leadership group the year before by a differnt coach for getting smashed and allegedly urinating on a bar. So was was Green who also lost the captaincy. Green was also dropped form the senior side half through the season. Did he drop his head? No he continued to give it his best all season. Moloney on the other hand, despite being a professional footballer clearly did not. Other senior player like Rivers and Jamar have been terrific. Moloney's response to being dropped was to sulk and show absolutely zero on field leadership (and by most acconts the same could be said for his off field leadership). Put bluntly he as been [censored] poor this year. He doesn't like Neeld or the direction the club is taking? His nose is out of joint? Doesn't like the roles he been asked to play? So bloody what. He's a professional - if he's happy to cash the cheques then rise above stuff like that, play to the best of your ability and look to move on at seasons end.Not sulk, point and not put in. And to to top it off he has authourised his manager to shop him mid season and tlak about going to Port to mentor young players. I mean really. I thought he loved the club, bleeds red and blue yada, yada, yada. Funny way of showing it. What about his responsibility to the supporters, to the club? Neeld isn't the club, he's the coach. Don't like him. Fine, suck it up, if selected for the seniors play like your life depends on it and then move on. I'm sorry I've lost alot of respect for him this year. Six clubs might want him (though i really doubt it, more likely his nuffie manager is putting out rubbish again) but i would bet London to a house brick that whatever club he goes to next year he will be on less coin than he has been this year. Which will say alot about how he is rated. So what is that the dees have supposedly done to poor little Beamer? Can someone explain? To clarify the RFA rules. If we match an offer from another club we keep him - or he can put himself in the draft (or presumably we could, if we matched the offer, trade him, though i'm not sure about that). He can't choose to go in that scenario - otherwise there would be no difference to an unrestricted free agency. He will be offered a smaller salary than the one he is currently on IMO - as he should given the year he has had (which it should be noted has been injury free)

How would i know he had it if i hadn't seen him use it?

He'll be with us - of that i have no doubt what so ever. As i have said on other threads he is exactly the sort of hard working player Neeld wants at the club. No way Neeld will axe him.

Would love a list of the top 10 aliases and/or posters with multiple posting names. Perhaps we could do a poll?

I'm not sure i 100% agree with you.

You know i wouldn't be shocked if he does get elevated into the LG. A good way to encourage some people to step up is to tell them you think they have it in them and that its time they do so. Might be another example of Neelds man management approach'.

Not trying to be a smart arse Junior, but this business about trading Boak for Beamer tends to weaken your credibility on the trade front. Has the hundreds of related posts not alerted you to the fact that Moloney is a restricted free agent? If he want to go to Port all they have to do is offer him an amount that is more than we would be willing to match to keep him (which to be honest i don't think would be much, especially given we ill get compensation if he goes to another club as a FA). Boak is unlikely to come into the equation (unless we did something weird like match their offer in order to force a trade, but we won't do that and i'm not sure that it is within the rules anyway)

With the edit function just replace the times you have written replace with a suitable replacement . By the by talk of trading Sylvia is crazy talk. As i have just posted on another thread, col with a decent run with injuries could be our most important player next year. I've loved his last 8 or so games, his coach has praised his work ethic and leadership (and i don't think Neeld is one to gild the lily) and in an interview this week sounded focused and professional (noting that playing well last week is ok but he needs to back it up this week in Perth). He also noted he is dead keen to get back into pre season work.

Yep, spot on. You can throw Couch in for good measure. I think we will see Neelds emphasis on those elements very strongly in the upcoming drafting period. I have the feeling Sylvia has bought into the Neeld message and barring injury will be close to our most important player next year.

I've got no truck against Moloney. Would be happy form him to stay if he fired up but i can't see him doing so at the dees for what ever reason. Perhaps another club will be a good circuit breaker for him and allow him to get back to playing good footy. Good luck to him if that's the case. Fascinating to see the article on the MFC site about Sylvia who seems to have really embraced the current direction and seems to be pretty switched on. Instructive that in a recent presser Neeld, immediately after noting that Moloney has struggled to adapt to the changes in the game really sung the praises of Sylvia and noted his work ethic and leadership (on and off the field - something that i can't recall him being praised for before). No coincidence i don't think, i have no doubt Neeld was sending a pretty strong message. The other thing about Moloney that i wonder about is his choice in managers. His manager foolishly put him out for sale mid season at a time when we were really under the pump. A risky strategy for a range of reasons, not least of which getting noses out of joint but more pertinently putting pressure on Moloney to back it up with performance, which he has clearly failed to do. The other thing was his manager saying the other day that one reason Port would be an attractive option is that Moloney would love the opportunity to provide on and off field leadership to a team of young players. Huh? Didn't he have that opportunity this year? Is his manager having a shot at the dees (silly if he is) or is he just silly? I mean to me it highlights that in fact he hasn't shown great leadership qualities and he isn't such a good role model (as opposed to say Sylvia or Brad Green who took his demotion and being dropped though the season on the chin and still gave his all). Strange approach to selling his mans if you ask me.

This is flaky logic on a couple of levels. One we don't necessarily need the MD to allow us to take JV in the second round. My opinion is that neither GWS or GC are going to risk nominating JV for fear we'll call their bluff and they will miss their targets. Secondly lets say we do trade pick 3 with GWS for Viney and i'm wrong about GC's position on Viney. In that scenario GC could simply select Viney with their 2nd pick (unlikely i know but possible)

With the obvious exception of the classiest player on our list, the fella you think has about 20 odd players in front of him from his draft year (few of whom could hold a candle to Watts in terms of class, poise and skill)

John McEnroe's oft quoted verbal diatribe comes to mind.

RR i promise this will be my last bite at this spectacular troll thread. Why won't you say who you believe we should pick at 3 or 4? I mean you say we should pick the best available. No exceptions. Seriously are you for real? If so name who the best available is at 3 and 4 (using my hypothetical scenario of Viney going second round and Whitfield number 1). Can't do it? I'm not surprised as it is difficult to say with any confidence who would be the best selection at number 1, little lone 3 or 4. If i recall correctly the 'recruiting fraternity' were split on who should have been number 1 that year, so by your logic those that had Watts at number 1 were wrong. Perhaps the same experts had Scully as the universal pick at number 1 (and trenners at number 2 for that matter). Judd went number 3, Franklin number 5 etc etc. History would suggest the experts may (and i stress may) have got it wrong in those years - history may tell another tale. Indeed i would contend that of the 25 drafts held stretching back to 1986 the only number 1 pick that could be considered to have become the best player of his draft is Riewoldt - and even that is arguable. By that logic it is unlikely that Whitfield will be the best player of this draft, despite being the overwhelming favourite to be taken number 1. My point is the draft is a lottery and despite the enormous resources poured into recruiting, high draft picks give no guarantee that a promising teenager will turn out to be a good player. So whilst errors are easy to spot (though not until the end of careers) making a call between two gifted juniors is obviously near impossible so a hindsight argument about Natanui and Watts that is supposed to help inform who we take this year is just so stupid it borders on lunacy. Don't agree? Then i ask again RR who should we take with picks 3 and 4? Go on, put your money where your considerable virtual mouth is

Reminds me of a great bit of graffiti i saw the other day. Fight apathy - or don't

Ok so finally the questions is answered as to why you stated this poll. The obvious follow up question is how does making a case that we were wrong to pick up Watts not Natanui help MFC ensure picks 3 and 4 are used on the 'best available' players, with 'no exceptions' and that we don't throw away 'high-daft pick gold'(sic)? Are you thinking that the club plans not to pick up the best available talent at picks 3 and 4? Is there a player in the draft you are fearing we will select instead of another player? If so who? Just as an exercise lets say Viney goes second round and Whitfield goes at 1. RR, who do you believe we should pick at numbers 3 and 4? I assume, given your grave concern we won't pick the best players at 3 and 4 you have a position on who the best players are at those numbers and who we should be selecting.

Were we wrong to pick Luke Molan not Richard Cole in 2001?

I was thinking about this in terms of a Hawthorn supporter site running a similar poll on whether they should have picked up Judd not Hodge. For a hawks fan the answer to that question might be depend on when it was asked. After his first couple of years Judd was clearly a star and many no doubt questioned taking Hodge instead and most perhaps would say they made an error. But like the query on Natanui going home there were queries on how his shoulder would cope in the AFL (they said at the time this was a big factor in not selecting him, as did the Saints). After his first Brownlow no doubt many would still still suggest they should have picked up Judd. But what about if you asked the question now, some 11 years later? Judd will perhaps be considered a better player over the journey but how many Hawks fans would say at this point in time they made a mistake picking up Hodge instead of Judd? He is their captain and has been their spiritual leader for almost a decade and it could be argued he is a much better leader than Judd. He is a one club player who hasn't sold himself to the highest bidder. He has had none of the strange on field brain fades that Judd has and is a complete warrior for his club (not that Judd isn't). My guess is that the overwhelming majority of Hawks fans if asked now if they had made a mistake picking Hodge not Judd would say no. But i could be wrong.

Again are you serious - are you trolling? My insecurity about Watts? What are you talking about? I haven't even voiced a view in this thread about the poll question. And i won't either as it is a ridiculous, waste of time arguing over whether 'we got it wrong'. The point isn't whether your 'ramblings would sway the vote one way or another' the point that those ramblings may have some impact on the outcome of the poll, which makes it a farce (can you imagine Roy Morgan asking people a question after giving diatribe with all the bells and whistles about how to respond) . What i asked you - and what you have yet to answer - is what are you trying to achieve with the poll, what is its purpose? You obviously believe we should have picked Natanui. I can only assume (in lie of any logical response from you) that your goal is to convince others of the correctness of your opinion using a facile poll. Which by the way shows, at the time of writing that only 38% of respondents believe we got it wrong.

Again RR i simply cannot comprehend why you would create a poll and then desperately try to influence the outcome. It is so silly its surreal. And then you randomly make comments such as 'If that's what a portion of the votes have been cast based then NicNat really has won this vote in a canter.' Really? And you discount the impact your rebuttals, graphs, photos and general NicNat love fest might have on the final result? I mean what are you trying to achieve? Surely not an objective poll that gives an accurate picture of how Demonlanders feel about this question? If that was the case then of course you wouldn't be constantly trying to convince people that one option is better than the other. Why not ask the question and shut up?

SAM LANDSBERGER’S FORECAST: ......Expect it to play out with a Dockers win, but not by much. What? We'll get close against a final bound team in Perth? Really?

I'm confused RR. You start a poll then periodically try to influence the outcome of said poll by pumping up the case for one of the options. Hardly likely to be a reliable result then is it. So what's the point of it (other than winding people up)? Why not start a thread called "Why i believe Natanui should have been selected by the MFC instead of Watts". It would be a lot more transparent. Edit: had to laugh, just looked at the photos you included in the initial post. Natanui taking a screamer and Watts being tackled and dragged to the ground. That's funny.