Ouch!

Yeah although Cotchin at 2. Masten seems to be coming right, and well... ummm they might be able to do something about Morton :D

Beneficiaries along with whoever snags Brodie Grundy. I can't believe that some people are tipping he could slide as low as 14. He is a better prospect than Kruezer in my eyes.

Go home factor is crap, he was never going to slide as far as Ports pick @ 7, so he and his family would have had a long time to get used to it. Coniglio was reported to not want to move interstate, that was proven to also be crap, and he has now come out and said he loves GWS and the boys blah blah. We can't lose, we were expecting to take Wines who was rated as our best choice at 4, but now it looks like Toumpas will be there cos GWS might go on a needs basis somewhat... We rate Toumpas higher than Wines apparently, and therefore get a player we expected should have been a top 3 player. Only concern I have with Toumpas is whether he is ready for Pre-season training? or will he be on a modified program? But thats a minor concern only.

The comment that the Judd deal has to be declared as part of total player payments also sounds like it restricted any trade attempts that Carlton wanted to do, sounds like Malthouse was frustrated by the lack of options given how tight the cap must be. Sad huh

The Scully to Judd comparison is pretty accurate. Traitors!

Go take a look at the Watts in review video on the MFC site, I seem to recall several occasions where Watts did exactly as what it is you seem to be seeking.

Have I missed something.... other that CW being quiet for a couple of days and Bailey coming out saying he didn't tell players to tank. Is that it? Is this why people are getting a little cocky about the tanking outcome? Not wanting to be a wet blanket but no one really know what Anderson and his cronies have actually discovered. It could very likely be nothing, and could be inclusive,.. but we don't know. It isn't over yet though. ... wish it was though

Apologies if this has been said elsewhere, but I was listening to SEN on the way home tonight, and Huddo and Cam Mooney were talking about tanking. I think it was in relation to something Buckley might have said about 2005 when he was captain at the club. Anyway they were not totally slagging out the MFC but one thing that caught my attention was a reference that they were saying that players were ACTIVELY told to lose games, and for this reason the AFL must throw the book at us with regards to penalties. I haven't seen anywhere (from Caro's writings and the other journalists) anything that suggested this. Yes there was the stuff about the vault, and the other things about CC 'threatening' people etc. Am I missing something? Brock made it clear he thought something was up, but has not come out and said Dean Bailey and CC told us in a team meeting that the team isn't to win again. Did Paul Johnson or any of the other players say this or does the AFL apparently have this evidence? Interestingly I noted that they both feel that the real problem here is the AFL and that they need to come out and admit they got it wrong. Nothing new, but that sort of thing is getting louder and louder from the media...

Ok, confused Olisik, if you didn't rate him, you wouldn't expect a pick under 20. Considering what most players went for thru this trade period I would suggest that you do in fact rate him based on a sub 20 pick.

Does anyone know when this meeting occurred? We were 1-13 ... the three games that were considered suspect were rounds 17-18 and 19. At 1-13 is anyone suprised that our staff might have met to consider what is best for the club for 2010? given that it was clear there was a priority pick at stake? If the club met at the start of the year, I would be concerned.... if they were discussing 2010 at or about round 15 or 16 which was when the club was 3-14 I think, then is anyone suprised? and does anyone honestly believe any of the other clubs that we believe to have tanked would not have had similar meetings about similar topics?

It wouldn't do them any good to come out (come out infers the notion of talking to the media in relation to it, that won't help anything) But internally I would be hoping that the appropriate people at our club are banging hard on AD's door asking how the heck an investigation by an 'integrity' officer seems to be playing out in the media as much as it is ...

Ok, you are misunderstanding my argument, I am not saying that the draw is great, but I am saying that the notion that is is the way it is because the AFL want to punish us for tanking which is what you alluded to.... thats the bit that I find is fanciful. Look below for an alternative perspective on the draw to what you put above... Every year we don't ask for home games at Etihad, we always seem to get one, what has changed We were always going to end up playing twice against the other bottom teams, So GWS, GC, Port and the dogs. 3 of those teams are interstate teams, so that means we either play them at the G, at Etihad or up in Darwin. We don't get quality slots cos we are a crap team. 5 teams didn't get a friday night game..... guess which ones? Bottom line is that the TV networks want to maximise their returns on their investment, that means prioritising those teams that draw good ratings. We don't have a great draw perhaps from the perspective of maximising revenue, but we do have a solid draw in terms of giving us a good chance to improve our ladder position. If we can prove we are a team on the up, and with young players that are exciting to watch.... then we will get better timeslots.

You must have really liked what you wrote to consider liking it yourself bluey!! For what its worth, the AFL at a very minimum needs to do what you say, before it can look to penalise any of the clubs that took advantage of the situation presented to them.

Hmmm seriously? You think that a draw that is defined as the most complex draw in professional sport in Australia has a provision or parameter to punish the MFC for potentially tanking as part of how it is calculated? Even if you separate out the actual teams playing each other from the venues and timeslots (I don't even know if that's possible) You do realise that with such a big TV deal, that the broadcasters want to maximise their exposure and return on the investment that they paid for? We don't get Friday nights because we are at the bottom of the ladder. 4 other clubs aren't getting these games either.... I don't see anything in the draw that looks like we have been harshly done by. I think you are jumping at Shadows Striker! Don't see any correlation between the draw and the tanking issue.

This is a key piece of this whole investigation that has not been proven. Players wouldn't need to be rocket scientists to know that they are being played out of position, and also the significance of getting early draft picks. Brock (and potentially Moloney) would have known something is wrong, they might have also sensed that Bailey was doing something that he might not have been comfortable in doing, but ultimately unless the players were explicitly instructed by someone at the club to lose then it doesn't fit my definition of 'tanking' Regardless of the outcome and yes I suspect there is more pain, and more muckraking I think it has already caused enough pain to this club and it's supporters, and you can see why Neeld has done what he has done with the list, with the coaching group etc.... Just sick of it all, TBH.

In the scenario that the AFL chose to penalise us this year (by excluding us from the first few rounds of the draft) I can't see any way it could impact upon Viney, Ultimately it just would mean that MFC would have to use their first available pick for Viney. That would be late in the draft, but we can still use it. The only reason that pick 27 or 28 is pencilled in is because thats our next pick after Port nominated that they would take him (I think it was Port). Losing 4 would hurt, and as others have said, Carlton got penalised only a few days before the draft when they got hit with penalties, so don't think it's too late for anything to happen this year. The only difference is that the MFC could chose to take it further (i.e court) and maybe stay any penalty until after that had run it's course, which would likely buy time, but not change all that much.

I also agree that Pedersen for 33 is not worth it, but thats more because I think we should be able to land Pedersen for less than that. 33 would be a pick that we can use for Ray from the Saints who I see being more valuable than Pedersen. I totally agree with what RPFC and Bezelbub are saying when comparing Pedersen to Martin head to head, but I still feel we have more players that can cover the role Pedersen *could* play for the dees (Fitzy, Martin, Sellar even Jamar at a pinch if we played Spencer or Gawn) They might not do it as well as Pedersen, but I still think we need to secure Ray for what he can offer our midfield as a higher priority.

Agree, thats certainly an appealing deal, My concern is that we would be looking to throw that pick to Nth for Pedersen because they are playing hardball. However on trading 24 to the Saints for Ray and a second round pick might be ok (with the intention of on trading that second round pick ... pick 32ish??) to North for Pedersen. Perhaps...

Might have been thinking of Matthew Bishop? or Nathan Bassett (Rookie listed I think?) Anyway I agree, I think some players need to move, and it's the shakeup of being traded/delisted that actually gets them going at the level they need to. For me the bite on the bum is pulling players into our team, and not having them perform.... that hurts more.

you forgot to add Byrnes as the waterboy.... cos apparently we didn't get him to play footy

Further to RJays comments, I think the ruckman that gets the prime position FIRST will have advantage,... sure NicNat can jump over the top of people, but he can't make contact without giving away a free, and the ball is being thrown up, so it won't go up as high, and he wont have a lot of time to settle himself either. Don't think he has a great engine on him either.... so he would want to improve that a bit too.

Actually next year there is still going to be 21 players and 1 sub. Didn't they forward you the memo?

Agree. I'd prefer just trading Martin for 33 to Brisbane and then using that to try and get Ray from the Saints. Pedersen can be bought for 49 or 50 surely. Getting Ray to the club would be more beneficial and worth securing with that pick.

I agree, actually think that we should be looking to keep 49 now and offload the pick we got from the Pies for Pedersen (58 wasn't it?) Unless we get added into a couple of 3 way trades, a second round pick is overs IMO

Technically no, but Port didn't match the price.... so Chaplin was obviously snagged for a good contract, Pearce was 4 years wasn't it? our two were 2 yr contracts. Moloney would have got stuff all from Brisbane.