Ouch!

There is a difference between telling a player to retire and stopping them from contemplating it. There have been rumblings for some time in regards to Brad.... ever since Cam retired he started musing about his own football mortality. I am fairly certain that Green and Neeld were talking, and whilst it could be mutual, I certainly don't see Green indicating that he was pushed and doesn't want to retire. I'd rather Green leave of his own accord and whilst he is still able to contribute, than the way Brad Johnson left.... which was a shade of his former self.

Yeah I have to say when I watch the games, I come away thinking "Man those guys look dispirited, if only something could be done about the CEO everything would be better"

Howe and Sylvia are currently up forward because we basically don't have anyone else. Neeld wants to get Howe in the middle, and similar I think for Sylvia. Even if we take Moloney out, I still think after the preseason next year you are putting too much of an expectation onto Viney to assume he would be a start up top 5. BTW...I could have said Boak and or Wellingham in the top 5..... now THAT is making assumptions!

I'll bite .... but I am basing it on what I predict will be our midfield group with another preseason behind it. Jones, Trengove, Grimes, Moloney, Howe, Sylvia, McKenzie. Thats 7 players I would feel fairly safe putting forward. With another preseason I'd expect more from Gysberts and Blease in terms of developing an engine. However, with that being said, We need far more than 5 midfielders and I think Viney would be in our starting team come round 1 next year. Lets just stop trying to build him up to be the messiah...after the expectations on Scully & Watts in their first few years, I can do without the hype. I have no doubt he will be a great addition to the club, lets give him some time. A player like Wines, Toumas etc if we managed to snare one of these would be similarly equipped to play AFL straight up, and why would they be any less capable than Viney? But keep the flames of the man-crush burning RP!

.... and I thought we didn't know how to tank well. Someone tell Bucks it's a little late to start now!!!

I hope he goes around again too, I thought the game might have passed him by, but I think if anything he has shown a fair whack of resilience to bounce back from being dropped as captain, dropped for form, a couple of injuries, and then comes back to play some good football for us. We need a few older heads (especially if we turn over several players this year) and an incentive for him is also that he could push up to be 2nd or 3rd on most games played for the club if he has a solid year next year. PS, not a big fan of the title of the thread. A question mark or something to suggest it hasn't been formally announced wouldn't' go astray

Ahhh thanks for that. Didn't actually realise Doggies were on the same as Port....

Ok, sorry? GWS are the form side out of all 3 teams? Before beating Port they had lost their previous 5 games by an average of 118 points. They beat Port who are struggling badly, and don't travel well at the best of times, but the win over them at home makes them the form side of the three of us? Really? ... wow Do people honestly think GWS will beat GC up at Metricon? Only way I could see that would be 'resting' Ablett & Bennell, and that won't happen... Of all the games that GC play for the rest of the season I reckon this is the one that they will want to make sure they win, they lost the first game and pride alone should dictate that they want to even the ledger against the other expansion club. GC will beat GWS @ home, the only chance GWS have of finishing 17th will come the following week against us @ Manuka Oval, but they don't have a home ground advantage to rely on there, and I can't see that happening either. Base your logic on GWS finishing last guys, even if GC finishing last helps with romantic notions regarding 'gentleman' agreements to secure JV (Still feel we will get him for 2nd round regardless, too much at stake for even Sheedy and his antics to disrupt.) Ladder ... ... MFC GC GWS

I agree, also don't forget Port can't afford to be too picky either... Boak will have his preference, and Port will attempt to entertain that, or say we will assist you in a trade back to Victoria, but not necessarily to club X. The lowest ranked Melbourne side will obviously be the most appealing option to Port given that there are several good SA boys expected to go high in the draft. If they can snag 4 from us, and end up with 4, 5 and 12. These are picks that could secure the likes of Tompas, Grundy and Kennedy. It would be a handy injection of talent for a new coach. Edit: Where does pick 7 come from? Aren't they just ahead of us on the ladder meaning they would have pick 5? (or do they have a compo pick?)

To be fair OD It's Caddy's second season. In Morton's second season or even after Gysberts first season, you would have gotten a lot more and thats what you have to compare it to... not Morton now. Pick 80 is a ridiculous call and you are just trying to get a rise out of people.

Just another thing to add. I am sure that CS as CEO of the MFC has numerous benchmarks that the board would use to assess his suitability for the position. This assessment would determine his eligibility for bonuses. Almost every CEO of a sizeable company in the country would operate similarly. Don McLardy would have looked at these benchmarks, looked at the year and the board would have discussed whether or not to offer CS an extension or not. Just cos it happens behind the doors of a boardroom meeting doesn't mean that the club is being negligent in assessing options for a new CEO and more to the point just cos we hear that they want to extend his contract doesn't mean that it hasn't been discussed at length prior to now.

So yeah it wasn't the greatest game after quarter time, but our team was pretty sad on paper given the injuries. But it was a comfortable victory against a side that had injuries through the game and I'll take that. Neeld seemed pretty satisfied with the win, and at the moment if he thinks the internal indicators suggested that the club played well then who am I to argue. I just want us to finish off the year strongly and work on preparation for 2013.

... and also I am not convinced I want to give up Sylvia at the moment either. I am not saying he has turned it all around, but he is starting to, and more importantly he is in the age bracket for players where he *should* start to peak, and this is an age bracket where we have very few players. If we were going to place him on the market, I suspect that it might be with clubs like Collingwood (if we wanted to snare Wellingham or any of their players) or with another club that was pushing hard for a tilt at the flag (Essendon or even North) His value is greater for a club in this space than @ GWS and GC I think. Happy to make a play for Caddy if a deal can be worked out for both clubs,.... I would be starting with just pick 13 and see where that goes. Then look at players like Bail/Spencer/Morton/Bate (yeah I know they aren't a great lure, but harder bodies like Bate could be looked at.)

Bad humour would see us end up with frozen chook! .... mind you, it still might get a game occasionally :D

Absolutely spot on Old55. Until there is a clear definition of what constitutes tanking how can anyone be charged with it, or how can the league even hope to counter it.

It *should* lead to the AFL determining that there is a problem.... with their draft pick system and how it encourages those out of the finals race to 'not focus on winning as the number one aim' Saying that nothing should be done isn't quite right to me.... but I agree nothing should be done to any clubs who have been 'perceived' to use such tactics to set themselves up well for the future. RR if the AFL come out again and say 'nothing to see, move along' once more it is not right, we all know it's there, it hasn't gone anywhere and it will rise again somewhere in the future. It's not even the lure of a priority pick .... it's the guarantee of pick 1 when you are last. GWS and GC are trying to teach their kids to win, but getting that pick in most years is seen as a massive benefit, not just for the draft, but for trading to other clubs. Having a pick higher than someone else gives you more negotiating power, it's as simple as that.

... and in many ways it's no different than when Freo rested 7 or 8 of their best players with "soreness" instead of making them travel down to Launceston to play the Hawks a week or two out from finals, just to ensure that their players were fit for the final series. They lost in Launceston, but beat the Hawks in the finals back over @ the WACA if I recall correctly....

From the safety in knowing that it's not his club being looked at. Several clubs have been pointed at, but in the context of this whole thing we are talking about Brock McLean and Melbourne. Again, I argue he would have no other option to welcome the investigation into the allegations if the CFC was the club in the crossfires.

Firebrands, Pitchforks, and a lot of ARRRGGGH-ing!!

Its a lot easier for McGuire to say that when it's not his club, if they were investigating the Pies, McGuire would be obligated to respond in a very similar way.

Good Poll RP, I think one of the confusing bits here is exactly about What is Tanking.... if there isn't a definition, how can they punish us or any other club

Amongst all this, the only good I can see that can come out of this is a moratorium or amnesty. Even if something comes out from the discussions with Brock, the AFL will not be stupid enough to punish this club alone in regards to this. Even Demetriou with his ostrich views on Tanking would have to see that 'list management' 'giving games to youth', 'experiementing with player positions' 'resting players to keep them fresh' etc has occurred at at least half of the clubs in the AFL over the best part of the last decade. I actually don't like the thought of the AFL saying 'no case to answer' personally,... then it's not the end of it, and it will raise its head again in some other form ... maybe here, maybe at another club. But this happens, and all clubs know it and will do their best to maximise things to their benefit. Seeing any club's members or supporters being happy at losing games is a very bad look, and none of us actually WANT that. We all want our clubs to be strong and successful. Tanking is an AFL problem, not an MFC one! For all people saying that the MFC could get booted out (as per Brian Taylors ramblings) I'll simply say that the AFL has a media deal that is heavily dependent on 18 games a week over the 22 rounds. They cannot afford to lose money here, it will not happen. for it to take away draft picks... the AFL cannot also afford for the MFC to be a basketcase on the field for a further 5 years (which would be the minimum time it would take to rebuild with such penalties) The AFL will need to provide a clear set of guidelines on what it constitutes as tanking and forget the past and enforce it for the future. Oh and the last thing I want to add is that CS only got an extension to the end of 2012, I still feel it is likely that he will call it at the end of this year and whether it is because of conspiracy theories or skeletons, I reckon we will have a new CEO next year....

In a couple of years that will be known as tanking apparently.

I think the most astounding thing from that article is the comment from David King, in so far as someone didn't use an opportunity to stick the boot into us when given the chance.

Perhaps we should bring Mitch, Jurrah, Davey etc back into the team complete with crutches .... that way we can't be accused of tanking.... or can we??