Macca

Good point and the Saints are another example of what free agency has created ... the law of unintended consequences kicks in. Much like the priority pick made tanking a bigger problem, the lure of an early draft pick for a lost free agent is now another issue for bottom clubs. Why risk having that pick being watered down by bringing in free agents? As a general rule, I can't see any of the bottom clubs bringing in any free agents whilst they're in the process of losing a quality free agent. In fact, apart from a few "delisted" free agents being signed, none of the bottom 5 clubs from 2013 brought in a free agent. At the end of the previous year (2012 ... the first year of free agency) only 2 teams out of the bottom 5 clubs signed up a free agent ... the GCS signed up Tom Murphy but the Suns were in no danger of losing a free agent and besides all that, Murphy is hardly an A grade player. The other club who signed up a free agent at the end of 2012 was us - we signed up Byrnes but in retrospect, we probably should have traded for him or signed him as a delisted free agent. The same thing could happen this year and if that did happen, we'd have 3 years where none of the bottom 5 clubs have signed up a quality free agent. Compare that to the better performed clubs.

Bottom clubs (say the actual bottom 4 - 6 clubs) should be able to keep their compensation for a lost free agent (or 'free agents') even if they themselves bring in as many free agents as they like. We should be in the market for free agents but we're not ... primarily because our compensation for a lost free agent (Frawley?) would be watered down. Free agency has only been around for a couple of years but we as a club are already stuck in a cycle of losing free agents, hoping like hell for decent compensation and at the same time being hamstrung in bringing free agents in.

Putting aside "prime time games" which is a largely commercial decision made by ch7 in conjunction with the AFL, the fixture is often designed around maximising crowds. Especially so when it comes to games being played in Victoria. By the time the AFL has matched-up up a lot of the good drawing teams with each other, often the only match-up's leftover are the one's where the less drawing teams are involved. If the "good drawing" teams are also successful on the field, all the better for the AFL. The obsession with maximising crowds is at the forefront of the AFL's thinking but, that obsession extends to the general footy public as well. ... to a point where some people are accepting of the fact that a club like ours needs to win more games to get a better fixture. It's the wrong way of thinking and that way of thinking has no level of fairness attached to it. Even if the mooted system changes to the fixture next year get through, I can still see a situation where we again receive 8 or 9 home games against low drawing teams. We might even have to think about selling another home game off to help balance the books. Meanwhile, the Pies get to play 17/18 games in Melbourne every year ... in 2011, Collingwood played 13 of their first 14 games at either the MCG or at Docklands (mainly the MCG) Last year they made a profit of over 16 million dollars and are currently over 31 million in the black. The fixture suits them just fine.

A team like Collingwood usually only travels interstate 4 times a year ... this occurs mainly because of all the home and away fixtures they're involved in against the other big drawing Victorian clubs ... meanwhile, we're seemingly traveling interstate about 6 times per year (on average?) The Pies would make good money from their "away" fixtures at the MCG because of that Western stand deal, so whilst they're drawn to play "away" games at the MCG as against playing more games interstate, they get another advantage in terms of revenue. If you multiply those significant advantages over a prolonged period of 20+ years, it's any wonder that we're miles behind (in terms of total revenues) The EPL, for all it's quirks, has a fair fixture. Even clubs like Crystal Palace get to play home games against Man Utd, Man City, Liverpool, Aston Villa, Tottenham, Newcastle, Everton, Chelsea & Arsenal. All those clubs have big travelling groups of supporters and clubs like Palace can make good money from ticket sales and reserved seating sales because of those big home fixtures. Every. Single. Year. The way the AFL fixture is organised is not right and it's not fair but unfortunately, that's the way the AFL does things. The fixture should never be based on supporter numbers or a teams success. However, I'm not holding my breath on anything changing with regards to the way the fixture is currently organised

Those who believe that we'll get a fairer fixture in terms of revenue if we become successful on the field are ignoring history. Right through the Daniher years when we played finals in 6 different years, we continued to get rubbish fixtures, year in, year out. For proof, go back and have a look at our homes games in those years. We've constantly been locked in as a team to play our home games against the "interstate" teams whilst the bigger drawing clubs like Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond, Geelong, Hawthorn and Essendon have been constantly "drawn" to play each other "home & away", year in, year out. The advantages that these teams have had over a prolonged period of time is enormous. 2007 was a classic example (remembering that we'd played in the finals in the 3 preceding years and had played finals in 6 of the 9 preceding years) 1) Our home games in 2007 were against 5 interstate teams as well as home games against North, the Dogs and St.Kilda. That's 8 home games where it's hard to turn a dollar. 2) This season, on the back of 7 fruitless years, we received 7 home games against interstate teams as well as home games against North & the Dogs. That's 9 home games where it's hard to turn a dollar. Not much difference hey?

Rules of the 'Demonland' NFL tipping competition ... (the same as last year except a couple more bonus weeks have been added) * All participants get 3 picks only in any given week (but .. they must all be 'road' teams) * Anyone who correctly tips all 3 winners from their 3 picks receives 1 point (any number of people can win a point in any given week) * Bonus points are up for grabs in weeks 2, 5, 8, 11 and 14 (2 points to all winners) whilst week 17 carries 3 points to any given winner. * No margins or correct scores are required - just the straight winners. * If you miss a week or come into the comp later on, there is no penalty. You just simply miss the chance to win points for that week or weeks. You can join in the comp at any time. * Your tips must be in before the start of Monday's games (AEST) ... or before the Friday game if you include that game. All 3 tips must be included in your post (editing your tips is strictly forbidden ) * The person (or persons) with the most points at the end of the regular season wins. For those out there who just read this thread, feel free to join in the comp. It's just a bit of fun and we could do with a few more people on the thread anyway. Last year's notable point scorers ... 9 - Strafford, cowboy from hell (joint winners) 7 - pantaloons, Macca 5 - Gorgoroth

There aren't any games listed on foxtel for next Monday morning (yet) Has 7mate got exclusive rights for the early and late games I wonder? I know that ESPN are covering the Thursday night game as well as SNF, MNF and Redzone (which covers the early and late games on a Sunday in the States)

The decision to re-sign all 3 players might have been made half way through the season when a number of list management decisions generally need to be made (perhaps even earlier) The club might have then decided to hold off on contract talks for a few months just because it could. My view on all 3 is that in an ideal world they are depth players who are hard at the ball and can run 2 ways. Bail played a lot more this year than the other 2 but next year might be a completely different story. It all depends on who we bring in and how many of those new recruits are "ready to go"

PJ is a top operator. Always seems to have the right answer and he's ruthless in the right way and in his own way. What stands out is where his focus lies. No dilly-dallying around with this bloke and sets out a clear pathway and he knows what he's talking about. There are other CEO's like him and some are probably even better so we shouldn't be too concerned about losing him. He'll leave the place in good hands when he moves on because that's how he thinks and acts. However, the succession plan for both his own position and Roos' position are critical decisions so you'd hope he'd be around to have a strong say in both those appointments. The position of football manager going forward is another vital one and we might already have our man for the future in Josh Mahoney. Again, PJ would know what to do with regards to that particular position.

A bit of reading material for those who are interested ... go here & here for the latest issues. Both publications centre on the upcoming NFL season.

If you and others are thinking about how good Petracca and Brayshaw might be, fair enough. I'm not so enamoured with prospective draftees and never have been. If Frawley goes and we get pick 3 for him, the club might decide to trade that pick away in another Tyson/Salem type deal. If that scenario were to happen we'd probably use our pick 2 on either Petracca or Brayshaw (or someone else?) Salem is a natural footballer with footy smarts ... he just needs to get up to the speed of AFL. He's played on the HFF in the team for the most part and in our team ....

It's way too early to know with Kelly but if he turns out to be a top player, we might also end up with 2 top players from dealing that pick 2. If that happens, we easily win out on the deal. As it stands right now, we're ahead in the deal and only time will tell how it all ends up. I hope we take the chance again on a deal like that because right now, we need as many good players as we can get. Many are looking for A grade with draftees but "very good" ain't so bad. Tyson is very good and Salem could be very good. It should also be remembered that we may not have picked Kelly if we'd hung on to pick 2 and used it in that draft.

Right now he might be but what about in 3-4 years time? I was happy with the Tyson deal though and I won't change my mind in hindsight either. Whatever we say and think at the time can never be changed. I'd hazard a guess that the majority view amongst Demon supporters was that the Tyson/Salem deal was the right thing to do. It's doubtful that we'll ever get any new information in relation to that deal either. By the way, Petracca might only turn out to be an average or good (ish) player. There are no guarantees that he'll be a top player and he might just be another player who is only an excellent player at the level he's playing at right now. For his sake, I hope he's better than that but again, how can we be sure on how he's going to turn out?

If he doesn't leave (which is now unlikely) then how would we explain his attitude this season? (let's not forget that he was largely ordinary in 2012 & 2013 like most of our players from those 2 years) Considering what he's been asked to do this season (play as a KPF), I reckon his form this season has been an improvement on his previous 2 years so it could be argued that he's improved. Not too good to not too bad might be the best way to describe his form from 2012/13 to this year. I reckon he's only ever had one year we're he's been really switched on (2010) The rest of the time he's played without an apparent desire to be a dominant player (given his natural ability) Because of that lack of real desire, it turns out that he's just not that good a player. If he leaves and we can turn the "possible" decent compo in our favour, we'll have won out on the deal.

If he stays on the list (which is more likely than not) we then hope that Roos can get the best out of him. Nothing else either counts nor matters (especially from us supporters) If he gets traded then we should wish him all the best and hope that we get a good return from him in a trade. Watts was always going to turn out to be the player that he is. He's had a number of coaches and he still plays the same way (and we all know how he plays) To criticize him for not being a top player is not logical. It all gets back to the draft being a lottery. He didn't ask to be the no.1 draft pick - the flawed system put that burden on him. I don't feel sorry for him though. It is what it is.

Just as a sneak preview ... In week one, 7mate are covering the Saints @ Atlanta early game (3am) and the 49ers @ Dallas late game (6.25am) As well as covering an early and late game every Monday morning (our time) 7mate are covering SNF every week (in week 1, the Colts are at Denver in SNF)

And whilst we keep losing free agents who can land us quite decent compensation, the club will also be hesitant in chasing free agents. Unsuccessful clubs likes ours are not necessarily a popular destination for quality free agents so we lose out twice. We don't want them because of the compo risk and they don't necessarily want to come because we're not a premiership chance. Against all that, our club should be bringing in as many quality free agents as we can. The system works against us as each of our better players becomes eligible for free agency. Next year Jones and Garland become eligible (at the end of 2015) Do we not chase free agents if either or both players doesn't re-sign? As I see it, whether the rules permit it or not, a club needs to make a play for a quality free agent very early on. Perhaps at least 12 months before the free agents are out of contract. We'll continue to act as a feeder club unless we start winning a lot more games ... plus, we somehow need to get some A grade talent into the club to help turn things around.

NFL RedZone is not like pressing the red button with Foxtel, JV7. The broadcast literally takes you to where the action is in any of the games being played at the time. The NFL RedZone broadcast focuses on the offensive 20 yard line of an attacking team in any given game but other major plays are shown on a very short delay. All the early and late games are included in the RedZone broadcast If you want to watch the Falcons you're going to have to find the full broadcast or get the game pass.

This media release explains the new NFL RedZone to be broadcast on ESPN2 (or the main ESPN channel) in Oz. I knew about RedZone but didn't know it was going to be available here. RedZone is hugely popular in the States and now we get to chance to experience it here on cable. For those of us who have cable it's great news although it has been previously available on the game pass (and still is) The media release also mentions all the other games that ESPN will cover. Foxtel will probably do their 2 games as usual and as you indicated, 7mate are covering 3 games (all on Monday our time) although they might end up doing the Thursday night games (like OneHD used to do) Here's a youtube link that gives a small insight into NFL RedZone

If he decides to play on, he'll probably end up on a list somewhere. Let's not forget that there's at least 100 players on various lists that are no better than C graders. Many are worse than C grade ... the League overall has a depth issue because of the expansion sides. If he was on our list right now, he'd probably be one of our best 15 players. Definitely top 20. Think of the worst player on our list and replace him with O'Keefe. Not every player on a list needs to have a "possible" 10 year career ahead of them. We're screaming out for winners and experienced players who can lead the way. The truth is we need 4 or 5 players of O'Keefe's ilk (not just with 1 or 2 years left - players like Vince could play another 3-5 years)

Know my sports? Not after that prediction, Cards! I have a unique view on the EPL ... I like watching all the good teams play and especially so when they're matched up against each other. Don't dislike any of 'em. Following a team like West Ham where realistically, it's more a matter of escaping relegation or finishing a commendable 10th, I view the top 6-8 of the EPL as a separate league. That's effectively what it is. Can't wait for the Balotelli debut ... the Reds are at Spurs Sunday night our time (10.30pm) and there's a fair chance Mario will play. Should be a cracker of a match regardless.

What's going on with Man U? Lose 4 nil to MK Dons in the league cup ... goodness gracious me And I tipped 'em for 2nd

I'm not looking at the proposed changes with our club necessarily in mind, 'rjay'. Our club needs to get better in many areas and if we want to be part of the September action, it's up to us to do something about it. I edited my original post and put in some likely match-ups in the last round if the proposed changes went through. The only dead rubbers would be the games involving the bottom 6 - however, for the supporters of those teams, they get a chance to see some end of season wins. Winning the race for 13th (for the no.1 draft pick) appeals but I'm not sure whether the AFL are proposing that or not. I'm not fussed either way on that one. However, I do like to see all teams play the season out with winning in mind so any disincentive to losing is welcomed on my part.

I like the proposed changes The bottom six playing each other gives those clubs a chance to get some wins at the end of the season to appease their supporters. Wins do matter even at the tail end of the year. The middle six playing for 7th and 8th is an interesting one ... again, leading up to round 18, those teams just below the middle 6 have a great incentive to break in and the same goes for those already in the middle 6 aiming for the top 6. This group allows for those teams who might get "hot" The most important group is the top 6 and there would be no excuses for any of those teams if they didn't grab a top 4 spot. Carryover points from the first 17 rounds would ensure that the integrity within the 3 bands would stay intact. As it stands, the Ladder can look "too big" sometimes and by bringing in these proposed changes, the league would add a lot of excitement to the final 5 rounds. There would be "mini finals" happening left, right and centre (both from the top and middle groups) If the system was in place right now, we could have a situation where the last round in particular could have match-ups including Syd/Geel, Haw/Port, Freo/North, Rich/Coll, WC/Adel & GC/Ess. What a great precursor to the finals that would be. Bring it on I say - I'm all for change when it's needed.

TJ was a priority pick in '97. We held pick 2 in that draft as well and traded it to Freo for White. White was later embroiled somehow in our salary cap breaches (at the time) and we duly lost our no.5 pick to Freo in the '99 draft. They ended up with picks 4 & 5 in that '99 draft and selected Pavlich and Leigh Brown ... just another top 5 pick squandered (we find a way) In 2001, the Hawks traded Croad to Freo for their priority pick (no.1 overall) ... they then selected Hodge with that pick.