Undeeterred

Now we have a list of players who couldn't get a game at any other club.

Better than having a list of players who can't get a game at ours...

Throwing the ball up will speed up the game...Less players will be at the contest. It is the reason they are doing it.

Potentially more time for commercial breaks i believe is part of the strategy sadly..

Ch 7 have got to pay the bills & the market is not what it was.

On the right track, but completely misunderstanding the motivation. It's the speed of the game that's important, not the ads. Same reason you can chuck it out of a pack now without being penalised.

The changes to the rules are hardly going to revolutionise the game to the extent that it suddenly makes one style of ruckman redundant and another supreme.

And there will hardly be any more commercial breaks if you speed up the game. In the past eight years the game has increased in speed dramatically and the scoring has not necessarily got any heavier. So there have not been more goals (= ad break) than before

So unless they introduce commercials during the play then it is unlikely to allow more commercials being shown than the multitude shown now.

It makes no sense.

I think you are wrong.

This will have similar impact to the centre circle rule, and look what that did to our last killer ruckman.

You'll see heaps more stoppages where the rucks arent really in position, and blokes like Howe and Sylvia going up.

Doesn't say much, does it...

Are we seriously counting rd 1 as in the bag, before the trade period is even done? When will you people learn!!

Yep, they have to open the game up.

This flooding the space is garbage. The professionalism has it downside, & the extra ground coverage is it for me. And the regularity of the bench interchange.

The upside is the skills improvements.

Can you two take the nostalgic whining somewhere else?

the worry is that they will be good at the same time we are good.

i will vomit blood if they beat us at the g on the last saturday in september.

Let's cross that bridge when we get to it, shall we??

3 years is an absolute joke given his obvious limitaions

Nver been a fan nevr kicked goals never took marks nver chased nver filled in one kick behind the play

nver fierce

In my opinion a rockstar in his own mind

MFC will regret the 3 years however i think he may retire hurt early definitley not a grade

Wow. Probably one of the more uninformed posts I've read on here, and that's saying something.

This is all about momentum. So we get a couple of good picks who make an impact, and a couple of more fringe FAs.

We win 7 or 8 next year.

It becomes more palateable to come to MFC, and we get one or two higher impact FAs next year, along with another early first rounder.

We win 9 or 10 the next year.

We are just building - it simply isn't going to happen overnight and we will need that slow build before a Cloke or a Goddard is really willing to come here.

We should keep 3 & 4, there will always be another forward. We will probably get one next year seeing we wont finish that high.

I can't understand why there isn't more of this ^^^^

Sounds like someone is getting a new contract...

Ordinary player who always seemed to kick 3 or 4 against us

Then again who hasn't

Maybe you're thinking of Beau Wilkes, who has kicked something like 12 goals in his entire career, and 7 or 8 of them were against us.

Melbourne won't say it and Rivers has been a fine servant, but I'm guessing that privately they won't be all that disappointed if Rivers goes. If he was a full-back or centre-half back it would be different, but he's a third tall and we have Watts, Garland and Davis that can play that role. And he spent half the year as a makeshift forward.

After the poor public relations with some other former players they're making all the right noises, but I don't think they're concerned at all. Just my guess.

This is spot on. Sadly, because he has been up there as my favourite player for years now, and has put up with enormous amounts of crap football in the latter part of his career while never dropping his head.

But you are right on - the need for him has probably passed.

This isn't a dig at Jamar, but I can understand Riv wanting 3-years if Russian got it.

That 3 years for Jamar might turn out to be one of our bigger fails in this next rebuild.

Don't panic folks.

In 10 years, we'll be saying 'Thank God Jordie McMahon could kick straight, and we got that champion along with that nobody who went off to that club that used to play at that empty stadium in Sydney.'

You have heard that or that's what you think? As I am pretty sure MFC released a statement saying we will take the best available players at #3 be it Viney or not.

Source?

Source?

Just plain old brainpower, my friend.

That depends, both are acceptable spelling. Seeing as though my auto correct decided to spell it how it did, it will be the one i will go with..

I can't believe I'm doing this, but, actually, they aren't.

Rumor, like color and humor and all of those spellings are American. They aren't correct in Australian English.

If you put them in a job application, it might get turfed in the bin.

Just putting it out there.

Yep like Cale Morton.....

I know.. I did read it but of course our FAILURE to secure a decent pick 4 is at the forefront of my thinking, Why does anyone think we would get it right this time?? Because BP is not here??

Cale gives me nightmares.

I hear the clattering hooves of a hobby horse.

Good work tiger. Subtle as a sledgehammer.

This thread title is very misleading.

We don't 'lose' 13, it just becomes '14'. Not exactly Armageddon...

We need Dawes only so Collingwood don't have him.

Imagine how rooted we would be on QB with Rivers gone, Frawley on Cloke, TMac on Lynch and, what, Watts on Dawes?

Tongue only slightly in cheek.

Edit: Sorry, forgot Dunn. He can take Dawes I guess.

Scary.

Point is their discards may well be better than our current players

Bingo.

Don't get what all the hand-wringing is about on here. Who would we prefer? Martin? Seriously? His brain takes 5 seconds to tell his foot to kick it. Give me Dawes any day of the week.

Not in a million years. Neeld would shred him into little pieces.

the loose man on the half back line.

Completely factually inaccurate, and shows you weren't actually watching.

As if, they've had months to work that one out. They know exactly what they are going to do, although good on him for muddying the waters.

You mean we're not going to pay silly money to players that clearly don't deserve it ? Even though we have a salary cap to satisfy ? You mean they're not going to make kneejerk decisions because impatient supporters want to see action now ? Who would have thought ?

Those that have a "fast food" mentality won't be happy that they may not be sustained as quickly as they'd like. But perhaps some fibre won't do them any harm in the longer term.

It is an interesting question though - what's 'silly money'? I would thought paying overs for a big name for a couple of years is not going to make a dent in our long term plans.

Even if you just look at departures, and ignore the fact that we already only pay (I think) the minimum 92.5% of the TPP, we must have almost a million bucks just to break even. I wouldn't have thought paying a Wellingham or Lynch that for a couple of years is a big deal, even if it is overs.

When our junior players come on, hopefully they will be worth a fortune. But they aren't now, and filling that gap with a couple of players on more money than they are worth wouldn't be the end of the world, I reckon.

Equally, we could bring in nobody, front load the bejesus out of everybody's contracts, and have even more money to play with down the track...

I should say, I'm not advocating paying one player like Wellingham or Lynch $1mil a season! Ooops. More just saying that, with that additional cap space freed up by Green, Moloney and, sadly, probably Rivers, we can afford 2 or 3 players to make up that shortfall.