Lucifers Hero

Lever would be well down the pecking order. Yet to do much at mfc. Injury free 2020. 3rd year at the club. No excuses.

Agreed. It seems GCS and Geelong have a cosy thing happening with the AFL. In 2018 the FA 'secret herbs and spices' gave pick 19 to Geelong for Motlop to enable the trade to GCS so Gary Ablett could get 'Home'. Eyebrows were raised over that little sequence. Then last year there was the outrageous Live pick swap of: Geelong 2019 pick 27 for GCS's 2021 pick 11 and its 2019 pick 64. The AFL conveniently turned a blind eye to that highway robbery. Raised eyebrows over that one was an understatement. Now we have the latest swap where Geelong get #27 for a 2021, 3rd round pick (tied to mfc) that is likely to be pick 40-50 next year. It seems anything goes to help GCS but Geelong seem to be the beneficiary each time (friends in high (AFL) places, perhaps). Yes, I know that is cynical but...

Geelong swap a 2021 3rd round pick (tied to Melbourne) to GCS for their pick 27. So Geelong clean up on another 'unbalanced' swap with GCS. I noticed their are some Geelong Falcon players in the 20 - 30 draft range. I wonder if one of them is on our radar - they will choose before our pick 28.

The deadline for adding DFA's has closed. So we can only add to senior list with draftees. (Theoretically we could promote a rookie but that would be counter productive as we have just 'demoted' Jordon to the rookie list). We have 33 senior list so need to take 3 draftees to reach the required minimum of 36. If we use all 4 draft picks we will have 37 senior players.

Thanks NC. That is very good news! It would be great for members to hear what the facilities are pretty soon.

OMG, he looks fantastic!

Not the ole 'garden path', I hope I jest!

Thank you. I much appreciate that info. It is comforting that progress is happening. I'm still a bit concerned on Pert's comment a month ago that the government is leading the working party. Any idea why that is happening?

This is from MFC's 2019 annual accounts: "The Club invested $0.244m in the project during the year... This expenditure is not site specific, and has been critical to defining the Club’s requirements for its new home base. The Victorian State Government has also contributed funding for a feasibility study on options within the Melbourne Sporting Precinct." Reading that last year surprised me as I had thought the 'Club's requirements' and some of the 'feasibility studies' were done during Peter Jackson's reign (when the ill-fated Jolimont station option was leaked). There are only so many (and precious few) options in the Melbourne Sporting Precinct. That after 3-4 years of work by Jackson/Pert and hundreds and thousands of $ spent (presumably Consultant costs) we are no closer to identifying a location is troubling to say the least.

Undoubtedly the government needs to be involved. But I don't see how the government leading the project works in our favour. Having worked as a consultant to various organisations I would never advise a client to hand over a project to a government (of any persuasion). There are other ways to work (jointly) with them eg: Agree project plan and parameters with the government upfront: preferred location 1, 2 and 3 broad based feasibility of each option community benefit needs/obstacles identify community stake holders for each preferred location community consultation processes timelines to update government decision makers/stake holders at key milestones secondment of government staff to an MFC led working party broad budget parameters etc etc I would have thought the first 4 were done during Peter Jackson's reign. If the parameters above are agreed upfront there is no reason why a project can't run smoothly. Sure there will be obstacles but having a good project plan enables those to be worked through at the right time. Then we get the work done at MFC tempo and priorities and not anyone else. That Pert can't keep members updated is an indictment of handing over control. As I said in my earlier post I do not understand how it came to that. At the members forum this is the primary question that requires an answer.

In describing Mahoney's new role Pert said: "Josh will be a key part of the government led working party for the new home base development..." I cringed at the government leading the working party for our home base. The government has other priorities and at best it moves at glacial pace. I have no idea how this critical development went from an mfc owned program to one run by a government working party. I understand the need to get governments on-side but I would think that would be to evaluate and then endorse our preferred options not to hand over control of the whole process. I now have less hope of us getting a home base than ever before.

Another report: magpies-essendon-bombers-blake-coleman-reef-mcinnes "Draft sources have told Foxfooty.com.au the Bombers have spoken openly of potentially swapping Pick 8 with the Pies, but an official offer is yet to come" If that swap happens there is no way Ess will bid on McInnes, especially if Coll sweeten the swap with picks 14, 16 and down grade next years first pick, which they are dying to get rid of - it has a whiff of draft tampering about it but hey both clubs are fairly shallow.

I don't know where the Bulldogs get their info. The AFL rules: list-sizes-revealed "The maximum list size for next year have been reduced from 47 to 44 which includes the ability to list up to two Category B rookies. The minimum list size for each club will be 37, which can be made up by as little as 36 senior listed players and one rookie. To reach 44, clubs can carry 36-38 senior listed players, four-to-six Category A rookies and two Category B rookies". As I said there are various list type mix to get to 44 while staying within the limits of each list type: So @spirit of norm smithexample of "we can have 44 being 38 primary list, 5 rookies and Bradtke as cat B" is correct. Another example is 36 senior list, 6 A rookies and 2 B rookies to reach 44. Or if, a club has no B rookies there is nothing to stop it having 38 senior players and 6 A rookies to a max of 44. Were it otherwise this club would be penalised with a smaller list of 42 vs other clubs simply because it has no B rookies. ...and so on.

Next Monday

The AFL has back pedalled on having 3 mid season rookie drafts in 2021. It will now stay with the status quo and have one. afl-to-have-one-mid-season-rookie-draft-in-2021 "The 2021 mid-season draft has been tentatively scheduled for June 2 next year while the pre-season supplemental selection period (PSSP) will run from January 6 until March 9. In the week before Christmas clubs can nominate a maximum of six players being considered for the PSSP to train with them from January 6 when club's senior players return".

That is correct. Or have some other mix to get to 44 while staying within the limits of each list type.

Not sure who they were planning to attract putting the ad out to the world at large if their targets were uni students. The club would have been better off placing the ad at the Monash University campuses in Clayton, Frankston and Caulfield given the work is (sometimes) based at Casey.

I haven't seen anything official from the club but I'll take your word for it ? Edit: This is the latest AFL list changes: trade/list-changes. Jordon is not noted as a transfer to the Rookie list as those from other clubs are. I'll leave the chart as is but for anyone reading this, Jordon's list status is unclear.

Why are all these jobs said to be located at Casey (VFL Coach, Head of Development, Volunteer Analysts). No mention that after covid they revert to Gosch. I'm surprised the ads don't reference that. They would appeal to a much wider group if they new Casey was short term. Or is it?

Looks like Ess are hoping this kid (Josh Eyre) has gone under the radar to get him on the cheap. bombers-coy-on-daniher-s-eyre-apparent This shows how absurd the NGA system qualifying system is: "... in November (2019), the Calder Cannons found out that the young tall forward's great-grandmother was Indigenous. The news was soon passed onto Essendon, who gladly accepted the Kilmore product as a member of the club's next generation academy". What this example shows is the rules as to who qualifies needs to be changed. Ess appear to not have invested in this kid yet can claim him as an NGA. Thankfully the NGA draft rules are changing next year. While kids like Eyre will still qualify as NGA they can't be taken as priority in the first round. Hawks seem to have some interest - hope they stop Ess getting him cheaply. 197cm fwds don't grow on trees.

Goodwin wasn't at Ess when Corrigan joined them. Corrigan took over as coach as their VFL team at the start of this year but there wasn't much of a VFL season. He seems to have a really solid background in development so from the outside it looks a good appointment. Mahoney could be on vacation. Now that the trade period is over he may not be needed much before the draft.

List spots must be really tight in club land. The first DFA selection period closed yesterday and only 2-3 players were selected throughout the competition. This wasn't a good year to come out of contract. Today is the final day for delistings. Another DFA selection period opens and closes COB Wednesday Dec 2. As I understand the rules clubs will not be able to take a DFA after that date. Anyone seen anything to the contrary? So we will know in a few days if we are taking a DFA.

Yes so many options! The AFL must love how 'pick trading' has mushroomed into a fan and media sport in its own right. More click bait. Re your question: ...holding list spots over for the mid year draft next year (is that a rookie or senior list spot btw?) Mid season drafts require vacant rookie list spots. But there is no reason a club can't promote an existing rookie to the senior list, if there is a senior list spot vacant. If there isn't a senior list spot a senior player could be put on the LTI list or one could retire to create such a spot. Mahoney said he would keep a list spot open so we will be able to take one or two players in the PSSP (also for rookies) or mid season drafts.

Any ideas how that might happen? As I see it, we can't trade a 2021 pick (without trading others in) so it would mean using 50 with one of 18, 19 or 28. As you explained so well earlier pick 50 may well come in to somewhere in the low 40's. Which pick do you think we might give up with 50?

iirc Port made a pick swap to jump up the order and get him at #18 and everyone was surprised they took him so high. But who knows they may have had word that others were ready to pounce. I'm also really happy with Rivers. We have Benny Brown now which imv gives us a better balanced fwd line in age and experience than taking Georgiades last year. With TMc going backwards it would have been hard work developing Weideman and Georgiades over the next few years.