Lucifers Hero

From the excellent work on draft selections that other posters have done, your deductions are correct.

For Smith, I assume you mean category A, as B is for players who haven't played AFL for 3 years. Interestingly, The Age article has linked Angwin to Geelong's pick 27 so he may not be around for our lower pick. Yeah, no idea what #28 will return us in 2021 picks as clubs seem to want to hang on to them. It seems the Suns didn't care what they got for 27 as it was junk to them. They simply wanted draft points for next year's academy players (I think their AFL concessions expire this year). The pick they got from Geelong will net them about 300-400 points. I would be surprised if we couldn't do much better than they did in a genuine value trade. Nonetheless it seems it would be sold at a 'discount'. Otherwise I guess, we take it to the draft this year.

The Age's description for Melb is: 2020-afl-national-draft The Demons have been linked to a bid on Lions academy forward Blake Coleman but Collingwood could well have bid on him already with one of their first two selections. The likes of Tom Powell, Liam Kolar and Ryan Angwin are all being spoken about as players who could fall around the range of the Dees' first two or three selections. Sources suggest the Demons are looking to trade pick 28 for a future selection. Outside midfielder Deakyn Smith is also eligible to the Demons as a next generation academy player. Has anyone seen any discussion this draft on Deakyn? I know there is a DL thread on him but can't find anything recent via google. As an outside midfielder he could come in quite handy.

As part of its draft discussion The Age says: "Sources suggest the Demons are looking to trade pick 28 for a future selection". Not sure why but I like the idea of extra draft currency in 2021. We need to take 3 draftees to reach the minimum 36 senior list players. Should we trade 28 it means we will use 50 (unless we split pick #19). So still a bit of water to go under the bridge.

I see. Haven't seen anything official. The closest 'official' thing I can think of is the ads for Development Coach, VFL Coach and the Volunteer Pathway all showed Casey as the location.

key-dates-for-melbourne-s-off-season First-to-four-year players return to training: December 7 – 18 Main group returns to training: January 6 Not entirely sure but I think those dates are mandated by AFL/AFLPA. Altho clubs would have players working on individual fitness programs months earlier ps. Cute dog!

Hence the reference in the last line of my post of Geelong 'friends in high (AFL) places'. I was trying not to name names.

Perhaps but the 4th most important player in the pecking order? Ahead of Petracca, Oliver, May, Lamgdon, B. Brown? Not for mine.

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.