Lucifers Hero

As MRC Chairman his comments carry some weight! Did they not tell mfc that or was their a loophole ... As the $195m from Scopus wipes out the MRC's $165m debt they don't need/want us anymore..

I come to this thread to read about my favourite player only to find half of it is bickering. Folks, please take the bickering somewhere else.

Did anyone really think we would get away with just one trip to Perth! It may be a 'pre season' game but it is on a hot Sunday March afternoon just two weeks before our round one game. The travel and recovery toll will be the same as if it was during the H&A season. I know there is little fairness in the AFL but given the travel it would have been fairer to play at the beginning of the practice game week but that means a night game... reckon North supporters feel the same. Can't help but feel finishing 14th last year has cost us leverage at the AFL negotiating table.

first-look-at-the-new-mount-scopus-super-campus-in-caulfield Some extracts: Nearby residents and the broader Jewish community will have access to the adult education facilities, creative arts centre and synagogue on the new campus, in addition to the new sports precinct. The early learning to year 12 campus will include a sports precinct among its state-of-the-art facilities open to the public, and could include shared facilities with Melbourne Football Club, which plans to build a home base at the site. The $195 million purchase from Melbourne Racing Club ends a search of more than 10 years for a new site for the school and clears the racing club of its $165 million debt. The Demons made it clear through the feasibility process that the club would need access to the ovals for only 17 hours a week, and the remainder of the time they would be available for the community. The club would also be responsible for oval maintenance. Scopus plans to build its own oval on the 7.5-hectare site, which is on the western perimeter of the racecourse and does not include the infield. The above seem to be journalistic commentary. Some quotes by a Scopus rep: "Gold: said Scopus contacted Melbourne Football Club for the first time on Tuesday, as confidentiality obligations had prevented the school from speaking before the sale was made public. “We’re happy to talk to all stakeholders in the area about how we can work together and what facilities we can jointly build,” “We’re ready to work with the Victorian government, Mount Scopus Memorial College and Melbourne Racing Club toward a positive outcome for the community. The major benefit I see is possible joint development and maybe sourcing joint funding. The risk is assessment of 'community benefit and community use' in the respective business cases/developments and will there be competition for the 'community groups' to use respective facilities? Not sure what community facilities we had planned in our buildings but I suspect there will be overlap with those in the Scopus faciiity. Re communication, I get the need for confidentiality but surprised mfc wasn't given a 'heads up' in advance. Particularly as building a relationship will be important.

To hear Trac's commitment to the club is the best news of the preseason. Thanks. Good to hear the group is all in - reminiscent of 2021. Bodes well.

Agreed. I give credence to 'older' The Age scribes eg Ryan, Gleeson, Niall but as you say there aren't many left that get given a voice. Even that rag went downhill when new owners brought in McClure and Cornes. How the editors allowed some of the stuff written about us and our players during the off season is beyond me.

There are still a precious few scribes who do research and don't rely on rumour, innuendo and hyperbole,

Comment wasn't based on media reports as I believe very little in the media! I was musing about a favourite player. I want to keep them all happy 🙃

If other clubs that he could train with for an SSP spot are interested it is a good sign he is training with us instead. Perhaps we expect a spot to come up or he will forgo the SSP and MSD and wait to join us via next year's SSP. Wishful thinking ... ? But other clubs could offer him an SSP contract before the Feb cut off date without he training with them. I wonder if he is part of a 'keep Kozzie at the Dees' campaign ...

Thanks for the background. Why would mfc want to trade her? I'm with @spirit of norm smith and @Supermercado real risks of losing experience and premiership players. Especially as some players eg Paxy are getting older and don't have much longer in the game. This year we saw how much pressure that brings on young players.

I never think a player owes a club. But crikey after the goodwill and support shown her by mfc I'll be really disappointed in her as a person if she leaves. At Carlton she was criticised for spending time promoting herself when should be focused on training etc, rumours of demanding a huge salary and iirc not much demand for her services. With us she won a flag. Injuries aren't her fault but she has played just 12 games in 3 seasons. Really missed this year. Why does she want to leave?

Hard to avoid all the canals! LOL, they would lob the ball high and long over the top, just as we do into the fwd line! Might fit our team nicely !! As an aside, Amsterdam is one of the most beautiful cities in the world.

Yes, a LTI based SSP is our only option for a list spot. Final SSP recruiting is Feb. If there is a LTI between then and MSD (May/June) we would have a list spot. But teams below us on the ladder could draft him, should he enter. Otherwise, 2025/2026 SSP next year if everyone is prepared to wait.

No. The current rules require the player or at least one parent to be born in 'Asia' or 'Africa' (or have an indigenous background) for a club to have priority access. Players from other backgrounds/countries can join an NGA Academy but the club doesn't get draft priority eg Tairon Ah-Mu

That is my fear: things change 😢

Click on above

No. But it is rare for someone out of contract to not be trade on request. Is that supporter 'Luci' 😉

As the rules currently stand: Yes, if his Chinese mother was born overseas.

... something about 'counting🐣🐣🐣🐤🐥🐤 ' comes to mind...

This guy played a few games for Casey last year so we were well aware of his talent. It seems odd that if we wanted him we didn't keep a list spot. I would guess a talented, small fwd with X factor would be a more valuable A-Rookie than some others we have. Footnote: we have a B-Rookie spot available but he isn't eligible.

Can't abide McVee leaving - not just because he is my fave 🥰! Did some checking around. He loves the club and the coach. Working on a deal to be announced in the coming month(s). 👏 So relax folks.

Andy Moniz-Wakefield is a Cat A-Rookie. We have one Cat-B Rookie Spot.

Andy Moniz-Wakefield is a Cat A-Rookie. We have one Cat-B Rookie Spot.

.

It is still not 100% certain if we have an A or a B rookie spot. As I understand the rules he is more likely to qualify as an A-rookie having nominated for but not selected in a National draft. This would enable us to take him as a 'train-on' player and contract him under the SSP rules. afaik the SSP rules don't allow for contracting a B-rookie ... ... the AFL is forever messing with the rules (and not communicating them clearly) and is good at 'exceptions' so who knows 🤷‍♀️