chookrat

Salary dump or not, Grundy is worth an early second round pick (or a late first with a second in return) and $800k per season for the next 4 years. The salary dump is what has presented the opportunity for us to try to bring Grundy in and he has attracted interest from more than one club. We should be prepared to pay what is fair taking into account what he is worth to us, how much Collingwood want to trade him on, and what he could earn elsewhere.

Lord Nev, this scenario works well for us if we can get at least 3 - 4 years of quality service from Grundy (should do given he's 28 and has been quite durable over his career) and can turn pick 8 into a quality key position forward / defender that can have an impact in their 2nd or 3rd season. I include defender as this could free up Petty to play forward.

Sheedy is a loose unit. The Board doesn't vote for which coach it wants but rather votes to endorse the recommendation provided by the expert panel it appointed to identify the most suitable candidate. Sheedy didn't vote for Hird, regardless of whether he voted with or against the rest of the Board.

Thanks ET, we heard it here first 🥇.

Why would 32 go back Freo's way? Jackson is worth at least this and next year's first round pick. The only way Jackson gets to Freo or West Coast is if we agree to a trade. The alternative is he walks into the draft or agrees to a 1-2 year contract extension which provides time for Freo and West Coast to put together the required trade currency. If Jackson felt that Freo were playing games then he'd probably tell them to get their house in order and come back in a year or two when they're serious about trading him in.

Tiers my concern with such an approach is that while such an approach may seemingly provide a more 'independent panel' it may introduce different bias such as viewing the actions from the perspective of random people and not the demands of a high performance sporting environment tested against the league's duty of care to player wellbeing. I'd rather have a panel of experienced operators with the mix of perspectives relevant to the investigation. In my view the AFLPA call for a former coach or footy boss to be part of the panel is necessary to provide a balanced context context between the cultural sensitivities, player well being, and the demands of a high performance program. The panel should also include a senior indigenous figure and a senior figure with a focus on player welfare. I believe that assembling a panel of random people will result in bias because none of them will understand the cultural, player wellbeing and high performance context of what took place.

My mail is McStay goes and DeGoey stays.

Surprised he didn't suggest we'd chuck in Trac as a sweetener

Yep and this is an intelligent way for us to approach trades. Being regarded as fair and able to make deals done that bring in the players we need also make us an attractive destination for players as they know if we're interested in bringing them in then we will get the deal done. We don't end up in the messy situation where clubs dig their heels in and deals either don't get done or one side concedes at the last minute.

Melbourne, closely followed by Flagmantle

I reckon the media and public have gotten into a frenzy over specific details by one side without any broader context. I'm bewildered how Hawthorn conducted such a review and reported its findings to the AFL without interviewing Clarkson and Fagan as part of the process. I accept the allegations are serious and should be properly considered but that they have made their way into the public domain before Clarkson and Fagan have had a chance to respond to the allegations. What happens to their reputations if it turns out the players made things up?

Agree on this. I'm comfortable with the $700k salary as Grundy is an elite ruckman but you don't use 1st round draft picks on a 29 year old in the latter part of their career.

I'd bring in Ian Ziering. You don't survive 7 Sharknados without knowing a thing or two about leading young men.

I can't see us letting Jackson go for less than a top 3 or two mid first round picks. If Freo don't have the picks and aren't prepared to trade players we can always offer Jackson a 1 - 2 year deal and commit to work out a fair trade the following year.

Naarm

There is no way we would hand over a 1st round pick for a 29 year old. I could see us offering $700k x 5 years and a second round pick or player.

Definitely an opportunity lost fellow chook. Where this year fits in the grander scheme probably depends on what the next few years look like, e.g. if we can manage another flag or two over the next few years it will be seen much more favourably than if we fail to challenge in this period. It is difficult to tell where we sit a week after being out of finals in straight sets after a mixed regular season.

Hopefully the media can ask the question and get the answer to this important question. It is good to see the DL'ers are leaving no stone unturned when it comes to our performance. Next time Gary Pert or Alan Richardson are on here we should ask whether Selwyn should be on the bench or somewhere else.

Reporter reads Demonland and writes an article about it.

Agreed LH. I went last week but am not going tomorrow due to kids sport and that by watching at home I get to enjoy it with the kids who are a bit young to regularly attend late games. My household directly accounts for 6 of the 65,000 and I'm sure there are many others in the same situation. The positive with having alot of new members belonging to young families is that they are of the age to grow our membership base over the next generation.

Kudos to the person who has both the attention span and free time to do this.

Would an alternative be to build our facilities underground beneath the MCG with a full size underground stadium beneath the G. I appreciate this would cost a bit but how awesome would it be. It would also solve the planning problems instantly. The entrance could be a the gates to hell theme.

OD you may have misunderstood me, I was putting this idea out there in hope that someone else would drive it 😃.

I'm wondering if there are any marginal electorates with a strong Melbourne supporter base which we leverage to pressure both major parties to announce/support our preferred option for a home base.

We are at a point in this where unless there is already an agreement with the State Government that we will have our facilities in the MCG precinct, they already have one or two agreed options and are working through the details before making an announcement that we need to drive the campaign publicly. It is a ridiculous situation where we have spent club money to assess and present options, such as the Jolimont train yards, and that we backed off due to opposition from a couple of hundred local residents. While there is a process we need to push this sort of resistance when we have looked at all options and found something that works for the majority of stakeholders. If we launched a PR campaign that we are undertaking a feasibility study of the Jolimont site and the benefits it will bring to our club and the city then we could get on the front foot and gather broad public support that nullifies objections from the locals who oppose any development.