cfe

Not all of us post only platitudes. I only really took an interest in goings on around here during the FA period. When I say "preserve a player's value", I don't mean "give him games he doesn't deserve" - I mean talk him up off the field. Issue 1: Did Moloney do his best to maintain his reputation and value as a player? No, definitely not. Never claimed this. Issue 2: Did the Club do their best to maintain one of their player's value off-field (ie without gifting him free games)? In my opinion, no. I think they should have tried a bit harder. They are clearly two separate issues. It's clear that everyone who has replied has disagreed with my conclusion in relation to issue 2, so be it. I think it is an arguable point, though. *edit* Look in the end I am just stunned to lose last year's B&F winner for nothing, as we all are. Most of you see it as all Moloney's (and the system's) fault. I see the blame as laying in a few places. We will have to disagree.

Sigh. To get this point out of the way, I DON'T he should gift players games. I said that very clearly. People keep putting words in my mouth... For the record I think the club has made some very good moves the last few weeks. I only want what is best for the Dees. It doesn't mean that I think their off field performance the rest of the year was spot on, though.

Well done, that's exactly what I said, gold star for you!

Simply put, I view it as the club's responsibility to preserve the value of their players as best they can until they very end. I don't think MFC did that in this instance. I don't think Moloney himself did himself any favors either (and I never claimed this), but that's a separate issue.

Huh? The fact that Dawes isn't coming thru FA (if he comes) makes it MORE likely that Melbourne will get a compensatory pick from the AFL. Thus Moloney's worth is MORE important than it would be if they were no hope of getting a pick at all.

Do you not know what the word means? Or are you questioning why I would say it was a "defensible" decision not to play him? If the latter: once out of the finals race, clubs often play players in the last few rounds of the season who haven't previously been in the team to (1) see if they are worth keeping on the list next year and (2) give them some sort of trade value. Melbourne could have done the same with Moloney, but did not. I think this was the right call, i.e. a defensible decision. http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=146068 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/melbourne-midfielder-brent-moloney-looks-for-new-home/story-e6frf9jf-1226464763731 Neeld did not say that exact phrase, but that has been the inference from the club all year.

Apologies you're right on with Dawes. Which in my view only strengthens the fact that keeping the perceived value of Moloney high was important because it will probably influence the pick MFC gets from the AFL (whereas if they were never going to get a pick at all since they clearly had a net gain in the FA period its not really important). As I said, no doubt that Moloney hasn't helped his own cause. But Melbourne have also made it "crystal clear" that they don't want him, and don't consider him to be a modern footballer. That's been the word all year, from Neeld himself. The result of that is lower value on the trade table, or lower compensation as a FA departure (which, as mentioned, is predicted to not be based solely on new contract & age - there is a discretion element involved as well). Yes, Moloney said he wanted out quite early in the season. Yes, he played a [censored] season. Yes, his manager didn't help his cause. But I still think that the pragmatic approach from the club would've been to sing his praises as much as possible until he left and feign that they would like to have him around if possible, then to pay him out afterwards (exactly as PA & Coll did with Chaplin & Wellingham).

No doubt Moloney has not helped his own cause, but you're just avoiding the real issue. You don't see the bigger clubs disowning players or knocking their value until after they're gone through FA or the draft. It's not good business.

As stated its pretty unlikely that PA would recruit Moloney as an FA at this point as it will reduce their compensation for losing other FAs. A Monfries-esque deal would be far more likely. Brisbane could recruit Moloney as a FA relatively consequence free (for them) other than the $$$ of his contract (since they have not LOST any FAs or RFAs at this point and are not due for any compensation so far). There is no point to Brisbane TRADING for him since they can pick him up for free. So the only way that MFC would get any compensation from Moloney leaving to Brisbane is if his departure through free agency, combined with others from the club, offsets the net gains the club may make elsewhere through free agency resulting in a net loss during the FA period. This would result in a pick of some sort from the AFL as compensation Unfortunately, MFC have essentially destroyed any perception of Moloney's value throughout the year by dropping him and publicly declaring that the game has passed him by. This makes it significantly less likely that they will be adjudged to have has a net loss over the FA period. Just say, hypothetically, that after FA is over, Melbourne's FA gains/losses look something like this: IN = Byrnes, Dawes, OUT = Rivers, Moloney, Martin... maybe a few other bit part players. To me (as it stands with the way MFC have handles the Moloney situation) this is right on the border of a net LOSS v a net GAIN for MFC. If MFC had, on the other hand, plumped up his value then the situation would be viewed differently. MFC have significantly lowered Moloney's value by (1) dropping him (defensible) and (2) publicly stating that they don't want him and that they think the game has passed him by (no need for it and stupid). Thus MFC has significantly lowered Moloney's value in most people's eyes, including those of the AFL. I think that this reflects very poorly on MFC's list management - they should have done the usual lip service of claiming he was a "required player", fitted into the club's future plans, would be sad to see him go, would consider matching any contract offers he receives etc. This would have preserved some of his value in the eyes of the AFL, and other clubs such as PA who might consider a trade. Instead they have made it very clear that not only do they not want him, but that they think he isn't a valuable modern day player for ANY club. I just don't get this - they have shot themselves in the foot, destroyed any value he had left to the club, and opened themselves up to receiving no compensation for his departure as a FA, and to receiving only lowball offers if any trade could be done. Contrast MFC's treatment of the Moloney case with, for example, that of Chaplin at Port - yes, Chaplin played more in 2012, but even when it was pretty clear that Port wasn't going to match his offer they took it right down to the wire, they at least made it look like they wanted him next year. Acting like they actually wanted to keep Moloney around and valued him as a footballer might end up being the difference between Melbourne receiving or not receiving a compensation pick from the AFL. Or it might be the difference between receiving, say, pick 30 vs pick 40. Doesn't matter. Being vicious in the pursuit of little gains is a hallmark of a successful club. I think they have gone about this in a very shortsighted manner.

I think the problem for Melbourne is that the starting point in this discussion has to be that, all things being equal (money, length of contract, prospects of getting a game etc.) between an offer from Melbourne and an offer from just about any other club other than PAFC, perhaps WB, a player will choose to go the other club. This leaves Melbourne in the tough position of having to pay over and above what a player is worth (or offer them an extra year they don't deserve) based on their career so far if they want to recruit FAs with good currency. This stands in direct contrast to the player payment model being adopted by the most successful clubs (e.g. GEEL, COLL - we only pay you what you are worth, not a cent more. Players are expected to sacrifice to keep a successful team together which will then lead to better off field employment opportunities etc.) and isn't really a good practice to adopt. Breaking players down into a few categories, with examples - Young 20-25 y.o. with potential but not results, struggling to get a game at his current club (Koby Stevens) or unhappy at that club (I'd put Mitch Clarke in this category) - might go to MFC if they offered more than any other interested parties Young 20-25 y.o. who is clearly good enough to get a game at most clubs (Wellingham, Dawes, Tippett) - no reason to go to MFC, unless they offer significantly more $$$ than any other, especially if they are from a club accustomed to success like COLL. MFC have no history of developing young players. Older player who is clearly good enough to earn a spot in a good side, is chasing a premiership (Goddard) - clearly no reason to go to MFC, unless they offer significantly more $$$ than any other Older player on the tail end of their career who can't get a game at their current club, may struggle to get a game anywhere (Byrnes) - would probably go to the highest bidder ie anywhere they can get a contract, so MFC if they front up the most $$$. So in conclusion, without paying a large amount over what a player is worth, MFC can only realistically hope to recruit: -Fringe players or disgruntled who represent a bit of a risk, but may have a good payoff. If that player is desired by another club, MFC will still have to pay above and beyond his worth or give him a longer contract. -Older players who are washed up, but might provide good leadership to a group that desperately needs it. That said, money talks, and MFC must pay 95% of the salary cap - so you have to spend it on something, even if it means paying a reasonable FA player far beyond what he is actually worth to get him to go to the club. The problem I see with that is: are these really the players you want to recruit - ie the ones who would be elsewhere if not for the $$$s. Decent players would not be looking to Melbourne with the prospect of team success in mind, it would simply be about money. It appears that Melbourne has attempted to get a look in with just about every player mentioned so far in trade/FA talks - and been firmly rebuffed every single time. It has become pretty clear that players do not want to go there at the moment. And other clubs seem to have just as much money to offer as the Dees. Perhaps last year there was promise in the off season and hype around Neeld's coaching team (which probably helped with Clarke - along with the $$$s), but after the pathetic season that was 2012 the gloss has come off. I don't think the "coaching team" factor is going to help at all anymore, despite what is said on these boards. It will be trumped by the premonition that players will have of toiling away in a bottom of the ladder team for a few seasons. Most commentators and many on these boards agree that Melbourne showed next to nothing this year, and probably took a step backwards to see who could actually play and trim the fat. I think this was a good long term move. But short term, it is not appealing to other players. I don't think Melbourne has a hope in hell of recruiting a decent player (on past form) to the club this off-season, unless he is a complete mercenary. Hope to be proven wrong, though.