Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/28/2013 in all areas

  1. 10 points
  2. 6 points
    [censored] me i thought this was a footy forum???
  3. 5 points
    I think it's unlikely we would've been able to secure Hogan with pick 3, Toumpas with pick 4, Dawes and Barry with pick whatever (13/20) and Viney with pick 27, if Hogan was eligible to play this year. In short, the whole deal we structured was probably based, at least in part, on Hogan not playing this year. This being the case, particularly given the spectre of cheating that seems (wholly unfairly) to hang over this club, I think we should probably just accept what we willingly and knowingly signed up to a few months back. That said, I love the look of the bloke and wholly accept Ben Hur's view that this guy is going to be a superstar, the likes of which this club has not seen for decades.
  4. 3 points
    I'd love to see a win or two before the season proper starts. I'm a big beleiver in going into the start of the season with some momentum. Something we haven't done in probably a decade.
  5. 3 points
  6. 2 points
    Viney, Grimes, Toumpas, Trengrove, McDonald, Dawes, Clark, Jones, Watts All strike me as young men with their heads screwed on right and born leaders, each looking like developing into really good footballers, if they're not already. Dawes in particular has blown me away by being just about the most intelligent footballer I've ever had the pleasure of hearing being interviewed. Is it just me or does our long term future appear much brighter this year? Even if we're still due for some more pain in the short term...
  7. 2 points
    Big call. We're 3 players short of that in my opinion Quality small forward Quality small back Absolute gun midfielder
  8. 2 points
    My team for this week Strauss Davis Sellar Dunn Gillies MacDonald Taggart M Jones Tynon Kent Pederson Tapscott Davey Fitzpatrick Barry Spencer Magner Couch Clisby, Stark, McKenzie, Nicholson, Evans, Terlich I don't care about this game, protect the players that should be playing round one, give some fringe players a chance to stake their claim. Week 3 and 4 go in full strength.
  9. 2 points
  10. 2 points
    Posters should be aware that anyone seeking to respond to Ms. Wilson's work are liable to be attacked for being "childish" and "sexist". It's one way in which people who are too lazy (or simply unable) to respond to genuine criticism of her work deflect the real issues involved with the shoddy agenda based journalism we get from Caro these days.
  11. 2 points
    The game against Port in Renmark doesn't mean much to me because it is still too far away from the season proper, is played in belting heat, and the newbies, young'ns, and rookies will make up the majority of the team. We will get better measures of foot skills, sure hands, playing to instruction etc... but I can't see the game being used to assess whether we can actually win. The NAB cup round 3 game will be more important as we see which players are being genuinely considered and which players have already cemented a spot.
  12. 2 points
    As much as it would be great to see Hoges running around in the seniors this year, I just don't see the need in rushing him. We aren't pushing for finals, so why not let him develop his body strength and conditioning whilst playing at Casey? Everyone could see that Majak Daw had talent, but north have let him develop his game and his body in the VFL and he is now ready to explode onto the scene now. We should have learnt our lesson with what happened to Watts. Sure Hoges appears to be ready and certainly has more agro than Watts did, but he just turned 18, he is still very much a kid. I just don't see the need to risk exposing him prematurely. Just as I wouldn't want Clark or Trengove rushed back into the side for round 1. 2013 will hopefully be a better year than last, but it's 2014 when I think we will start to seriously entertain the idea of pushing for finals. A fit Clark, Dawes and a raring to go Hogan next summer is what I want to see.
  13. 2 points
    Yes it does, it explains it clearly. Just because you can't join the dots doesn't mean that it isn't an explanation. Honestly, your inability to take Logic Point A and Logic Point B, and mix them together to get a reasoned argument still amazes me after 8 years.
  14. 2 points
    No, that would be stupid, a waste of time and resources.
  15. 2 points
    Great practice. If you can play sport, we'll fast track your citizenship. If you're not, you can rot in Nauru etc.
  16. 2 points
    I have maintained throughout that people who were once close to the club undermined it during the course of the tanking investigation. Given that it is now common knowledge that four such people (all former employees) gave their version of the "vault" to Clothier and Haddad that proposition would seem self-evident. The club's interests were undermined by the evidence they gave. That is a fact and not a smear. I am not suggesting they lied but it's clear that others gave different evidence.My information is that at a particular point in time (September/October) the enquiry was going nowhere and was indeed in danger of folding. I have been informed that the "vault" information was voluntarily provided to the investigation by a former employee and the consequences were that the investigators recalled all witnesses and a number of different versions of the vault story entailed. As we know, despite the different versions, both the AFL and the MFC had advice from their respective senior counsel that the "tanking" case against the club had little likelihood of success in court. The "vault" evidence was therefore crucial to the ultimate outcome (convoluted as it was). I was also told that whoever informed the investigation of that story gave that information to Wilson as well. In addition, I know several people connected with the club (past or present) were privy to what Wilson knew and what the AFL knew and that there was a difference between the two stories. This connects Wilson directly to this group of people and the informants to the investigation. One other matter suggested was that the person who "squealed" to Wilson had previously supplied her with information about a different matter which was designed to embarrass the club and which subsequently proved to be untrue. Do you really believe that Wilson came about information which led her to produce her damning opinion pieces aimed at the club, Cameron Schwab and Chris Connolly and suggesting that all would be heavily punished from friendly or benign sources? The story and its back stories ring true with me and suggest there are people with past associations with the club who have continuing grievances with individuals at the club which might undermine the club's interests in the future. Please note that contrary to what you might think, I am not pointing to a specific person or even a group of people: they could come from a number of groups with past associations with the club who might be disgruntled. However, based on what I know, there are more people involved than just the four disgruntled former employees out of thirty witnesses who gave the "evidence" upon which the AFL made its decision notwithstanding that its clear that the club did not breach the AFL's tanking laws which was what the investigation was supposed to be about.
  17. 2 points
    I agree RPFC There seems to be a united view that those who have left are the main ones who have spoken. As I have previously stated it is hard to tell lies to a professional interogator at an arranged meeting. Stories told may not have been for bitter reasons and may merely have just provided information. It is then twisted into propagander by Wilson et al. I hate the way we are eager to accuse and incite hatred to those that worked for us or served in a voluntary role on the board. Sure some arent happy but that doesnt mean they are working against us. It works against us as a club if we dont let it go.
  18. 1 point
    I think you need to revise your understanding of the facts. The Gardiner Board took over an absolute "basket case" - remember the PAYG tax bill in s secretary's desk drawer? They got us back on our feet - began the reconciliation with the MCC, solidified our influence at the Bentleigh Club, initiated the AAMI deal - and initiated the Casey alignment. Unfortunately they over-rated our list at a time when Sports Science was making its mark - and we were stuck in a hole at the Junction Oval. This undid a lot of their good work - but strategically ( with the critical additions of fund-raising) they pointed the way to the current board. As I have noted above, the bone is now pointing more clearly at former employees than former directors Anyway ... back to topic. Let's see how wrong Wilson can get Essendon !!!
  19. 1 point
  20. 1 point
    It is not as simple as that, in my experience, at least in Victoria. My daughter, who was born in May, missed out on the cut-off date by a few weeks; if she had been born on or before April 30th, she could have started school in the year she turned 5. However, she was just the other side of the line, and had to wait until she was almost 6. I think what you might be getting at is that even if your child is eligible, it is possible to delay them starting for a year. In my experience, an increasing number of parents are doing this, reasoning that if the child is a little bit older and more mature, then they will generally do better at school, particularly towards the end of secondary school. As a result, it is not rare to a P-plated vehicle driving into the school grounds. My kids are now all well past primary-entry age, so I am not up to date any more, but I thought I heard that the April 30th date had been moved earlier again, to the end of February. This would mean that a child born after March 1st could not start school in the year that they turn 5, which will have the effect of pushing up the average entry age. However, you are right on the money about some kids being much older than others; when mine go to a birthday party, I make sure I ask exactly how old the birthday kid will be!
  21. 1 point
    JJC, my experience is that when someone gets an opportunity to exercise power over others, almost anything can happen. When the fires leveled Marysville, someone from the department of housing wouldn't let the homeless "refugees" move into some decommissioned mining dongas shipped in from WA, because they "didn't meet Victorian standards". As a result, those people were forced (against all logic) to sleep in tents instead! Will the VCGLR hand out a series of club-crippling sanctions? It's certainly possible, because everyone knows five or six clubs deliberately lost games of football. I'd say it largely depends on the motivations of the people in charge of the agency. If someone high up has their eyes on a bigger prize and thinks a large, public scalp could further their career... anything could happen.
  22. 1 point
    RHS means "right hand side" in my line of work. I thought this might be a thread about constraint equations.
  23. 1 point
    Wow, we must be in the period where the tanking investigation has well and truly passed and we are waiting for Round 1 to start.
  24. 1 point
    How long can this be debated? We knew that he couldn't play when he was selected. He is still on our list, and will be in the jumper in 2014. Let him delevop and find the hunger to tear apart the AFL next year. He will be chomping at the bit next pre season.. It will be awesome.. Then we have the excitement of him and another top 10 pick coming into the side. Also, I like the fact that he is living with the Viney family..
  25. 1 point
    RPFC, who are these people and what are they actually doing? Right now we have whispers of a conspiracy that no-one can name, with proponents no-one can name, doing things no-one can substantiate for ends that seem stupid across a period of 6,12, 18 and 48 months. We have a board that has made a decent handful of errors that we know of being defended against a 'shadow' conspiracy that no-one can prove or bring evidence of. AND dissenting voices here are criticised as supporting the nameless conspiracy. WTF? To say that this is primitive and circular is to give it more credibility than it deserves. I'd argue that unless you have something huge, you shouldn't be besmirching the reputations of anyone. That burden of responsibility seems only to travel in one direction ATM.
This leaderboard is set to Melbourne/GMT+11:00
×