Melbourne FC to 'target an A+ midfielder'.

[FireOath 290]

Or both coming to Melbourne...........??

I'm becoming aroused.

[Devil is in the Detail 880]

I'm becoming aroused.

Combine that statement and the look from your avatar.

[ManDee 7,076]

LOL I actually put my religion down as Jedi but I acknowledge my Christian roots.

I'm sure that they will be delighted.

[daisycutter 28,484]

I'm sure that they will be delighted.

who? the jedi?

[Devil is in the Detail 880]

who? the jedi?

Nah, the lucky Christian roots

[olisik 4,060]

Is this attracting an A grade star chat or a jolly old chat about religions

[praha 10,270]

Is this attracting an A grade star chat or a jolly old chat about religions

How are they different?

[McQueen 17,862]

To get Dangerfield via FA and then trade in another gun would be unbelievable.

Makes you wonder though, considering Roos stating that he'd ideally like a mid and a tall, that if we snagged Danger via FA then we would trade in an up and coming tall..

Is Dixon Victorian?

[Moneider96 1,045]

I sense a lot of people here think of Christians as smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behaviour of others. Please understand that this is not true Christianity. True Christianity is where we recognise that we are fundamentally unable to get to Heaven, to connect with God. Therefore, we must humbly ask Him to come to us. We must ask Him to do what He wants to do, which is to bridge the gap between humanity and the divine. There is no pecking order where some of us are morally superior to others.

I understand that some of you guys don't believe in a God, or a Heaven -- I'm just hoping that you recognise that there are Christians who aren't self righteous [censored] lol.

Anyhow, back to the footy.

[McQueen 17,862]

Oh FFS.

[ChaserJ 3,961]

To get Dangerfield via FA and then trade in another gun would be unbelievable.

Makes you wonder though, considering Roos stating that he'd ideally like a mid and a tall, that if we snagged Danger via FA then we would trade in an up and coming tall..

Is Dixon Victorian?

Dixon's a Queenslander. Lion's will throw big money at him, and I don't think he'll be worth the coin he ends up getting.

[Yossarian 1,808]

Crows fans pretty confident that if Danger goes they're getting Motlop.

[ManDee 7,076]

I sense a lot of people here think of Christians as smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behaviour of others. Please understand that this is not true Christianity. True Christianity is where we recognise that we are fundamentally unable to get to Heaven, to connect with God. Therefore, we must humbly ask Him to come to us. We must ask Him to do what He wants to do, which is to bridge the gap between humanity and the divine. There is no pecking order where some of us are morally superior to others.

I understand that some of you guys don't believe in a God, or a Heaven -- I'm just hoping that you recognise that there are Christians who aren't self righteous [censored] lol.

Anyhow, back to the footy.

Sorry M96, not so quickly, what are your views on the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

Do you accept the Jedi as a religion?

Is Christian Salem a witch?

If a side of Christians played a side of Lyons who would win?

Now you may proceed.

Edit: I forgot the biggie, why do you follow the Demons and not the Saints?

Edited July 21, 2015 by ManDee

[Moneider96 1,045]

I'm pretty confident Dangerfield won't be leaving Adelaide. The passion and emotion he is playing with for the crows, to me, looks like a guy who loves his club.

[Nasher 33,047]

I can see how that may be funny. My thinking is there is a kid in the draft who is a clone of Michael Hurley named Kieran Collins who will definitely go top 10, possibly top 5 depending on a clubs needs. He is ready to play AFL next year. Swans would have to be close to having salary cap issues. If you trade a star player for a star player nothing's changed, the same problem remains. But a star player for a gun kid that fits your needs, it levitates the problem somewhat. You could then argue there's no guarantees the player will develop, well that's just footy isn't it. This is the bit I'm not sure on, say the Swans finish 2nd again, they can than pick up another academy player with the potential to go top 5 with pick 17. If they trade for another first round pick(say pick 5), does the academy player then have to be selected with pick 5 or can they still use 17? Because if they don't it lessons the blow somewhat. Two top 5 picks for picks 5 & 17. Fitzy was thrown in as someone who Horse might think he can develop. Change it to Garland/Spenser I'm not really fussed. We are possibly in a position to pay overs one more time to land a established midfielder before our young talent develops and start demanding more dollars.

1) Clubs, particularly shrewd ones like Sydney, don't rate draft picks anywhere near as highly as supporters do. There's no way they'll offload a good player like Parker for what is essentially a lottery ticket. A bird in hand and all that. If anything, they're much more likely to offer "reasonable" value for players they want - see first round draft picks for modest role players Ted Richards and Darren Jolly.

2) If they truly have salary cap issues, they won't offline players out of their top tier, they'll lose middle players (see Heffernan/Blumfield/Caracella from the Bombers mid-00s). I doubt they have issues anyway - they wouldn't have taken Franklin and Tippett if it meant having to ditch really talented mids. There would be some magic happening under the bonnet there somewhere.

3) Adding guff (Fitz, Spencer et al) does not increase the value of the trade, it devalues it. Sydney do not want our junk.

I know I was being a smartarse with my previous comment, but in Sydney's shoes I would truly dismiss the trade with a curt "not interested".

[Demon 16 175]

I sense a lot of people here think of Christians as smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behaviour of others. Please understand that this is not true Christianity. True Christianity is where we recognise that we are fundamentally unable to get to Heaven, to connect with God. Therefore, we must humbly ask Him to come to us. We must ask Him to do what He wants to do, which is to bridge the gap between humanity and the divine. There is no pecking order where some of us are morally superior to others.

I understand that some of you guys don't believe in a God, or a Heaven -- I'm just hoping that you recognise that there are Christians who aren't self righteous [censored] lol.

Anyhow, back to the footy.

I understand exactly what you're saying.

We should draft Gary Ablett Senior

[Moneider96 1,045]

Sorry M96, not so quickly, what are your views on the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

Do you accept the Jedi as a religion?

Is Christian Salem a witch?

If a side of Christians played a side of Lyons who would win?

Now you may proceed.

Edit: I forgot the biggie, why do you follow the Demons and not the Saints?

I assume your using the invisible pink unicorn to parody the inference to an intelligent designer of the universe. This argument is flawed. Unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink electromagnetic radiation. However, in order to be invisible, the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, the term invisible pink unicorn is self contradictory. Thus, we know absolutely that they could not exist.

Before using intellectually lazy rhetoric, I suggest you read some of the works of Anselm, Plantinga, Aquinas, Leibnez, Sorely; and a host of other philosophers. Also you could type 'reasonable faith' on google (for beginners), and read some of the material there.

If anyone wants to talk further, for the sake of this thread, PM me.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Moneider96

[Moneider96 1,045]

I understand exactly what you're saying.

We should draft Gary Ablett Senior

If only.

[ManDee 7,076]

I assume your using the invisible pink unicorn to parody the inference to an intelligent designer of the universe. This argument is flawed. Unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink electromagnetic radiation. However, in order to be invisible, the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, the term invisible pink unicorn is self contradictory. Thus, we know absolutely that they could not exist.

Before using intellectually lazy rhetoric, I suggest you read some of the works of Anselm, Plantinga, Aquinas, Leibnez, Sorely; and a host of other philosophers. Also you could type 'reasonable faith' on google (for beginners), and read some of the material there.

If anyone wants to talk further, for the sake of this thread, PM me.

[Moneider96 1,045]

Honestly, I thought he was being serious. If it was meant as a joke -- I'm sorry!

Edited July 21, 2015 by Moneider96

[What 18,810]

I sense a lot of people here think of Christians as smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behaviour of others.

No we just think they are e lunatics who believe in a fairy tale they were told when they were kids and sadly never grew out of it.

[rjay 23,886]

No we just think they are e lunatics who believe in a fairy tale they were told when they were kids and sadly never grew out of it.

Easy 'hh'...each to their own mate.

It's not my thing either but we don't need to go down this path.

[Moneider96 1,045]

No we just think they are e lunatics who believe in a fairy tale they were told when they were kids and sadly never grew out of it.

Nice arguments mate. Pm me any further objections so we can stop derailing this thread.

Easy 'hh'...each to their own mate.

It's not my thing either but we don't need to go down this path.

Thanks Rjay. Wish more people were like you!

[What 18,810]

Nice arguments mate. Pm me any further objections so we can stop derailing this thread.

LOL I am not having a religious debate, I cant even believe it started in a thread about MFC recrutiing

Ridiculous

[Moneider96 1,045]

LOL I am not having a religious debate, I cant even believe it started in a thread about MFC recrutiing

Ridiculous

Well HH, I was hoping you could put your money where your mouth is. The second part I agree with. I'm sorry.