Are you serious?

Here's what I said:

That's based on this post:

I also said this:

That's based on this:

I can't see that I've portrayed your views unfairly.

I've been careful to qualify my comments about your posts with conditionals and, in case I am getting it wrong, have asked on multiple times for you to explain what it is you're actually trying to get across.

If I'm wrong, simply tell me how I'm getting it wrong

Sensible stuff Rogue

Rumour was Carlton tanked in the last game of the season in order to get the priority draft pick and if that affects team morale then according to that football logic they should have lost last week ( or maybe rumour was incorrect, or in the alternative the demoralising effect of such tanking wears off in another twelve months in which case we should be ok for 2012)

The fact that West Coast was so hopeless last year and yet so awesome this year should encourage us all to be of stout heart.

We can surely expect a similar return on our dividend can't we?

( By the way Watts only needs one game where things run his way instead of against him to give him the confidence to believe he can make it happen - and it's not too far off ( not necessarily this Friday though) - I watched Matthew Richardson play his first game and he was so gangly and out of place it was hard to see he'd ever be much. Watts has come a fair way along the path and he ain't at the end yet. )

ROTA - I just don't think or accept the notion that players think like that.

'Not giving their all for a coach that manipulated results, to the players devastation, to get Tom Scully.' (That's the crux of the issue)

There is a difference between reasons and excuses, and I believe this is an excuse.

Note: We tanked through thorough 'list management,' the only 'experimentation' that came close to having the effect you say was the Richmond game. And I would say to the players who were offended in your hypothetical scenario - you were in front when the siren went, and why didn't you man-up on Jordan McMahon?