It only appears to get further away to you who somehow thought it was closer in the first place

No. You are just to forgiving. 1964 is a very long time ago.

EJ Holden's & The Beatles were new and shiny. Now they are old & rusted.

2012 is a new season not 2015. Time to play with the big boys...you might just learn something.

No. You are just to forgiving. 1964 is a very long time ago.

EJ Holden's & The Beatles were new and shiny. Now they are old & rusted.

2012 is a new season not 2015. Time to play with the big boys...you might just learn something.

Who has ever suggested we don't "play with the big boys".

Stick to the "Name a Game" thread, more your style.

I would rather hope that the FD properly understand the strengths and weakneses of our players against the oppositions players to undertake the best performance possible. Thats what they get paid for. If you want people who want naive believes then you can get them anywhere and they are cheap as chips. They wont deliver anything but at leastv they go in with belief.

Who are these unknown people that "hide behind a 3 to 5 year" as an escape clause for achieving success? Can you name them? They could be ones that have accepting mediocrity for too long. Wow.

We actually bottomed out in 2007 to 2010. In this period the turnover in the list result in the list at start of 2011 being the youngest list in 5 years and marginally older than Gold Coast. You have continually plied the clap trap about short term bottoming out when the exact opposite has been demonstrated. "Iceberg What Iceberg?"

Next year with have 2 PP picks in a strong draft. We will do more than tweak the list. And what do you think the FD have been doing all these years if you are now suggesting that "This list must learn and demand of each other winning, and if the team loses...work out why." Its amazing what your implying since you would gladly have Bailey back.

you will still be bringing out these same safe paragraphs in 10 years time Rhino. I know where the club has come from. But after 5 years of nursery school it's time to venture out of the comforts. The whole club has got to back itself, take some calculated risks. You talk as if it is a rigid formula. Attitude makes a huge dfference if embraced properly. I said before i do not expect to win the flag this year, but i do not expect the players to have the same attitude.

The window is open in round one if the club wishes to step up.

That first step is always the hardest...

Who has ever suggested we don't "play with the big boys".

Stick to the "Name a Game" thread, more your style.

then what is your take on 2011? The tail was between the legs all year Fan as soon as we stepped off the MCG.

you will still be bringing out these same safe paragraphs in 10 years time Rhino. I know where the club has come from. But after 5 years of nursery school it's time to venture out of the comforts. The whole club has got to back itself, take some calculated risks. You talk as if it is a rigid formula. Attitude makes a huge dfference if embraced properly. I said before i do not expect to win the flag this year, but i do not expect the players to have the same attitude.

I reckon on some basic issues 10 years may not be enough time for you. Your reference to nursery school would indicate you have a very poor grasp of what has happened and what is happening at the Club. As usual you cannot follow other people's argument. I have never said the the formula was rigid at all. And on the basis of your naive nursery school comment you have no idea what attitude is being applied and how it is done. And FWIW, you continually infer issues about the players attitude but clearly have no knowledge to back this up.

The window is open in round one if the club wishes to step up.

That first step is always the hardest...

i have always found thats your biggest challenge WYL.

BTW, about time for your annual..."There are no more excuses".... Works a treat and makes you sound knowledgeable and discerning. Go for it.

Not sure who's trolling who anymore, though given the time of year perhaps a few could be left for the keeper? (dont fret, Haddin out, Wade in)

I reckon on some basic issues 10 years may not be enough time for you. Your reference to nursery school would indicate you have a very poor grasp of what has happened and what is happening at the Club. As usual you cannot follow other people's argument. I have never said the the formula was rigid at all. And on the basis of your naive nursery school comment you have no idea what attitude is being applied and how it is done. And FWIW, you continually infer issues about the players attitude but clearly have no knowledge to back this up.

i have always found thats your biggest challenge WYL.

BTW, about time for your annual..."There are no more excuses".... Works a treat and makes you sound knowledgeable and discerning. Go for it.

Why would i wish to follow someone elses arguement when every 5 years i am told to wait another 5 years and be patient. That is the same as Gillard's spin doctors whom i give no kudos to!!

Those posters saying Neeld would've insisted on Darling ahead of Cook, would he have insisted on Ball ahead of Tapscott?

We're you insisting on Ball ahead of Tapscott at the time?

Huh? Any similarity ends at the part where Ball chucked a $500k p.a bounty on his head (not to mention the threat of sitting out footy if anyone other than the Filth picked him).

Huh? Any similarity ends at the part where Ball chucked a $500k p.a bounty on his head (not to mention the threat of sitting out footy if anyone other than the Filth picked him).

And how did the AFL let this occur? These are the loopholes i am concerned about with Free Agency. Ball and his management did their homework, good luck to him but i would have loved the MFC to challenge the system harder.

And how did the AFL let this occur? These are the loopholes i am concerned about with Free Agency. Ball and his management did their homework, good luck to him but i would have loved the MFC to challenge the system harder.

Ball and Collingwood front loaded his contract. MFC front loads the contracts for most of its players. Other Clubs front load their players contracts to better manage their salary cap. Its been happening for some time.

I am sorry you had not realised or understood that.

Why would i wish to follow someone elses arguement

Might learn something

Ball and Collingwood front loaded his contract. MFC front loads the contracts for most of its players. Other Clubs front load their players contracts to better manage their salary cap. Its been happening for some time.

I am sorry you had not realised or understood that.

Might learn something

Yes i am sure the contract was front loaded. Nothing earth shattering there!

The deal still made a mockery of the draft though. Nothing will change my mind on that one.

Yes i am sure the contract was front loaded. Nothing earth shattering there!

The deal still made a mockery of the draft though. Nothing will change my mind on that one.

Might learn something

I was wrong

I was wrong

you make out as if Collingwood did no wrong? That i do not follow.

In some ways i am glad free agency is almost upon us. The smart clubs will prosper because the draft cannot be trusted since that deal. That is what i have learnt.

Why should Collingwood have had carte blanche to Ball's signature? The draft is for all and we had room in the cap.

you make out as if Collingwood did no wrong? That i do not follow.

Clearly you dont. Collingwood did nothing wrong. They put a good deal package to Ball which include a shot at a flag within 2 years. Ball did not want to deal with anyone else. He refused to talk to anyone else.

What's so hard about what has happened? Its so basic yet do not get it and play a pretence of conspiracy.

In some ways i am glad free agency is almost upon us. The smart clubs will prosper because the draft cannot be trusted since that deal. That is what i have learnt.

Why should Collingwood have had carte blanche to Ball's signature? The draft is for all and we had room in the cap.

I doubt whether you will understand what free agency will mean and you wont have the gumption to learn. You dont understand what the Ball situation was. Its another case of too many opinions without an iota of facts or understanding.

Clearly you dont. Collingwood did nothing wrong. They put a good deal package to Ball which include a shot at a flag within 2 years. Ball did not want to deal with anyone else. He refused to talk to anyone else.

What's so hard about what has happened? Its so basic yet do not get it and play a pretence of conspiracy.

I doubt whether you will understand what free agency will mean and you wont have the gumption to learn. You dont understand what the Ball situation was. Its another case of too many opinions without an iota of facts or understanding.

Collingwood did no wrong??That was sanctioned by the AFL hierachy.... Let's just agree to disagree shall we.

Concerning Free Agency read the Age article i made mention of in a different thread this afternoon. You may learn something.

Edited January 30, 201213 yr by why you little

Collingwood did no wrong??That was sanctioned by the AFL hierachy.... Let's just agree to disagree shall we.

Concerning Free Agency read the Age article i made mention of in a different thread this afternoon. You may learn something.

Ha ha. What big indignation you have! You cant put a finger on what Collingwood did wrong because they did not do anything wrong. I agree you dont understand it.

And thanks for the tip on the Age article. I have already read. I did learn something from it. You will understand free agency as well as you understand the Luke Ball situation, impact of debt and a whole host of the topics. One continuum of pretence and smoke and mirrors that has only you fooled.

Ha ha. What big indignation you have! You cant put a finger on what Collingwood did wrong because they did not do anything wrong. I agree you dont understand it.

And thanks for the tip on the Age article. I have already read. I did learn something from it. You will understand free agency as well as you understand the Luke Ball situation, impact of debt and a whole host of the topics. One continuum of pretence and smoke and mirrors that has only you fooled.

Smashes head against Brick Wall repeatedly!!! I cannot believe you say Collingwood with AFL assistance did no wrong? But you have written it so it must be solid fact. I think i need a Mercendol...maybe 2...

Smashes head against Brick Wall repeatedly!!! I cannot believe you say Collingwood with AFL assistance did no wrong? But you have written it so it must be solid fact. I think i need a Mercendol...maybe 2...

Any chance you can sustantiate what Collingwood has done wrong? You've accused them repeatedly but given nothing as usual. You just cut they made a deal with Ball. If it had been MFC you would have thought it smart.And given you have already denied making rock solid statements its ironic you chide others. Dont overdo it on the pills now

Collingwood did what was best for Collingwood and it was within the AFL rules. What Ball and Collingwood did has always been allowed, because the AFL are being very careful not to trigger a restraint of trade type case. Despite the fact that it doesn't look great on the surface, they're protecting the game - imagine what it'd be like if the court deemed things like the salary cap and the draft as being an illegal restraint of trade? As we've seen with Free Agency, they're making it easier for players like Ball to move to the clubs they want to move to, not harder.

As Rhino said, if if it were the MFC there'd have been a massive love-in on the forum about how we were finally ruthless or some other such hyperbole.

Collingwood did what was best for Collingwood and it was within the AFL rules. What Ball and Collingwood did has always been allowed, because the AFL are being very careful not to trigger a restraint of trade type case. Despite the fact that it doesn't look great on the surface, they're protecting the game - imagine what it'd be like if the court deemed things like the salary cap and the draft as being an illegal restraint of trade? As we've seen with Free Agency, they're making it easier for players like Ball to move to the clubs they want to move to, not harder.

As Rhino said, if if it were the MFC there'd have been a massive love-in on the forum about how we were finally ruthless or some other such hyperbole.

Yes Collingwood did what was best for them. My gripe is that the AFL allowed it. Similiar to Ju$$. Rules change when it suits them. Luke is one player out of 750 approx. i have no problem with Luke wanting to go to a specific club. But by joining the draft after the St.kilda talks beoke down he should have taken his luck like all the other players in it.

Yes Collingwood did what was best for them. My gripe is that the AFL allowed it. Similiar to Ju$$. Rules change when it suits them. Luke is one player out of 750 approx. i have no problem with Luke wanting to go to a specific club. But by joining the draft after the St.kilda talks beoke down he should have taken his luck like all the other players in it.

What was done was within the draft rules. You have not through all the dross put up one plausible step that the AFL coulda/shoulda undertaken. There were no rules changes in this instance. And it is nothing like the Judd decision. By entering the draft he risked being drafted on a relatively unknown basis (no health check and no preparedness to play with the selecting Club). You have just carried on like a cut cat who cant understand or accept the issues at play.

And given there is already a Luke Ball thread going, the Barry Prendegast thread has been closed.