On 13/01/2016 at 04:35, Sir Why You Little said:

Coming from a long way back

with no elite facilities or coaches....

Overrated 

  On 13/01/2016 at 04:29, stuie said:

Haha oh you're so reading my mind "Curry & Beer"....

I actually take a grown up approach to it and say that he did the wrong thing, he's copping his punishment and then I look forward to him coming back and contributing to the MFC.

You can keep your temper tantrums, fist shaking and moral superiority to the confines of the playground.

 

= you're 'cool with cheating'. That's OK for you to have that position. You don't have to just be contrary for the sake of it, to the extent you are actually contradicting yourself.

you didn't say those exact words, but everyone on this site understands that is OK to claim that that summarises your position. You don't have to quote someone exactly, it's called 'paraphrasing'. See how Wiseblood shares your general POV, but he was able to articulate his argument in a way that makes a conversation function properly, and doesn't make a thread full of ridiculous circular pedantry? and as a result, he doesn't have a bunch of posters wanting to pull their hair out?

  On 13/01/2016 at 04:20, Curry & Beer said:

my god. wtf. First of all, I thought most people understand that you don't have to be an AFL footballer yourself in order to comment on AFL footy. Otherwise the whole site should be closed now. Secondly, can you read? Stuie is claiming that a 4-year contract is some sort of 'proof' that Roos and Co knew he was going to get rubbed out. That is obviously complete bullpoo. How does that match your comment? At what stage has anyone questioned Melksham as a player? Seriously you should re-read the posts and apologise, you've completely misfired.

oh and of course stuie likes it. Another poster completely misses the point and he scores it as somebody supporting him. Weak and desperate and typical.

  On 13/01/2016 at 01:32, stuie said:

Exactly. A 4 year contract is a pretty clear indicator of that too.

 

 

  On 13/01/2016 at 01:37, Curry & Beer said:

it's not an indicator of a goddam thing

I think it is an indicator that he is a better footballer than you, what was the longest contract offered to you?

---------------------------

 

You said   "it's not an indicator of a goddam thing"

 

Clearly it is an indicator the the football department thought he was worth it.

Seriously you should re-read the posts and apologise, you've completely misfired.

  On 13/01/2016 at 04:32, stuie said:

Hahahaha this is the best. I love it that your post starts with "my god. WTF" and then has a hissy fit about other people getting "likes" before going for the teenage girl insults at the end.

What a drama queen.

Totes amazeballs. #YOLO

 

 

is that all youve got? weak personal attack and no argument even attempted. explain to me what you 'liked' about mandee's ridiculously poor reading of a conversation and how it backs up your melksham argument. this'll be good. in fact, don't do it.

  On 13/01/2016 at 04:07, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Can someone please make clear what the penalty against Melksham means with respect to the following:

• is he allowed at the club's rooms (eg, gym) when the rest of the team or club officials are not there?
• is he allowed to see any of the club's officials (eg, physio, dietitian, etc) away from the club rooms?
• can he maintain fitness by playing in any other football competition other than the AFL or VFL?
• can he maintain fitness by playing any other non-football competition (eg, basketball) if he's good enough to do so?

PS: And can Stuie, SWYL, C&B etc, take it outside and stop hijacking this thread.

 

 

no

no

no

not sure

  On 13/01/2016 at 04:51, ManDee said:

 

I think it is an indicator that he is a better footballer than you, what was the longest contract offered to you?

---------------------------

 

You said   "it's not an indicator of a goddam thing"

 

Clearly it is an indicator the the football department thought he was worth it.

Seriously you should re-read the posts and apologise, you've completely misfired.

ah so you agree with stuie's absurd position that a 4 year contract is proof we knew he would be rubbed out for a year and we didnt care

  On 13/01/2016 at 04:52, Curry & Beer said:

is that all youve got? weak personal attack and no argument even attempted. explain to me what you 'liked' about mandee's ridiculously poor reading of a conversation and how it backs up your melksham argument. this'll be good. in fact, don't do it.

Take a chill pill Curry.

 

  On 13/01/2016 at 01:32, stuie said:

Exactly. A 4 year contract is a pretty clear indicator of that too.

 

You said  Curry & Beer  "it's not an indicator of a goddam thing"

 

Well my friend it is a very good indicator of several things, including that the football department thought he was worth it. No doubt you will ignore this fact as it does not suit your argument which is I might say more intent on character assassination than informed comment. If you were to try some of your own suggestions perhaps we would all be better off.

 

 

 

  On 13/01/2016 at 04:53, daisycutter said:

no

no

no

not sure

Fairly sure he can not play any sport that is under the WADA code. So the last questions is a no with a qualifier of he can play non WADA sports. 

Good to see this thread has descended into the normal crap that goes on at Demonland. Thankfully the few other threads I visit seem to somehow be immune. Will leave you all to it and make sure you have fun!

I was a bit surprised when Lloyd on Footy Classified said that the Dees wouldn't be disadvantaged because Melksham is just a depth player. I don't think that is how we see it- you don't give depth players 4 year contracts. Smacks of sour grapes to me. Lloyd hasn't disconnected enough from Essendrug to provide credible commentary 

  On 13/01/2016 at 05:21, chook fowler said:

I was a bit surprised when Lloyd on Footy Classified said that the Dees wouldn't be disadvantaged because Melksham is just a depth player. I don't think that is how we see it- you don't give depth players 4 year contracts. Smacks of sour grapes to me. Lloyd hasn't disconnected enough from Essendrug to provide credible commentary 

Yes chook I was also watching at that time. Thought it quite bizarre. Didn't quite know what Lloyd was getting at but there seemed more to it than simply a "professional" judgement.

  On 13/01/2016 at 05:21, chook fowler said:

I was a bit surprised when Lloyd on Footy Classified said that the Dees wouldn't be disadvantaged because Melksham is just a depth player. I don't think that is how we see it- you don't give depth players 4 year contracts. Smacks of sour grapes to me. Lloyd hasn't disconnected enough from Essendrug to provide credible commentary 

Actually, the Lloyd view is complimentary. If Melksham is "depth" we must have a better team than I thought we had. I don't think there would be too many arguments here that he's a lot better as a depth player than Bail, McKenzie, Riley, or even Matt Jones and Terlich.

  On 13/01/2016 at 05:21, chook fowler said:

I was a bit surprised when Lloyd on Footy Classified said that the Dees wouldn't be disadvantaged because Melksham is just a depth player. I don't think that is how we see it- you don't give depth players 4 year contracts. Smacks of sour grapes to me. Lloyd hasn't disconnected enough from Essendrug to provide credible commentary 

As a commentator Lloyd is hopeless he has never been able to change from an EFC player to a commentator.

His comments are always tainted by his obvious bias.

I never listen to him.

  On 13/01/2016 at 05:14, Chris said:

Fairly sure he can not play any sport that is under the WADA code. So the last questions is a no with a qualifier of he can play non WADA sports. 

On current performance, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Gill took the AFL out of WADA merely so that EFC effectively did not have to incur their penalties. As it is, with top-up players etc they are trying to minimise the hurt as much as possible. If they did this, then Melksham and the others would be able to play this year also.

  On 13/01/2016 at 05:47, CBDees said:

On current performance, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Gill took the AFL out of WADA merely so that EFC effectively did not have to incur their penalties. As it is, with top-up players etc they are trying to minimise the hurt as much as possible. If they did this, then Melksham and the others would be able to play this year also.

i'd be more than surprised, i'd be gobsmacked. no chance at all

  On 13/01/2016 at 05:21, chook fowler said:

I was a bit surprised when Lloyd on Footy Classified said that the Dees wouldn't be disadvantaged because Melksham is just a depth player. I don't think that is how we see it- you don't give depth players 4 year contracts. Smacks of sour grapes to me. Lloyd hasn't disconnected enough from Essendrug to provide credible commentary 

Theres your first mistake.. taking Matthew Lloyd too serious. The guy is an absolute [censored] who can't take his bias essendon jumper off. I take more pleasure listening to Caro then this idiot.

Edited January 13, 20169 yr by dazzledavey36

  On 13/01/2016 at 05:49, daisycutter said:

i'd be more than surprised, i'd be gobsmacked. no chance at all

That is IMO not going to happen with the Federal government breathing down their necks.

$millions of concessions would not be past on.

If they think they are in a bad spot with the EFC now it would produce ten time the crap and loss of money.

Won't happen.

There is a lot of posturing going on at present.

By the end of February sanity will have returned.

Edited January 13, 20169 yr by old dee

  On 13/01/2016 at 04:51, Curry & Beer said:

= you're 'cool with cheating'. That's OK for you to have that position. You don't have to just be contrary for the sake of it, to the extent you are actually contradicting yourself.

you didn't say those exact words, but everyone on this site understands that is OK to claim that that summarises your position. You don't have to quote someone exactly, it's called 'paraphrasing'. See how Wiseblood shares your general POV, but he was able to articulate his argument in a way that makes a conversation function properly, and doesn't make a thread full of ridiculous circular pedantry? and as a result, he doesn't have a bunch of posters wanting to pull their hair out?

There's so much more to it than this simplistic view and you know it.  Personally, and I can speak for others as well, I'm not okay with anyone cheating, and Melksham was part of that and he will serve his suspension. 

Then he will get a second chance at turning his career around in the red and blue and I'm more than happy to give him an opportunity to do so.  If anything I hope sitting out this year really spurs him on and he becomes a really integral player for us off the half back line.  Sitting out for a year is punishment enough.

If the afl leave wada, 17 Clubs will leave the afl

  On 13/01/2016 at 04:56, stuie said:

Hahahahahaha and now I have to explain to you why I "liked" someones post? Wow, you actually are an insecure teenage drama queen...

 

hmm funny, you've avoided answering the question again, how strange

just like Liam would be welcomed back too, his time served...

  On 13/01/2016 at 05:01, ManDee said:

Take a chill pill Curry.

 

You said  Curry & Beer  "it's not an indicator of a goddam thing"

 

Well my friend it is a very good indicator of several things, including that the football department thought he was worth it. No doubt you will ignore this fact as it does not suit your argument which is I might say more intent on character assassination than informed comment. If you were to try some of your own suggestions perhaps we would all be better off.

it is not an indicator of what stuie said it was. That's what I was replying to.

you didnt answer this

'ah so you agree with stuie's absurd position that a 4 year contract is proof we knew he would be rubbed out for a year and we didnt care ?'

i assume you dont agree with that which means you are arguing with me about nothing

Can you stop talking to me now, stuie doesn't doesn't need some follower missing the point

  On 13/01/2016 at 06:03, Wiseblood said:

There's so much more to it than this simplistic view and you know it.  Personally, and I can speak for others as well, I'm not okay with anyone cheating, and Melksham was part of that and he will serve his suspension. 

Then he will get a second chance at turning his career around in the red and blue and I'm more than happy to give him an opportunity to do so.  If anything I hope sitting out this year really spurs him on and he becomes a really integral player for us off the half back line.  Sitting out for a year is punishment enough.

why have you made this post? I have already acknowledged that unlike stuie, your position is valid and adequately reasoned. I don't want him to have that chance. He is Essendon scum who has been caught cheating. This is the point we disagree on as I've already made clear.

  On 13/01/2016 at 06:13, Curry & Beer said:

why have you made this post? I have already acknowledged that unlike stuie, your position is valid and adequately reasoned. I don't want him to have that chance. He is Essendon scum who has been caught cheating. This is the point we disagree on as I've already made clear.

Fair enough mate.  We will have to agree to disagree.  Cheers.

  On 13/01/2016 at 06:11, Curry & Beer said:

it is not an indicator of what stuie said it was. That's what I was replying to.

you didnt answer this

'ah so you agree with stuie's absurd position that a 4 year contract is proof we knew he would be rubbed out for a year and we didnt care ?'

i assume you dont agree with that which means you are arguing with me about nothing

Can you stop talking to me now, stuie doesn't doesn't need some follower missing the point

it's not worth arguing it c&b

at the agm the question was asked about milkshake and the answer was "at worst case we expect it would only be a few games" (paraphrasing)

end of discussion. we miscalculated and got burnt.