1 hour ago, chook fowler said:

The obvious message is if you're involved in the game don't touch betting in any form. Simple really.

Perhaps it's because betting has never really apealed to me in a big way, but you would have to ask the question with the money that most AFL footballers get paid - why would you bother betting at all?

4 hours ago, A F said:

Well, sounds like it might be a good time to replace Hibberd with Melksham.

Fortunately, we have a coach who has empathy in a situation like this, having been through similar issues.

Replace him because he tried to help a friend??? This seems like a great reason. 

43 minutes ago, Beetle said:

Surely this has got a 62 week home and away (plus finals) club imposed ban written all over it?

on form...whats the length of his contract? that should cover it...

12 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

Replace him because he tried to help a friend??? This seems like a great reason. 

Zero tackles is a better one

13 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Perhaps it's because betting has never really apealed to me in a big way, but you would have to ask the question with the money that most AFL footballers get paid - why would you bother betting at all?

because he is young, dumb and full of c..

2 hours ago, chook fowler said:

The obvious message is if you're involved in the game don't touch betting in any form. Simple really.

There are really two very simple messages repeatedly indoctrinated into AFL inductees

1/ YOU are responsible for what you ingest or have injected into you

2/ don't gamble*

Melks seems to not take in simple messages: how can he take in a dynamic ever changing game plan?

* why would any sane AFL player even have a gambling account?

 

13 minutes ago, Danelska said:

on form...whats the length of his contract? that should cover it...

Exactly that.

5 minutes ago, monoccular said:

There are really two very simple messages repeatedly indoctrinated into AFL inductees

1/ YOU are responsible for what you ingest or have injected into you

2/ don't gamble*

Melks seems to not take in simple messages: how can he take in a dynamic ever changing game plan?

* why would any sane AFL player even have a gambling account?

 

THAT is SO succinct and SO astute.

25 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

Zero tackles is a better one

That one I agree with

6 hours ago, ProDee said:

A minor issue.

Charlie Dixon has a glass of red wine the night before a game and he's front page of the Herald Sun and suspended by his club.  The AFL would happily pepperspray the likes of Jack Crisp for a $10 multi.  Others convulse in anger over Hogan having a dart on a weekend off, as if he's some sort of nicotine addict.  Fans lamenting drafting Melksham over a trivial betting indiscretion involving his account (sure, they also think he can't play footy).

Meanwhile, Ben Cousins is a mess and never tested positive for illegal drug use and first time offenders are protected from public vilification.  

Somewhere, there's an imbalance.

 

 

That is an excellent point. Significant double standards by the AFL for their own brand protection rather than anything in the players' interests.

3 hours ago, Biffen said:

Heffernan was like a playing spectator as I recall.

Another Bomber dud.

 

One of the most insipid Dees recruits of all time. He was happy just collecting a pay cheque for 3 years.

Any word from the club yet in regards to this? 

Milshake is fast looming as the new BenKen .. i.e someones great idea at the time, since shown wanting.

I can't really be disappointed in him, not having any great expectations in tbd first instance.

Hope he proves all of us doubters wrong 

 

Heffernan used to make my blood boil - had a great physique but was as timid as a mouse and butchered the ball when he did get it. A Sheedy love child for some reason.

He lies when questioned about drug cheating and lies again when questioned about betting, He is a moron

7 minutes ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

He lies when questioned about drug cheating and lies again when questioned about betting, He is a moron

That makes him a liar not a moron. And I'm willing to bet on behalf of a friend that you're not the real David Neitz . . .

10 minutes ago, Skuit said:

That makes him a liar not a moron. And I'm willing to bet on behalf of a friend that you're not the real David Neitz . . .

You got me on that one Skuit
For him to lie again after what he had been through with the drug scandal is madness. He is a silly boy

2 minutes ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

You got me on that one Skuit
For him to lie again after what he had been through with the drug scandal is madness. He is a silly boy

A silly boy seems a more fitting description. I lie to my girlfriend all the time - but it's the things I do which lead to those lies that are moronic, rather than the really sensible, justified and crafty evasion that follows.

The dees should be fined 10k for giving up pick 25 for Melksham........ That's the real abuse of gambling here.

At the time he was snagged from tht dopey mob many here questioned the sense of it, there being concerns at many aspects; the cost, the availability, his sporting prognosis and in even simpler terms what does he bring to the table that betters us.

Personally I see an average capable players who has some ( read a FEW) handy moments otherwise bog ordinary. This is no meaningful betterment of our list.

This isnt a 'bagging' just an appraisal. Some will no doubt suggest it too early to call. You're welcome to that view. With what we see happening to many if not the vast majority of the 34 , in terms of fitness and breaking down I fear we have stuffed up majorly. I take no joy in vocalising that.

Im similarly concerned for Hibberd. He does however suggest an ability to ADD to our equation, so I'll wait with interest.

When there are fine Wines, why order a Milkshake ?

the pick we traded for him ended up being pick 30 after all the academy and father-son selections. it was mason redman.

players who have gone after that pick haven't shown much at this stage - best of the lot would probably be tom phillips from the pies at pick 58.

He's been disappointing, but it's too early to write him off.  After Oliver v West Coast in the JLT he was probably our next best player.

He's a beautiful mover, nice size, and technically a really good kick.  It's his decision making that is letting him down.  He has really good AFL attributes.  

Four games in it's a bit premature to consider him a disaster.  That said, I'd drop him for Hibberd this week.  

Does this club do any due diligence when it looks at experienced recruits? Or does we just throw long term contracts and blank cheques at anybody who takes our calls?

Clark, Dawes, Lumumba, Melksham, and Hibberd all in the past 6 years. Drug cheats, sociopaths, broken down hacks, and who knows what else.

The ridiculous contract (and equally ridiculous trade deal) for Melksham looks dumber every day. Not only is he a liability on the field, but he is developing a pattern of dumb behaviour off the field which reflects poorly on both him and the club.

A month at Casey, where he should be already, seems a fair punishment.

 

Irrespective of questions of  Melksham footy credentials, hasn't he been punished enough? Has nothing to do with football matters. He has lost his account, received a substantial fine and media shame. Some people think punishment and humiliation should be continuously applied like layers on a cake. People that think this way would no doubt relish a public flogging also.