9 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Yes...

You can build a team around HR

Koz is top quality cream

I think there is potential for HR to be a disruptive influence.

Yet to be proven leadership, concentration and team player credentials not on display yet.

There is more..

I hope we're not going to go on with this all season...

A good way to ruin a great game.

And we know it will 🙄

On 25/01/2025 at 15:08, Demonstone said:

As you were.  The new millennium didn't start until 1st January 2001.  (2000 was the last year of the old one.)

How it’s that ? 2000 was the myk or whatever so you are wrong IMO. 

On 25/01/2025 at 17:27, Travy14 said:

Darcy would be a very good move, if we had too!

Darcy is injury prone and has not had one 6/8 matches year missed in his career. 
 
Best to recruit Jacko and his Mum back. 

Sorry for this stupid post but let’s be serious let’s get Tracy or Serong or Andrew Brayshaw or two of them for Kossie if he ever goes to Freo. 

4 hours ago, Willmoy1947 said:

I think there is potential for HR to be a disruptive influence.

Yet to be proven leadership, concentration and team player credentials not on display yet.

There is more..

Think you would take the chance s….d 

13 hours ago, greenwaves said:

It's a bit like the AFL celebrating its centenary in 1996 when in fact the centenary was actually in 1997.  1996 was the hundredth year of the VFL/AFL, but a centenary isn't the hundredth year, a centenary is when a hundred years has been completed.  So in 1996 only ninety-nine years had completed.

I don't read replies or reactions 

 

They had to sneak it in before they murdered Fitzroy. 

Well it seems Kossie has been posting his desire to return to WA. I am so tired of footballers signing  contracts and then not wanting to fulfill the contracts. Can you imagine the stink if a club wanted to end a contract against the players desire. 

If (this year) they introduce future draft picks 2 years in advance, then this unfortunately will make a trade more workable/flexible if Kozzie is so desperate to leave.

Freo will only give us draft picks. No chance we’ll be getting a Darcy, Brayshaw, Serong or Young as Freo will want to improve their list rather than going sideways.

On the matter of Kozzie liking Freo posts, I didn’t see the issue in him liking the fact that his relative was trying out for the club. The other “likes” were obviously awkward. 

4 hours ago, 58er said:

How it’s that ? 2000 was the myk or whatever so you are wrong IMO. 

Jesus, another one.  Google it mate.  It's a fact and not a matter of anybody's opinion.

30 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

If (this year) they introduce future draft picks 2 years in advance, then this unfortunately will make a trade more workable/flexible if Kozzie is so desperate to leave.

that has been introduced, i believe, at the end of this year?

if he goes, he goes - it's not like we won't get something in return, as he's under contract for a significant amount of time

2 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

that has been introduced, i believe, at the end of this year?

if he goes, he goes - it's not like we won't get something in return, as he's under contract for a significant amount of time

Yeah exactly, pointless crying over spilt milk.

Rounds 1-3 will be instructional in to what a post Kozzie era could look like (although in fairness Mentha or even George might be Kozzie’s replacement and they obviously won’t be ready)

26 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

Jesus, another one.  Google it mate.  It's a fact and not a matter of anybody's opinion.

Speaking of, it must annoy the christ out of Jesus every year. 

Then again, since the 'restart the clocks, the saviour is in the house' mob missed the mark by a few years anyway, he's probably given up on ever blowing out the right number of candles.

30 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

Jesus, another one.  Google it mate.  It's a fact and not a matter of anybody's opinion.

rather than it's a "fact" i'd prefer to call it a proscribed convention that just represents one "solution" to an accepted anomaly caused by the real fact that there is a missing year 1bc to 1 ad. i.e. -1 to +1 is 2 years not 1.

that's the hoary bit

There will be a lot of trade movement this year with the advent of 2 year forward trading. GC already has 5 first round picks, Essendon 4 to offer other clubs already. 

There weren’t too many players who didn’t get to where they wanted last year, contracted or not. Those like Petracca couldn’t because others didn’t have the trade capital, especially late in the trade period. 
Every list manager at every club will be clearing salary space and working how to accumulate picks for this trade period. 
There will be a lot of big names mentioned in the lead up, ones people think would never be an option.

 

 

31 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

there is a missing year 1bc to 1 ad. i.e. -1 to +1 is 2 years not 1.

Your arithmetic is faulty.  

When 1 BC ended, 1 AD commenced.  There is no year zero.  How could there be?

7 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

Your arithmetic is faulty.  

When 1 BC ended, 1 AD commenced.  There is no year zero.  How could there be?

nothing wrong with maths.   -1 + 1 year is 0. (not 1)

When old mate jc celebrated his 1st birthday and became a 1 year old the silly calendar clicked over to 2ad at exactly the same time. How could it be 2 years anno domini (after christ)? A contradiction, right?

normal time convention is to measure at the end of the time interval. Look at a clock the 12 is positioned at the end of the 12 hour, not the start. Same with years, hours, minutes etc.

the proscribed century convention  (century ends on end of xx01) is at odds with normal time convention. It was just a convention to hide an anomaly caused by ignorance in the first place.

don't blame me, you started this and i did warn you it was an old hoary chestnut

so @demonstone, I take it by your emoji reactions and your odd attempt at maths that you are not convinced?

I'm laughing at you, not with you.  There is so much wrong with your post.

23 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

nothing wrong with maths.   -1 + 1 year is 0. (not 1)

What you call "0" is day one of year one.  (1 AD)

 

24 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

When old mate jc celebrated his 1st birthday and became a 1 year old the silly calendar clicked over to 2ad at exactly the same time. How could it be 2 years anno domini (after christ)? A contradiction, right?

Because the first year (1 AD) was completed and the second year (2 AD) commenced.  No contradiction.

 

24 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

the proscribed century convention  (century ends on end of xx01)

No, the century ends at the end of xx00.  That was my point from the beginning.

I've made my case as clearly as I can and won't clog up this thread any longer.  You do you.

 

 

Just now, Demonstone said:

I'm laughing at you, not with you.  There is so much wrong with your post.

What you call "0" is day one of year one.  (1 AD)

 

Because the first year (1 AD) was completed and the second year (2 AD) commenced.  No contradiction.

 

No, the century ends at the end of xx00.  That was my point from the beginning.

I've made my case as clearly as I can and won't clog up this thread any longer.  You do you.

 

 

Pleeease. Let the Footy begin !!!

7 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

 

 

No, the century ends at the end of xx00.  That was my point from the beginning.

I've made my case as clearly as I can and won't clog up this thread any longer.  You do you.

 

 

sorry, that was a typo, will try and correct

 

does this answer everyone’s questions?

Edited January 27Jan 27 by DistrACTION Jackson

So the 21st century commenced on 1 Jan 2001. Can we move on now? 🤪

3 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

 

does this answer everyone’s questions?

Which is why the Commonwealth of Australia was created on the first day of the new century!

10 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

I'm laughing at you, not with you.  There is so much wrong with your post.

What you call "0" is day one of year one.  (1 AD)

 

no. time naming convention works at the end of the time interval

how do you explain 12 o'clock is at the end of the 12th hour. is the clock label wrong?

why is 1 second past midnight 00.00.01 when as you say it is in the first hour 01 but convention say 00