4 hours ago, Ghostwriter said:

We really, really need an eye-roll reaction emoji, ideally a full 360-degree eye-roll, coupled with a huge sigh.

Careful what you wish for 🙄

Edited yesterday at 14:581 day by Fork 'em

2 hours ago, beelzebub said:

He's talking 💩

Embarrassing really.

Beelzebub, Buckley didn't come across badly at all on On The Couch. He was complimentary to Melbourne and constantly said we made the right decision. It was the rest of the panel pushing the narrative. The quote in the story is taken as a statement and not as him answering repeated (loaded) questions. I don't think Buckely could have been more complimentary to the club and the process, but that doesn't suit the narrative.

Paul guerra needs to sit down with that McClure & explain in simple terms why king got the job.

He still can't get his head around why we didn't offer bucks the job & this process still doesn't seem right.

Mind you he's probably still convinced Harley won't go to west coast

So, NB gets the AFL to blink two years early but we botched our coaching decision because we couldn’t wait two days? Aye, right ye are.

5 hours ago, Left Foot Snap said:

Beelzebub, Buckley didn't come across badly at all on On The Couch. He was complimentary to Melbourne and constantly said we made the right decision. It was the rest of the panel pushing the narrative. The quote in the story is taken as a statement and not as him answering repeated (loaded) questions. I don't think Buckely could have been more complimentary to the club and the process, but that doesn't suit the narrative.

Yep. Spoke well in an awkward situation

13 hours ago, lorn said:

Unfortunately yes. Wish they just applied the last possession out of bounds rule to the entire ground and got rid of insufficient intent completely

For 140 years the deliberate OOB rule worked just fine.......

Settle guys. He’s saving face. Nathan Buckley wasn’t our preferred candidate, Steven king was. If we really wanted Nathan Buckley we would have waited for him. We are waiting for Geelongs campaign to end for Steven king anyway so little difference

10 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

For 140 years the deliberate OOB rule worked just fine.......

The old rule did work fine but the game changed and congestion became a problem, so we needed a way reduce the amount of throw ins to ease congestion

1 hour ago, dees189227 said:

Paul guerra needs to sit down with that McClure & explain in simple terms why king got the job.

He still can't get his head around why we didn't offer bucks the job & this process still doesn't seem right.

Mind you he's probably still convinced Harley won't go to west coast

No we don’t, McClure is irrelevant

6 hours ago, Left Foot Snap said:

Beelzebub, Buckley didn't come across badly at all on On The Couch. He was complimentary to Melbourne and constantly said we made the right decision. It was the rest of the panel pushing the narrative. The quote in the story is taken as a statement and not as him answering repeated (loaded) questions. I don't think Buckely could have been more complimentary to the club and the process, but that doesn't suit the narrative.

Perhaps the point escaped you. His tone, indeed words are irrelevant.

He's pushing a false narrative, well certainly a reconfigured one.

As some have suggested ( rightly ) he's attempting redirect to save face.

He just got turned down by the not-so-popular one at the dance and he's taken aback...

"Didn't really want to go out with her anyway !!"

Got to save face among peers.

Tbh... couldn't care less. Go Dees

Gee - thought

1 hour ago, dees189227 said:

Paul guerra needs to sit down with that McClure & explain in simple terms why king got the job.

He still can't get his head around why we didn't offer bucks the job & this process still doesn't seem right.

Mind you he's probably still convinced Harley won't go to west coast

You reckon Guerra GAF?

The club says Buckley wasn't our preferred candidate. Fair enough Buckley says we weren't his preferred employer.

I think enough time has been spent on the guy who missed out on the position.

58 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

For 140 years the deliberate OOB rule worked just fine.......

Just for fun have a look at the last quarter of round 22 1987. Sugar Healy.......classic deliberate non deliberate

I think Bucks may have actually used our process to find out if he really did have the fire to coach again.

We asked him, he couldnt commit, we asked our preferred candidate and he jumped at it, i know which mindset i prefer.

3 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

The club says Buckley wasn't our preferred candidate. Fair enough Buckley says we weren't his preferred employer.

I think enough time has been spent on the guy who missed out on the position.

You think? This is Demonland. The sacred charter here is to endlessly re-litigate every missed coach, failed draft pick, and half-baked rumour until the heat death of the universe. Norm Smith, Tilbrook, Tempo right through to Neeld, Schwab, Buckley. Doesn’t matter, they all live rent-free here forever. The day we stop obsessing over blokes who did or didn’t get the job is the day Andy shuts down the site and we all have to pretend to be normal people again. This discussion has at least another 60 years left in it.

48 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Perhaps the point escaped you. His tone, indeed words are irrelevant.

He's pushing a false narrative, well certainly a reconfigured one.

As some have suggested ( rightly ) he's attempting redirect to save face.

He just got turned down by the not-so-popular one at the dance and he's taken aback...

"Didn't really want to go out with her anyway !!"

Got to save face among peers.

Tbh... couldn't care less. Go Dees

Have you watched the segment or are you just going on the written words published about it?

At first Bucks was unsure about if he wanted to coach, then he found Hypothetical Tasmania more attractive than Melbourne anyway.

It's philosophically inconsistent. He's saying he didn't even know he wanted to coach but he applied and went through the process for a less than ideal option anyways?

Here is the reality, Bucks wanted the Melbourne job, Steven King is who we wanted, this takes nothing away from anyone involved in the process, and he's trying to walk away without losing any of the shine he has as a prospect.

If he was more attracted to Tasmania, he wouldn't have wasted our time, if he didn't really want to coach he wouldn't have wasted out time.

9 minutes ago, Left Foot Snap said:

Have you watched the segment or are you just going on the written words published about it?

Yes... did you actually listen ? ( and observe )

Got his mates there too...

He does a very good job of backing away and whitewashing. If you were to take him at his explanation it was like popping in for a coffee but the other guy ordered first. But hey...I really wanted the frozen mocha from the other place... give me a break.

You believe what you like LFS .. tis pretty obvious to many.

watson on sen this morning said that we are keen on matthew scarlett as the assistant defensive coach

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

For 140 years the deliberate OOB rule worked just fine.......

I'm old, but not that old! I can remember football before the "out on the full" rule was introduced which preceded the "deliberate out of bounds rule".

This comment really belongs in another thread, but I'll be disappointed if they change the "insufficient intent" rule next year. I think it's a terrible rule and should ultimately be abolished. But it doesn't have to be replaced with a "last kick/handpass out of bounds rule". It could be replaced with a quicker "throw the ball immediately back in" rule. This would eliminate the wait for the slow, lumbering, nominated ruckmen to arrive. Such a change would result in the need for teams to re-think their structures (one ruckman on the ground won't be enough).

In short, I'd rather a comprehensive review of all the rules, but only after a review of what we want the game to look like. That would mean no rule changes for 2026, but significant changes in 2027, all introduced at once. And that would at least give teams the chance to think about how to prepare their playing lists.

11 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

This reminds me of when NB said he wanted to go to collywobbles to win a premiership and the lions beat the collywobbles twice against NB to win it in their 3 peat so that worked out well for him.

I have a gut feeling this decision by NB may go down the same path. Time will tell.

Wouldn’t it be hilarious if we end up playing TAS in a GF coached by NB and we beat them. That would be bloody spectacular.

Time will tell.

9 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

watson on sen this morning said that we are keen on matthew scarlett as the assistant defensive coach

Where do we sign ????

10 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Where do we sign ????

that was pretty much dollars' response too

tom morris had no idea what watson was talking about either

On 12/09/2025 at 21:20, Ted Lasso said:

Don’t say “ur”

Melbourne supporters are supposed to be cheese board, highly educated snobs.

Wes are.

1 hour ago, whatwhat say what said:

watson on sen this morning said that we are keen on matthew scarlett as the assistant defensive coach

Which I love, by the way.

And more importantly, I think it finally puts to rest who Scartlett headbutted in 2007.