8 minutes ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

I could make a case that it's all BS.

Brisbane: Merger Windfall and Father–Son Gold

The 1996 Fitzroy–Brisbane merger gave the Lions a once-only player infusion. While most of the Fitzroy list drifted away, Chris Johnson became a three-time premiership backman and Martin Pike, an ex-Fitzroy hard nut, was re-drafted to add grunt. More significantly, the father–son rules of the late 1990s and early 2000s handed Brisbane elite talent at minimal cost. Jonathan Brown was secured as a second-round father–son pick, Chris Scott and Brad Scott were recruited cheaply, and Alastair Lynch—brought in earlier under special concessions—rounded out the core. These concessions and bargains allowed Brisbane to stack its list around Michael Voss, Nigel Lappin, Simon Black, and Jason Akermanis, producing a dynasty that won three consecutive premierships (2001–2003) and appeared in four straight grand finals. In short, the AFL’s structures let Brisbane bank a generation of stars with little draft sacrifice.

Geelong: Father–Son Dynasty Builders

Over the same 30-year period, Geelong mastered the father–son rule. They plucked Matthew Scarlett (pick 45), Gary Ablett Jr (pick 40), and Tom Hawkins (pick 41) with late selections that would never yield such talent in a normal draft. Each became a cornerstone of their premiership sides in 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2022. Alongside them, Jed Bews, Nathan Ablett, and others added depth. The Cats did not pay in trades or high picks; they simply exploited the AFL’s rules at the time, when rival clubs couldn’t bid up father–sons. By the time the bidding system tightened in 2015, Geelong had already built a dynasty. They later doubled down with bold trades (Dangerfield, Cameron, Smith), but the foundation came free of charge.

Strategic Losing? The Draft Haul That Changed Hawthorn Forever

The incentive existed and Horeforn clearly benefited from priority picks in that window. In the 2004 draft, Hawthorn held a priority pick (No.2) for Jarryd Roughead, then also took Lance Franklin (5) and Jordan Lewis (7)– a haul enabled by finishing 15th in 2004 (4–18) under the old priority-pick rules; in 2005 they again qualified and used a priority selection on Xavier Ellis in the 2005 draft. Public chatter has long alleged deliberate late-season under performance to secure those picks, but it remains speculation, not adjudicated tanking.

Conclusion

Between Brisbane’s merger concessions and father–son coups, Geelong’s exploitation of the old father–son system and Horeforns 'strategic under performance, all three clubs assembled all-time lists at cut-rate prices. The result: four premierships each, built not just on good management but on systemic advantages few other clubs enjoyed.

Call any of them “the best” and you’re ignoring the fact that the 21st century’s been less about three empires and more about three mob bosses taking turns running the joint.

You mean a chat bot can make that argument.

Putting a prompt into a LLM does not an argument make.

Amd besides that doesn't rebutt the argument the winner of the GF could lay claims to being the best team of the 21st century.

Edited Sunday at 22:181 day by binman

This will be a really interesting grand final,

The Cats are probably in better form, and have had the rest but Stewart out is MASSIVE

The Lions clearly had a bad bad night vs the Cats last time and would feel they can put in a showing, but do you risk Neale, Berry or both given the question marks on them? Especially considering they just whacked the Pies without either essentially.

I'm tipping the Cats, but i am unsure how big the loss of Stewart will prove to be, especially if the Lions get some quality entries. Raynor could become a real headache for the Cats.

If Dangerfield plays anything like he did in the prelim i think the Cats win and win well, you can't tag Danger, Smith and Holmes and if you don't watch those guys closely they can tear you apart really quickly.

5 minutes ago, binman said:

You mean a chat bot can make that argument.

Putting a prompt into a LLM does not an argument make.

Amd besides that doesn't rebutt the argument the winner of the GF could lay claims to being the best team of the 21st century.

Um, actually I did the work myself Binman. It's far from the first time I've made these points on 'Land over the years.

I note your cheap shot is unable to rebuke my claims - each of which are broadly acknowledged as true by my possie that actual knows about footy and how Melbourne have been screwed by successive VFL/AFL regimes over decades.

14 hours ago, goodwindees said:

Great highlight Stiff Arm. For me it was the equal of the Elliott mark. I said to a mate when it happened that I don’t know if the Dees have a player on the list that could make that kick, particularly at the 25 minute mark of the last quarter. He’s an incredible player.

Melksham, Bowey, Salem....

3 minutes ago, Ted Lasso said:

This will be a really interesting grand final,

The Cats are probably in better form, and have had the rest but Stewart out is MASSIVE

The Lions clearly had a bad bad night vs the Cats last time and would feel they can put in a showing, but do you risk Neale, Berry or both given the question marks on them? Especially considering they just whacked the Pies without either essentially.

I'm tipping the Cats, but i am unsure how big the loss of Stewart will prove to be, especially if the Lions get some quality entries. Raynor could become a real headache for the Cats.

If Dangerfield plays anything like he did in the prelim i think the Cats win and win well, you can't tag Danger, Smith and Holmes and if you don't watch those guys closely they can tear you apart really quickly.

Neale said he had been given the tick by the Doctors after completing an over 7k run of sprints and distance and other testing.

Fagan then said if he gets through training this week, he should be good to go.

Based on that you would suspect he is playing.

Berry would have to be very unlikely with his shoulder going again from an innocuous tumble.

Could be Neale in Berry out.

To beat the Pies without Neale, Payne, Coleman, Answerth, Doedee who hasn’t played and Hipwood while losing Berry early was a great effort.

14 hours ago, DiscoStu17 said:

Thought it was Human Luggage 🧳

For some reason Mc Cluggage always reminded me of a suitcase full of Big Mac's!

31 minutes ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

Um, actually I did the work myself Binman. It's far from the first time I've made these points on 'Land over the years.

I note your cheap shot is unable to rebuke my claims - each of which are broadly acknowledged as true by my possie that actual knows about footy and how Melbourne have been screwed by successive VFL/AFL regimes over decades.

All your own work. Cool cool. I like your new style, very formal with your neww found love of sub headers and conclusions. Welcome to the machine.

Why would I rebutt your claims?

They were made in response to my comment that the winner of the GF could have claims to be the best team of the 21st century.

And your argument doesn't change the fact that winner of this year's GF will have won 5 flags this century, more than other team.

And what is your argument?

That you could make a case that the Cats and Lion's success this century is all BS because of the leg ups they have enjoyed?

I agree they are big factors in both clubs success but that doesn't change their records.

And besides, since when is taking advantage of the rules created by the AFL a proble - isn't that what well run clubs should be doing?

It's not as if either club cheated.

Edited Sunday at 23:171 day by binman

i'll go:

1. puddy tatts 04-25

2. bears 01-04, 2018-2025

3. dingley 08-18

4. tigs 2013-2020

5. bloods 04-2024

6. pear 2001-07

7. filth 2000-2004

hard to deny the cats as the best team of this century - 4 and counting premierships, a litany of finals appearances, father-son superstars out the wazoo

although if bears win their own 5th premiership this quarter century then they probably go ahead

Collingwood out sleep tight Melbourne....

1 hour ago, binman said:

All your own work. Cool cool. I like your new style, very formal with your neww found love of sub headers and conclusions. Welcome to the machine.

Why would I rebutt your claims?

They were made in response to my comment that the winner of the GF could have claims to be the best team of the 21st century.

And your argument doesn't change the fact that winner of this year's GF will have won 5 flags this century, more than other team.

And what is your argument?

That you could make a case that the Cats and Lion's success this century is all BS because of the leg ups they have enjoyed?

I agree they are big factors in both clubs success but that doesn't change their records.

And besides, since when is taking advantage of the rules created by the AFL a proble - isn't that what well run clubs should be doing?

It's not as if either club cheated.

You're a classic Binman. I made a movie called 'Welcome to the Machine'. How prescient of you. And just by the way, your post has at least one non sequitur and one self-contradiction. So regardless of what i wrire or

On 22/09/2025 at 09:17, binman said:

All your own work. Cool cool. I like your new style, very formal with your neww found love of sub headers and conclusions. Welcome to the machine.

Why would I rebutt your claims?

They were made in response to my comment that the winner of the GF could have claims to be the best team of the 21st century.

And your argument doesn't change the fact that winner of this year's GF will have won 5 flags this century, more than other team.

And what is your argument?

That you could make a case that the Cats and Lion's success this century is all BS because of the leg ups they have enjoyed?

I agree they are big factors in both clubs success but that doesn't change their records.

And besides, since when is taking advantage of the rules created by the AFL a proble - isn't that what well run clubs should be doing?

It's not as if either club cheated.

Edited 13 hours ago13 hr by Queanbeyan Demon

Zorko unfazed by $5000 fine for ripping off Cox’s stoopid goggles

Now, I dislike Zorko as much as the next person, but I’d happily sell a kidney on the dark web to pay his fine. 😅

Edit: I forgot to mention that I understand Zorko’s frustration at the time, the free against him may’ve been there, but Cox took a dive, hence Zorko’s anger.

Edited 13 hours ago13 hr by Ghostwriter

On 19/09/2025 at 20:08, Jaded No More said:

Chol already let off by the MRO. Finals so nothing to see here.

Apparently been given 3 weeks by the MRO, but the Hawks are arguing against the penalty:

The Hawks said Chol “feels sorry for what happened to Mr Stewart as a result of this footballing accident, given the significance of the game this weekend”, but argued he tackled reasonably in the circumstances.

We've seen how this plays out for other clubs, compared to the MFC.

As I've said before, this isn't the first time involved in this sort of incident. Will be interesting to see what kind of stand the AFL do or don't take.

Edited 10 hours ago10 hr by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

10 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Apparently been given 3 weeks by the MRO, but the Hawks are arguing against the penalty:

The Hawks said Chol “feels sorry for what happened to Mr Stewart as a result of this footballing accident, given the significance of the game this weekend”, but argued he tackled reasonably in the circumstances.

We've seen how this plays out for other clubs, compared to the MFC.

As I've said before, this isn't the first time involved in this sort of incident. Will be interesting to see what kind of stand the AFL do or don't take.

I don’t reckon that tackle deserves a 3 week suspension. Chol was tripped up by another player, meaning he had absolutely no control over what happened to Stewart once that occurred.

Do you reckon he deserved 3 weeks?

8 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

I don’t reckon that tackle deserves a 3 week suspension. Chol was tripped up by another player, meaning he had absolutely no control over what happened to Stewart once that occurred.

Do you reckon he deserved 3 weeks?

Absolutely I believe Chol deserves 3 weeks for that. He chose to takle second and just throw all his huge momentum into his back without any regard for the player. Others have been suspended for showing far more duty of care than he did.

He's some more vision of Chol carelessly throwing his weight around previously:

afl.com.au

Breust goes bang after May gets crunched on wing

Luke Breust drills a much-needed goal for Hawthorn after Steven May cops some heavy contact from Mabior Chol

My recollection is that he did something very similar within the next two weeks, or perhaps that was Darcy Moore who has a similar record, yet who also escapes with impunity.

Yes, by all means, go for screamers etc, but only if you can take them without crunching your opponent. Unless your dumbo, elephants shouldn't fly.

I also think this kind of action wouldn't have been such an issue in years gone by, because players would have dealt out thier own natural justice on the feild. I.e. if you hurt your opponent in that way, they'd get up and punch you.

Dismissed by tribunal. Chol free to play…round 1 next year.

43 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Absolutely I believe Chol deserves 3 weeks for that. He chose to takle second and just throw all his huge momentum into his back without any regard for the player. Others have been suspended for showing far more duty of care than he did.

I saw the tribunal just let him off. They argued the second players momentum caused Chol to lose his balance.

While I agree with the decision I think the fact that you and I see it so differently is a huge problem. It’s a raffle every time.

4 hours ago, Ghostwriter said:

Zorko unfazed by $5000 fine for ripping off Cox’s stoopid goggles

Now, I dislike Zorko as much as the next person, but I’d happily sell a kidney on the dark web to pay his fine. 😅

Edit: I forgot to mention that I understand Zorko’s frustration at the time, the free against him may’ve been there, but Cox took a dive, hence Zorko’s anger.

You’re familiar with “the dark web” ?

45 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

I saw the tribunal just let him off. They argued the second players momentum caused Chol to lose his balance.

While I agree with the decision I think the fact that you and I see it so differently is a huge problem. It’s a raffle every time.

It's total rubbish. Trip or no trip, Chol wasn't ever in control and would have ridden him into the ground regardless the way he recklessly lunched at him with all his body weight beihind him. I also think they should have taken some of the past instances of him injuring other players into account in making that assessment.

We do agree on one thing, it is a raffle every time.

Steve May was suposed to have made the perfect calculation of colliding with that Carlton bloke and had to do something to avoid it. By the same logic, Chol should also have seen the other player and foreseen getting tripped. Different rules and standards for different players.

Absolute joke. Did they think it was a Collingwood jumper?

1 hour ago, Dingo said:

You’re familiar with “the dark web” ?

How else do you think I can afford to travel interstate for matches?

I’d sell my other kidney but apparently according to doctors you need at least one to stay alive 🙄