Leaderboard

I'd rather Peter Everitt - even at his current age I'd even rather Kenny Everitt - even in his current state of health

No you haven't. There, that's my opinion, which I'll be happy to repeat ad nauseam.

It's not a matter of whether he took illicit drugs or not. That would only give him a "strike" under AFL rules, but unless he's a repeat offender, no suspension. As it should be. It's whether he failed to tell ASADA of his true whereabouts for three days. Which, in his chosen occupation, is a serious breach for which there are established penalties. He either did or he didn't. Is anybody seriously "comfortably satisfied" with the BS about the "staying-somewhere-else" was just a made-up story and he was really at home all the time? Sammi Nowland did the right thing throughout by taking it to the club in the first place, and it seems that it was only when she found it was being swept under the carpet that her concern for Whitfield's wellbeing pushed her to take it to where it would be (or should have been) taken seriously. If she were my daughter, I'd be proud of her. Could it be that she was "troublesome" only because she kept expressing her concern about his lifestyle? Trying to make her the scapegoat shows the true character of these three heroes.

Far out.

Where, on bomber blitz?

Correct. You can't avoid a drug test and get a lesser penalty than failing a drug test. Otherwise anyone who'd taken a PED (or an illicit drug possibly laced with one) would simply avoid the test and cop the lesser penalty.

So many here are missing the point The Collingwood pair were caught and punished Whitfield deliberately avoided a drug test which very clearly is well known to carry presumption of guilt and a maximum penalty These guys are indoctrinated on this on induction and regularly - avoid a drug test = guilty.

as long as hawthorn still have their 2nd round pick for next year then (begrudgingly) this time i agree with the afl can't believe i'm defending hq - lol

Like it's 1964...

The thread is about Jordan Lewis so if you don't mind I'll begin my response by referring to him. Lewis is 30 years old. He has 264 games of AFL football behind him and has played in four premierships. He is mature, a family man and handled himself with assurance and self-confidence over his decision to leave Hawthorn. I think the football world gave him great credit for this and he deserved it. Very few true Hawthorn supporters are going to argue with him about this or boo him when he runs out on the field against their team wearing a Melbourne jumper. By contrast, Tom Scully was a mere kid at 20 on the night when the events I described took place. I don't have the slightest doubt that he wasn't being entirely open and frank with me during our conversation. I mentioned how nervous and distracted he seemed and how he often checked his mobile phone during the evening. This happened most when he was asked about the knee injury that had affected his season and about his future. I never believed for a minute his claim that he hadn't "seen any offers" and that he would sit down with his management to decide on his future after the game. That decision had been done and dusted for some time by then. There were however, other parts of the conversations we had that night (and others were also taking part) during which the nervousness wasn't so apparent. He joked about Sam Blease having a big head, he talked about his family life and his experiences at the club including his respect for Jim Stynes. I'm prepared to accept what he said about those things as truthful. His obfuscations only came on the point of his future because he had a very good reason not to reveal the truth. Tom Scully was about to leave Melbourne and I believe there was a single motivating factor behind the move - the money. I don't believe for a second that Stynes "hounded" him, nor do I believe he was involved in any conduct that constituted a "meaningful factor in Scully's decision to move". I stand completely by my point of view. The conversation took place in front of others including some of his teammates and I also had discussions with people involved at the club including a Board Member that reinforce my view. I'm not surprised however, that you were told these stories. I'm not suggesting you lied but there were clear divisions of opinion at the time and there were those who had their reasons for pushing the self-serving line they gave you. There were people who had reason to dislike Jimmy - perhaps because he led the move to push them out of power. We're all too aware of the power struggles that blighted the club, causing great damage over too long a period that thankfully has now come to an end. I'm puzzled however, that you think I'm being naive about this - "he stated that he had not been involved in any negotiations with Melbourne or anyone else". I think the statement was correct. The negotiations were conducted by his manager with his father looming large in the background. He was a 20 year old kid who wanted to play footy and while adults did the real dirty work for him, it wasn't only the Scully camp that had unclean hands in this. That's why in the end, I'm happy that the thread is about Jordan Lewis and I'm clear in the knowledge that the club is heading in the right direction with people of his ilk in the foreground and a lot of very positive people in the background.

I'm not surprised and I don't believe the story because I have a different understanding - one that came directly from the horse's mouth. On 31 August 2011, I attended the Fawkner Hotel and with about 20 others, had dinner with four members of Melbourne's team - Tom Scully, Cale Morton, Stef Martin and Max Gawn. It was the week before the last game of the season, one which he eventually withdrew from due to general soreness. For a time during the evening, I sat next to Tom and in our discussions (heard by others), made him aware that my family had a business connection going back several years with his father's roofing company (which he had recently resigned from as a Director). He seemed nervous and distracted during the evening, often checking his mobile phone. Tom spoke about the lingering issues that he had with his knee that year and said he felt that they were all manageable and that he would be over them after the break in between seasons. On the subject of his future, he stated that he had not been involved in any negotiations with Melbourne or anyone else. He told me that he had not "seen any offers" but that after the game on Sunday, he would sit down with his management to decide between then and the B & F in a few weeks' time. I asked him how he felt the club had treated him in the circumstances and he said he couldn't be happier. They hadn't put any pressure on him and were aware that he would be talking to his management at the end of the season which he said had been his position since March. On Jimmy Stynes who had been fighting cancer for two years and was extremely ill at the time, he said he was full of admiration and he had no issues with Jim's comments earlier in the year. He said he didn't even believe they were directed specifically at him. For the record, I thought after that night that Scully was gone. I respected fully that his decision was a difficult one but, on the figures I had heard that he was being offered, there was no real choice. His departure was announced about a week and a half later. Usually, I would be more than somewhat bemused that five years after the event, a story emerges that flies in the face of everything that I was told that night but I'm not any more because I've heard this sort of scuttlebutt before. Several months after Scully departed, stories started emerging that he left the Demons' 2010 end of season trip to China because of the drinking culture of the players (Tom was apparently a teetotaler). At the time he returned, Phil Scully told my brother-in-law that he left early because of serious health issues involving a family member. When I hear allegations made about a dead man that he can't respond to, it brings out the cynic in me.

Jesus H. Christ. Do we need a thread for every dud where the OP tries in vain to make them sound enticing while everyone else shudders at the thought?

Green was the Lions leading goal kicker twice in what was essentially 4 seasons. His last season (in which he kicked 25 goals by the way) and half of this season were cruelled by injury: http://www.lions.com.au/news/2016-01-13/injury-update-green He was delisted because he was asking for too many $'s and an agreement couldn't be reached... this probably reflected more on his injuries and the fact it might take time for him to fully recover from his foot injury than his abilities, so he would have been deemed as not being worth the $500k he was asking: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/pay-dispute-leads-to-josh-greens-departure-from-brisbane-lions-20161025-gs9uw7.html I don't think he would be a waste of a rookie place at all... he really impressed me in a number of games I saw him play early in his career at a time when the Lions weren't at such a low ebb.

Everyone start saying maybe we should look at Green, Stuie will start saying we probably shouldn't. As for me I can't believe Josh Green and Todd Banfield are 2 different people.

Agree Nutbean. The payment issue wreaks of absolute small mindedness. AFL players get paid - it's a professional sport. That some people here still can't wrap their head around this (and the sums involved) diminishes their opinion in relation to this issue. Plainly, Dawes took his contract seriously and he was committed to the club - he just failed to deliver. I expect, more than anyone else, he's upset about that. Good luck to the bloke - seems to be a quality individual.

So you've got an opinion, which you repeat endlessly. Very impressive. Of course if you do a bit of research you might have a different opinion; but you don't so you won't. Welcome to the post-factual world.

??? B*gger the money, I'm trying to figure out whether Alice will get done for loan sharking, drug dealing, or tax avoidance. Although it looks very much like poor chump Charlie, already out a donut and a chocolate cake, will be sent to play in Alice Springs. So maybe she'll get done for soliciting too. It's late. I think I may have eaten one of those cookies.

Like with the Essendon thing, the BS and denial is almost more offensive to me than the actual act. At least the Bombers could blame rogue Dank, these peanuts blaming the girlfriend is nothing short of pathetic.

Titus all over it: http://titusoreily.com/afl-statement-on-jaeger-omeara-trade/

I kinda agree with the AFL. If Hawthorn traded in an additional second round pick, they should be able to on-trade this as long as they retain their own.

I am not sure why we are debating money paid to Dawes ( apart from accuracy) At a players best he is worth $X. It costs $X amount to lure a player out of a club. Tom Mitchell apparently is being paid more at Hawthorn than at the Swans. We paid a good sum to get Dawes to the MFC. It didn't work out. We have paid rookies a rookies salary and not one game has been played. Lynden Dunn was paid a salary and we got 4 matches out of him. We have had high hopes for JKH in the first season yet he has hardly played a game in the last two seasons. Do we reflect on every player that hasn't got many games and bemoan that they were being paid ? Or the reverse - Anything paid to Jayden Hunt up until this season has been nothing more than an investment in the future as he didn't get a game. Now Hunt is looking like a decent investment. Some players work out - some players don't. From where I am sitting Dawes put in, wasn't a disruptive prima donna as some footballers are . Bottom line is - his body did not allow him to play enough games and when he did he didn't take enough marks or kick enough goals. I thank Dawes for his efforts ( which I don't think should be doubted) and wish him well.

This thread? Seriously, there's way too much Essendon talk on here as it is.

I wouldn't be surprised if Roos really rated him, hence his mind-boggling selection most weeks he was actually fit, but Goodwin doesn't rate him. And he'd be right not to. The time is right for Chris to move on.

FFS

As he played for a bottom side the number of opportunities he had to get the ball and score would have been far less than most if not all other teams, so his output needs to be judged on opportunities not just number of goals. I think it would be better to judge him by his work ethic, kicking efficiency, accuracy, etc... I doubt he will make it to the rookie draft, but if he does he is probably a better option than some pimply 18 who will take a few years to mature.

The Western Bulldogs just won a premiership with one of the most difficult runs seen in a finals series and people here are complaining about a couple of games in the Northern Territory and a game at Etihad.

Well here it is straight from the horses mouth. Read into it what you will. Eddie McGuire flatly denies Collingwood has spoken to Paul Roos about coaching in 2018 It would seem strange for Roos to coach again given what he's said in the past about his missus. And if he wanted a non-coaching role we would have found one for him in 3 seconds flat.

From beginning to end the Hawks 'manipulated' the draft. It started on day 1 when they got Vickery as an FA. Initially reported on their website as a 3yr contract. It was hurriedly changed to 2yr. but at the same dollars making it seem a bigger contract. The 2 year deal quallified Richmond to get a round 2 AFL compensation pick, the 3 year deal, with the same dollars did not. Otherwise Richmond could have matched the offer and forced Hawks to trade for Vickery which clearly they did not want to do. That is blatant draft manipulation by both Richmond and Hawthorn. Apparently the AFL 'looked into' it but no known outcome as yet. They did a dodgy deal with Carlton to get the O'Meara deal over the line. Carlton the big losers on the deal - there was chat that Bolton was trying to help his old boss. Wonder when that favour will get called in by Carlton! It ended on the last day when Hawks traded their 2017 2nd rnd pick which as others have stated above, they were not entitled to do. And it looks like the AFL will turn a blind eye to it all, as always when it involves favoured clubs!! It backfired a bit on the Hawks when GCS stood their ground on O'meara and they gave StK a draft pick windfall for their 2016 pick 10 and the dodgy deal with Carlton meant their first pick this year is 88 and next year is around 25 to 30. The AFL should look very closely at all the Hawks draft activity because they have been fast and loose with the rules. And that little Vickery FA manoeuvre opens a hornets nest of dubious FA and trade transactions in the future.

It's not about a best 22 on paper, that changes every week, it's about the 22 players who can play their role the best and i am backing Trenners to be in that mix for most of the year, he was in our top 25 players for a good amount of last year which was a huge effort.

Sick to death of these feather-duster punishments for such egregious crimes. They wouldn't happen in the first place if someone was made an example of! You see the same infuriating [censored] in the judiciary system.

Salem to play the bulk of the year in the Magoo's. I hope I'm wrong but unlike others, I'm still not convinced he's going to be a best 22 player next year, or the years beyond. Hunt will go to an whole other level. Vince will get rubbed out for striking on 3 occasions. Trengove will play regular senior footy. We'll Finish 4th. Play GWS in the Granny. Put our 13th in the cupboard. Party.

i think you have to go to the intent of the rule, chris yes it could have been worded better. all they have to do is add two words e.g. "it may not trade any of their other future selection from that same draft."

Yeah, great. And I always on the AFL's back for legislatin-on-the-fly-and-sly but the spirit of the rule is 'if you mortgage your future 1st rounder, you are staying in the rest of the rounds.' Clearer rules would be great but would make it harder to wrap your head around: If a club trades a future first-round selection, that club must make at least 3 selections in subsequent rounds, either in Rd 2 of the draft, and then, if applicable, Rd 3, and then, if applicable, Rd 4. But if a club keeps its, or obtains another clubs', future first-round selection, it can trade any of its future selections from other rounds. Hard to make rules to cover every scenario...

Here is the actual rule from afl.com.au - If a club trades a future first-round selection, it may not trade any other future selection from that same draft. But if a club keeps its future first-round selection, it can trade any of its future selections from other rounds No scope there for other teams future picks. Actually expressly says 'any other future selections' Pretty clear.

didnt geelong also get some dispensation to allow them to again trade their future picks so they could land one of their new boys. Why have a rules when the AFL just changes them as they like to suit themselves.

The full 2017 AFL fixture comes out on Thursday. New opponents in NT for us: We play GCS as a twilight game in Alice in round 10 and Adelaide in round 17 in Darwin. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-25/new-nt-foes-for-demons Given that our club has deemed that we play there, I don't mind those opponents. If the AFL change our opponents each year it gives us a better chance at a home ground advantage and having the majority of the people at the game supporting us on the night.

I'm sick of these spoiled brats not taking any responsibility for their actions and blaming everyone but themselves. Bust his chops.

I agree this is the most disgusting aspect of this - and likely the AFL are to blame for being so weak and allowing the investigation to go on for so long. You would have thought they'd learnt something from the EFC saga.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/tg-st-kilda-saints saints won twice against bombers, blues and us playing at etihad 6 wins (I think one Carlton game was at the G actually ) only beat injury ravaged dogs and Geelong on an off day at Etihad as teams inside top 8 the draw last year was flattering to them, by comparison our draw was one of the toughest In short they beat the teams below them, got smashed interstate and only beat serious top 8 teams on a fast track Etihad

Honestly, it would sadden me a bit. I know money was a big factor in getting him here, but his place in MFC history would be cheapened in my eyes if he officially becomes nothing more than a paid mercenary. I admit that's more of an emotional response than a logical one. He did a great job at the club and people are entitled to move on in their careers. But he arrived at a unique time to fulfill a unique role, and all his words about Jonesy lifting the cup being one of the best days of his life would suddenly feel a bit empty. By the same token, Roosy is now part of the past. He's entitled to do what he wants. But yeah, it would be a little saddening to see him at Collingwood of all places. Brisbane I could stomach a lot better.

Not so off topic as he has been a major part of the post season - exudes calm, confidence and fairness! To answer your question - he joined the coaching team under Dean Bailey - they had been together at Port. When PJ arrived he was looking for an experienced Football Manager but when PJ got a very experienced coach in Roos, they decided to take a 'rookie' as Football Manager ie Roos didn't need a 'babysitter', and Mahoney cost a lot less. Then let him grow into the role, with PJ and Roos to learn from and guide him. Needless to say, Mahoney has been outstanding! My fear is that some wealthy club will come along and poach him. But I hope that finishing what he started (a premiership with the Dees) will be enough to keep him with us.

The AFL have had to come out and defend the Hawks true to get O'MEARA. They have found an 'interpretation' of their rule that clears them of course. Here is what happened. The AFL rules states that once you trade a future first round pick you can not trade any other picks from that draft period. Pretty clear. The Hawks traded next year's first round pick to the Saints. The rule would say you can't trade anymore picks from next year. The Hawks then recieved next year's second round pick from GWS via Carlton. They then traded this to GC for O'MEARA. The AFL say it is fine as their interpretation of the rule is that it wasn't originally the Hawks pick so doesn't count as a future pick in that draft. The rule clearly doesn't provide this provision, or even hint at it! Just the AFL covering their ass again. You would seriously struggle to make this stuff up. Can we please have someone competent in charge of the league!

They let Kieran Jack go to *Swans, sloppy fax work notwithstanding. *Sydney team

And yet his girlfriend had contacted the club a number of times to tell them about his partying ways. Sounds to me more like he's an unsupervised kid who parties far more than he should.

Alice gives $5 of next week’s earnings to Carl in exchange for a donut. Bob gives Alice $10 of his next week’s earnings in exchange for a batch of old cookies. Alice says to Bob: “Forget that. Give the money to Carl because he is giving me a chocolate cake." How much of her own money has Alice given up?

No. Hawthorn can drop dead and go to hell. Turd flushed.

And we will destroy all opposition on our quest for greatness! I'm having a real "glass half full" evening here.. Spring has sprung

Looks like I was very close to the mark re Eddie being on thin ice: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/eddie-mcguire-gary-pert-looking-shaky-after-drugs-scandal-20161025-gsafga.html Every time I see other clubs in turmoil I thank God that PJ came to us. By him recruiting good capable people who have in turn recruited good capable people, we have become boringly stable. And, I love that our club is boringly stable!!

The AFL exists to make money. They don't care who is involved, as long as they increase income. Cannot see that ever changing, and that's why ASADA/WADA need to come over the top and enforce the full 4 year ban, on ALL parties. My only emotion for anyone in this new saga is the poor girl who passed the info on. When will we bloody well learn to stop buck passing onto the whistle blower, and target the offenders?

Crap. At 16 I decided to give myself the best chance at playing AFL. I stopped smoking dope and drinking alcohol. I still went out, still had fun with mates. Only in the last year (I'm 39) have I started drinking a couple of drinks regulary. This whole peer pressure thing is a cop out. It's an out. I had Mates taking drugs, getting high etc I had plenty offered to me but all I said was "no" Whitfield could have self reported but he tried to be clever. It's backfired. Consequences are imminent.