M_9

AFL rule 26 covers moving a player from the Primary list to the LTI list. It's far from straightforward. I reckon there'd be no issue with McAdam. However, I'd doubt the panel would approve the move of LK. Just my opinion/interpretation.

Werridee says he'll see you at dawn tomorrow. Come armed.

Nah, it's the short par 5, water on the right.

I don't suppose Kolt's 10-12 weeks out counts as a LTI? (cue Boy George). I suspect the injury needs to occur during the season proper? And what constitutes 'long term'?

King's 'why is it always George?' a reference to George Wardlaw's injury (ie nothing to do with us?).

You'd think he'd be given substantial game time against North and Free.

Nah. I taught 'em maths. And how to lie about their height.

I taught both Pat Dangerfield and Travis Boak as 17 year olds. Both 2-3cm taller now.

I'm curious: how do you get from Seattle to Gosch's on a Myki?

Yeah, well I don’t know about all of youse, but I don’t need any help to look silly.

Only one remaining - one retired.

Enjoyed a meal named after your horse in Italy a coupla months back. Maybe have a fiver each way.

Bert Newton got 'Boy' and 'Roy' mixed up also (for those old enough to remember). One minute mark:

I'll be keen to hear from track watchers in regard to the difference between our previous forward coaches (Stafford et al) and our new forward coaches (Chaplin et al). Blind Freddy could see that for the past x years there appeared to be little or no 'system'. And for goodness sake can we see JvR played as a full time forward.

Well, we all know his role for the first three matches. Unfortunately it's not new.

Fair analysis IMO. No excuses given that we'll start the season with a full and fit list unlike this year.

Not sure. We have McVee, Bowey, Salem, AMW and possibly Brown. His kicking lacks depth and I'd rank those five above Bailey.

When you're Bailey's size you need a point of difference - clever/good user, tough inside, fast, skilful. Think Bowey, Viney, Windsor, and Chandler (?). I don't see any of attributes in Laurie.

Oh no, you're telling me we have more than one?

NO. We have MJ, Fullarton, Kentfield and Sestan on our list - all untried. Tom Campbell might be tried - couldn't be worse (as a forward) than Petty. I'll say it again, no more delisted players. Success rate is close to zero across the league.

List cloggers IMO (current): Billings, McAdam, Fullarton, Laurie. Potential: Adams, Verrall, Sestan, Kentfield, Campbell. Yes, we need 'depth' players, backups, whatever term you use, but four of those named have been delisted by other clubs for a reason. Reports from Casey are that Jefferson is the only player that could debut next season. I hope I'm proved wrong.

No DGB. No Narkle. We've fully subscribed when it comes to list cloggers, with at least eight.

No. No. No. Billings, McAdam, Fullarton and before them Hunter and Schache. Surely we've learnt our lesson.

David King last night reeled off half a dozen players, either delisted by their clubs or told to explore their options, who were taken late in the draft by another club. He included Billings. Not one success story. I just can't see Billings, McAdam or Fullarton getting a regular gig. And then we have Laurie, Adams, Sestan, Verrall, Kentfield and now Tom Campbell. Spargo has a lot of ground to make up. Hore is only ever going to be back-up. That's close to 25% of our list. I don't want Freddy Kruegar. Nor do I want Membrey.

Tim, IMO, has remained very restrained in answering Sam Manure's questions. I would have said "Sam, you've banged on about Clayton being desperate to get to the Cats for two weeks. If you'd listened to Andrew Mackie you would have heard that it was Clayton's manager who contacted Geelong believing that a change of club would be in his (Clayton's) best interest. Given that the manager would have picked up a tidy commission on a new contract, it certainly would have been in his interest for Clayton to move to Geelong."