Rhino Richards

He is not likely to be one of them.

I think you run a very good site. So all those posts about you and he catching up to go to the footy..... <_< Do you by chance produce two membership tickets when you seek to enter the ground?

If he is a 5th rounder in a bottom ranked club then he must be worth having then.

Sorry, Redleg. I did say off the top. Find yourself included. I would have had you in front of WJ....but its his site. But you are right about the majority of poster recycling naive media opinion and hybebole

It's Meesen. He has another year on his contract. He wont be paid out. He has a serious injury. He has not made it yet. However if his injury is serious and career threatening then the Club should consider paying his contract. Seven years of injury plagued football sends a message to even the dimmest sod. He is defintely not No1 ruckman in DB's eyes. PJ is not good enough but also has another year to go. Why would we add Jamar as willing trade bait? So in your eyes we have Meesen who has a lingering foot injury and a raw Spencer left. Do you think we are short a big man or two? I would not put any weight on your floss statements of what we will or wont do. Beyond motherhood statements you have no info of substance.

Ah...hubris. B)

You have not worked it out. I'd back Hannibal, Bob, Fan, WJ and possibly Jekyll off the top. The rest I dont think I would back. There are some like Freak and Nudge...Run a mile!!

Agree. Trade McNamara? Now what has he done that has created any market value? zzzziippppp!

Like his father, pasties...

Great last quarter and well done Lions. The Blues got everything they deserve. Good riddance. Could not think of a better finish to the season for them. Will Judd be required to explain an unprovoked hand/fingers in Riscotelli's eyes when the Lions player was on the ground?

No it wasnt. And as if this Forum is any base of expertise beyond one or two posters here. Is it? Not according to some but continue with the hyperbole...... BTW, the cheap shots at the kid are unwarranted and ignorant and more a poor reflection of the posters than the player.

Your "law" of either tradeable or untradeable is conditional on a number of issues. You're trying naively to make it an absolute situation. It isn't. And just because a player has a contract that in itself does not make him untradeable.

The reality is that the statement "all players are tradeable" is conditional on their being the right offer, a consenting player and an obliging club. In 2006, as Captain of Premiership team, Judd was untradeable by WCE. In 2007, he was traded with the right situation being there.

He cant out body the big forwards like Brown and he cant keep up with the Riewoldts. Lacks pace and always has. I'd back Frawley and Garland before I'd risk Rivers.

Doyle may be mad but please no more of that iconic gnome John So. MCC ratepayers just cant afford his incompetence.

Do you think the Saints might just be aware of McLean in the 3 years of subsequent games he has played particularly against the Saints? <_<

Case dismissed. He stays until the bleeding stops!!!

I hope there very desperate!

Correct. Could someone at least claim that Rivers "bleeds red and blue" then we know that he is untouchable?

Being the just one of six backman is not basis for being a keeper especially when that player is injury prone, lacks pace, body strength and disposals skills. And what he does bring to the team can be covered by younger and as or more capable players. You have already noted that he is going to decline over that time so why would you not try and get something for him now rather than him struggle for a game (eg Yze) and him being worthless on the market. You advocatre using him sparingly which implies we are carrying him in some form to ride out the next couple of years. Thats not good enough and MFC of all clubs cant act like a charity that it has been at times to some past senior players. The fact that you would trade him for a 1st round pick contradicts your arguments. We wont get a 1st round pick for him but we will get close to his maximum value now. You may well rate Rivers but you clearly have some fundamental question marks about him. His retention on the sympathetic terms is not fair to the other players and to our push for Sept success. A sensible trade involving Rivers is the only plausible deal I have seen on here. Nothing new as lopsided deals dishing up crud is nothing new here.

Have you looked into the tea leaves and seen the scenario that Rivers cant get through a pre season for a sixth time and cant play? Does not bear thinking. He is hardly an area of strength and Garland, Frawley and Warnock can ably match any opponent you would consider for Rivers and more. Remember he is our third best backman according to his most ardent supporters. The issue with what we do with Pick 9 is a separate matter to what we get for Rivers. Try again with the tarot cards.

Because you dont do that if your a responsible Club and want you remaining players (the remaining plates of meat) to feel that the Club is the place they want to play. The Croad deal showed the precedent of how stupid Freo were to trade for him without approval? Your example is unrealistic and does not demonstrate your position at all. Amd even if Port did that they would do it against a backlash of other player who will be wondering about how they will be treated. Its not about the rule. Its common sense. Focus on that

That's enough to give an idea about dealing while the suns out. Any possible upside for Rivers at 25 (when traded) is clearly clouded by his fitness. One more serious injury and his value would be zip. If we got a first round pick for Rivers I would sign it. I would have thought River's continued fitness is much if not greater uncertainty than the issues you raise. Garland is a class act and was playing very good football at the start of this year before his injury.

Why would a Club trade a player to a another Club that they player does not want to go to and has stated so? What do you think the remaining players and their managers think in future negotiations with a Club that would willing screw one of its own? Its creates a nasty precedent. Why would a Club trade for a player who has stated that he does not want to play for them? You would think we are trading slabs of meat. The Croad matter happened in 2001(?). They are alot smarter than that now and clubs just dont trade players in particular quality players without their consent.

If Staker is the standard of whats around among the NQRs then MFC should keep its gun locked away in its holster.