deanox

Can we have devils and demons in the same comp? i can't really see a reason why not if the jumpers are different? Maybe a black/brown jumper with a white horizontal stripe like a tassie devil?

the players argue for free agency, because they feel they should be allowed to work for whoever they want to - they shouldn't have to travel, they should be allowed to pick the best offer etc, like any other worker. i understand that but disagree because football is not like any other profession. the players forget that even though they are professional, the clubs are not. the clubs are run by paying members and a volunteering board of directors. im not worried about which teams it will favour in the short term with regards to drafting position etc. i am more concerned about the overall affect on the league. why should you be allowed to buy players and thus buy a premiership? it wasn't a problem when players got 10 pounds for a match, but now we are talking obscene millions of dollars it makes a difference. whats the point of the salary cap? the afl would argue that the salary cap prevents free agency from taking over the market (ie everyone is still on a level playing field, can only pay a total of so much), however everyone knows that the salary cap means not much atm with certain clubs flauting the rules as it suits them. this will only be worse if those same clubs also are allowed to chase whoever they want, without having to trade draft picks for them, or pay them above their value to ensure they slip through the preseason draft. ie could you imagine if FA was introduced before judd left WCE? carlton could offer him the same deal they did (salary plus visy bonus). he could say yes. afl signs off because it 'is in the cap' WCE get nothing. carlton keep the players and draft picks they traded. the next year they buy warnock again. at this point they realise they need a forward to replace fev. they have the option of throwing money at whoever they want to buy that last missing piece in their puzzle. what i am saying is that FA will destroy the fabric of the competition we know, and ensure that not many clubs ever win a flag again (just like premier league).

i voted watts, only because it wouldn't surprise me to see him named any week. that being said, i think mcnamara is most deserving of the spot. and given this is his second year at the club is probably ready t at least get a glimpse so we can see how he goes. the reason i didn't pick him however, is that we have a pretty chockers backline and it may be hard for him to get a game.

Firstly I figure the side will be Tasmania related, not Hobart or Launceston to avoid the split allegiances. Do you think the side will be Tassie, Tasmania or Tasmanian? Obviously Tigers and Devils are the first things that come to mind for the team name but probably can't be used for obvious reasons. Has anyone got any better ideas? The Apples? The Quolls? The Frogs? The Blue Gums? Pretty average, but am trying to think of something Tasmanian. Any better ideas, or maybe something completely different?

what a bunch of sooks? is it not about having a bit of a kick and a bit of fun? its not like we have training sessions and are a tight knit unit with military type discipline. there are other forums out there that im sure we can get a game against, and i am very keen for another run. after all, my footy career is stalling at only 1 game, and i want to add to my goal tally...

free agency will mean the salary cap is hard to police (currently exceptions like a chris judd bid off are very rare, and as such there probably are not many cases of clubs cheating the cap to 'buy' a player, probably more likely to cheat the cap to retain players, which imo is the lesser of two evils). free agency will result in a premier league type farce where clubs buy whoever they want. maybe not to the same extent, but i hope our game never gets like that.

im not sure what my thoughts are on this. firstly, i want us to play as many games as possible in melbourne. if we were selling 2-3 games a year for the next 5 years for an obscene amount that would put us back in the black i wouldnt be as dissapointed as possibly losing 2 -3 homegames from the G every year indefinetly. it appears to me to be a step back from 'melbourne' and the mcc deal. i would only consider it if we were still going to get a maximum of 5-6 interstate trips (including the darwin games) and 12 or more games at the g (9 home games and 3 away games). and as part of the deal I would want to ensure that we never have to play a home game at TD. if it was long term i would be dissapointed i think, as it is going against everything else we have been moving towards,

is it selfish to ask that its before the 27th so that i can see the game live? (before i go overseas?) lol

a) i'm sure he sounds exactly like the type of person who would donate money away and B) he was bankrupt, which meant he had nothing, its not like he already had a couple of houses and this was icing. FWIW i would donate some money, but probably not if i won 400K. thats not even enough to buy a house these days...

im not sure if we got a holding the ball decision in our favour yesterday and i think there should have been at least 4. still wouldn't have won the game though. usually umpiring is a big gripe of mine, but ive watched 3 matches this weekend, and it has been the best umpiring i have seen for a long time (read 5-10 years at least). the key has been 'put the whistles away' its the freekicks that they shouldn't have paid that are normally the problem.

juniors attack on it was fantastic, he hit the players hard, hit the ball hard and was in the play all day. his best game for the year imo.

havnt we done this topic in a few other threads the past weeks? Cale Morton on GC hit list includes a link to the article which describes the compo recieved. Players safe from being poached by the Gold Coast players who are contracted, uncontracted and whoi we dop/don't want them to take. AFL secret draft gold Coasts swoop on uncontracted players edit: anyway, this thread isn't actually about free agency, its just about the GC17 uncontracted player grab. thats not free agency, thats stay, draft or GC.

perhaps. but the difference is cale is doing it on his own in a team that has won 5 games since he has been there... im not saying rioli isnt great or destined to be a star, but i just wonder if we'll still be having this debate in 3-4 years because they are such different players. sort of like comparing ablett senior and junior.

even though cale is 14th for the league in disposals? (6 disposals of the top 10...) I'm not sure the difference is as big as you think.

it was my understanding that one of the major reasons WC passed on morton was because they didn't expect him to hang around west with his brothers back in melbourne.

maybe it is meant to read 1%'s because I am sure that I have seen those listed in this report previously?

can someone tell me what the stat 'assists' is?

which are why I was asking if anyone had actually heard the speech and could comment directly.

if you are in fact coglin, i would back stynes version of all events based on the way you rant and rave on here...

if the senior players did indeed step in and save wallace this week, perhaps this week will be the equivalent of a bounce back from the sacking of the coach game?

my point is that we are not arguing over what was said. nor are we arguing over the content of what was said. we are arguing over a biased recollection of individual excerpts, in which the scribe has admitted to making changes to some words because he believed the speaker made mistakes. we also have no context to these excerpts in the frame of the speech etc and are making our own minds up about what exactly he was refering to (on field? off field? membership base? playing group? club as a whole?). I didn't hear the speech so I can't comment. That is why I asked if you heard the speach. You clearly haven't.

i had a laugh about that, because I only read it after I had posted...

biased? making this up? when did I suggest either? who does coglin say that stynes said was nuturing an environment of exclusivity? 'he'? then coglin goes on to say 'i think he meant'... invent my own reality? i think not. but i havnt heard the speech, only read one biased (we know coglins view is biased, because he took afront to it) transcript of one line (which coglin admits he has altered words to make sense of it). i don't think jim is the messiah. i think he is doing a good job in charge, but he is just the president. it is the club that needs to move forward together, not just jim. and coglins act of running to the media, is typical of someone trying to destabilise or bignote. and given that coglin has held position in the past, re is someone who would realise this.

is that the same system that was recently adapted to AFL? someone did a study of all the stats to work out which ones were linked best with success. I think one of the outcomes were that teams with running bounces were likely to be successful. Whether that means that teams that create space and take on the game win matches, or otherwise I am not sure. Clearly running around in circles bouncing the ball won't change anything. Bouncing as soon as you get it, to try and bring up your average doesn't help either. Which means that this stat may be invalid as soon as coaches try to employ it. interesting none-the-less.

was he talking about our clubs culture, or was he talking about football players in general? or society in general? or football as a code? without hearing the speech (and I'm not sure if you have heard it either), we are not in a position to debate the semantics or the context of comments that are now being reported, by someone who spoke to someone who got angry when he heard the speech, and someone who is clearly interested in putting his own side across. he was enraged, insulted whatever words he used to describe it, and that in itself indicates that what he says was said probably already has his own slant on it, and is probably not a true and correct reproduction of the speech.