Gator

He's a fringe player who from memory is on pretty good coin. If his departure allows us to improve the list then I'm all for it. The club will have a plan. We'll never forget ''that kick'', but Harmes is expendable.

Unlike most, I like the look of him. Recruiters don't worry about every error, they more concern themselves by the body of evidence over the last few years and what they've shown they consistently can do. Tsatas is a lovely size, moves really well and shows smarts and balance. The odd erant kick at his age, when he's already shown he can deliver the ball beautifully by foot, isn't overly concerning. He won't be coming to Melbourne but he looks a player to me.

I'm glad they're moving fringe players on. Keep turning the list over.

I don't agree. He'd made the AA squad of 40 in his third and final year at the Crows and they considered him a future captain.

I'm not much of a fan of Bedford, but how many games do you think he played for Casey in 2022 ? B&Fs reward players who play. Bedford would barely have played half their games.

Their allegations should be taken seriously ? Who has said otherwise ?

There's nothing ''dicey'' about due process. Their testimonies may or may not hold up. They need to be adequately tested. I'd hate to be an accused and have Demonland as my judge and jury.

Talk about strawman... You said, ''And are we to infer the testimony of the players and their families are not sufficient evidence?''. Not sufficient evidence for what ? To ascertain guilt ? What conclusion are you drawing here ? Be specific. And no, as stated, I don't agree with that premise and articulated why. To be succinct, so there's no confusion, their evidence, by itself, is NOT sufficient evidence. Is that not arguing the ''merits'' of what someone is saying ? How could I be clearer for you ? What does the following statement mean ? ''but I am past the point of where society has been where we attack the marginalised that have been brave enough to report the assault on THEIR justice'' Who is ''atacking'' them for their anonymous reports ? And stating that ''they are brave enough to report the assault'' is insinuating their evidence is to be believed and that they're victims of the Hawthorn Football Club's behaviour. But these very allegations have been denied and are yet to be prosecuted. You say you don't ''assume guilt'' yet your comments clearly imply that you do. You'd be good at chasing parked cars.

Where are these assumptions on this thread ?

Really ? I haven't read all of the posts on this thread and I've also skimmed past plenty. I also have some posters on ignore. If there's a ''majority assuming the players/families are fabricating their stories'' are you able to quote some of these posts, as I haven't seen them. Btw, I'm not saying you're incorrect. I would have thought the sites moderators would have removed them, but perhaps they missed them too. For clarity, I don't assume the accusations are correct and nor do I assume they're fabricated. I hope for fairness, but don't assume that either.

No, the testimony of players and their families may not be sufficient evidence. You are assuming guilt without any due process. Without the testimony of potential witnesses. Without cross examination. Without the testimony of those being accused. Without the potential to prove lies. In your world accusations are enough. They're not and should never be.

I have no interest in ''half truths''. I have interest in ''the truth'' if it's supported by evidence.

I don't care about ''smoke''. I don't care about 3 different accounts, because they haven't been tested. There could be 10 different "their stories" and I wouldn't make any judgement without treating every single one of them on their individual respective merits.

Coaches have been forced to stand down due to their serious accusations. Livelihoods and (more importantly) reputations have been impugned and potentially ruined. If they won't participate in an AFL investigation then that investigation has next to no credibility.

It's most definitely an undercurrent throughout many of the posts across these 26 pages. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here.

The indigenous players' version of events, or ''their story'' as I keep reading on here, need to be fully tested. There seems to be a presumption that their accounts are beyond scrutiny and are to be accepted as fact. This doesn't sit well with me. I look forward to seeing how these accusations play out with both parties having a fully transparent and fair hearing.

Anything I say about Grundy is done so under one important proviso, his body gets back to being 100% (or very close to it). Grundy is twice AA and twice a Copeland Trophy winner. He's 203cm to Weideman's 195cm. How you can equate their onfield output as being anything remotely similar is not only beyond me, I find it extraordinary.

Aaron Sandilands played until he was 36. He was still playing good footy at 32, but injuries effected his final years. Dean Cox played until he was 33. Shane Mumford played until he was 35. Last good year 33. Paddy Ryder played until he was 34 and looked like he could go again. Todd Goldstein is playing good football at 34. And is going again. Ben McEvoy played until he was 33. Last good year 32. My point ? Not many ruckman are AA at 24 like Cox and Gawn. Most start playing their best footy from 25 onwards. And plenty can be important contributors well into their 30s. Grundy plays all of next year as a 29 year old. For me that doesn't put him near the back end of his career, it puts him smack bang in the middle for a ruckman. How many rucks reach their peak before the age of 26 ? More-so 28+. Our premiership window should be at least the next 4 years. At the end of this period Grundy will be 32 and should still have some years left. Subject to injury he should play at least 100 games. You may not think Grundy will work, or you may wonder how it will work, but if he's injury free his age for our list demographic is not only fine, it's perfect. The only proviso is his injury status. So dismiss Grundy as a good trade target all you want - no problem - but stop using his age as an issue. From an age perspective, he's in the "window" at the exact time we are.

The onus is on you to go through each point and prove their falsehoods. It's entirely unsurprising to me that you're not up to the task. And if you're right, I'm sure those in the wider community (who disagree with him) will be at pains to point out his errors. Perhaps you're waiting for others to show the way.

So Mordy, once a factional member of the ALP and former ALP candidate ruled against Bolt ? Shock horror. If you want to refute the comments in Bolts article you're welcome. But I'm entirely unsurprised in your two posts since some of it was shared you've declined to do so. Unless you share sometning more meaningful don't expect a response.

Yes, I know. So what ? Leftist activist judge (and former terrible VFL footballer) Mordy Bromberg made a shocking judgment. It's Rob Hulls legacy. In fact, one of the complainants subsequently went on Bolt's television show and said he was right, which was a pretty brave thing to do. Leftist judges unbelievably convicted George Pell, only for that verdict to be overturned by all 7 High Court Judges. What an indictment on those pathetic judges.

The Left despise Andrew Bolt, so many on here need to check their blood pressure because I just mentioned his name. 🤣 I won't quote too much of his article in today's HS, but here's a snippet re Pearce. Where did Pearce learn such a string of falsehoods and exaggerations? In school? And how many other young Australians have been coached into such hatred of our past and institutions? In fact, there was no “genocide”, and while land was “stolen”, Aborigines today have some form of control over 49.3 per cent of Australia. Nor has the Aboriginal culture and way of life been “erased” so much as adapted or abandoned. Western civilisation is more attractive and makes for an easier life than foraging for yams and grass seeds. It’s also given Aboriginal women more rights than male-dominated tribes ever did. As for the “stolen generations”, the courts are yet to find a single person “stolen” from their family just because they were Aboriginal, and not abandoned or in perceived danger. Cue the melts, but if you disagree, try using facts over emotion. And try not to argue with me. I take no credit for Bolt's arguments. I share because some may be interested.

You could list 100 chronological events of the past and they would mean precisely nothing when evaluating this potential trade. It's a non sequitur argument. There are legitimate reasons why some aren't sure of a Grundy trade; Lumumba, et al, isn't one of them. As for the trade ? I'm open-minded. The idea that the competition's best core midfield is serviced by multiple AA calibre ruckman for 100% of game-time is somewhat compelling. In and of itself it's a tremendous advantage going into any game. But how would it work ? For the longevity of both players, as well as integrating a workable system, I suspect you'd look to play both for approx. 75% game-time. It feels like Grundy would be the main ruck and perhaps play 60% ruck with Max at 40%. If both are playing 75% game-time then they're on the ground for roughly 90 of 120 minutes, i.e. Grundy 54 minutes as main ruck and Gawn 36 minutes. This would then leave Grundy with 36 minutes not in the main ruck position and Gawn with 54. Btw, this isn't meant to be a precise exercise and their time on ground together would be staggered across 120 minutes. Under the above scenario Gawn has approx. 13.5 minutes per quarter of game-time where he's either in the forward half or behind the ball - just under half a quarter while he's not the main ruckman. The corresponding time for Grundy is 9 minutes per quarter. Is it workable ? Can either hit the scoreboard enough to concern the opposition ? Or are they a liability while they're not the main ruck ? What other tactics does Goodwin have in mind ? For me it's workable IF the forward-line is potent without either player's presence up forward. If the connection is much better, if McDonald gets back to his best, if van Rooyen is somewhat of a revelation, if a key forward trade target comes to fruition, or if Brown returns to form (I have dounts). One expects more of the same from Fritsch and Pickett. But general ball movement from defence to the F50 needs to improve a heap. It can. There are pros and cons for me, and I fully understand the skepticism, but I also see a pretty exciting upside. Imagine it worked while we're in our flag window. Some times you have to take a risk. *I'm assuming both Grundy and Gawn have no ongoing injury concerns. They're both in their prime as ruckman. Many rucks play to 34-35 years of age. Plenty of smart people can't see it working, plenty of smart people can and plenty have an open-mind.

Hopefully next year the commentators will pronounce van Rooyen's name correctly. It's pronounced van Royen. In this quick clip it's the first question he's asked. I thought his own supporters would also like to be sure. https://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/1165273/walk-talk-a-minute-with-jacob

It wasn't that Jones thought Jackson had changed his mind, Jones stated that he had changed his owned mind. A subtle but major difference. Even then, it was clear Jones wasn't privy to any new intel.