Gator

Unlike others, who find profundity in your comments, I don't think you're being rational. You say - Morris writing this really annoys me: "When contacted, Melbourne could not rule out either a player-led or club enforced punishment for the former Gold Coast captain". More likely: TM: Will May be sanctioned? MFC: No comment Why is your version more likely ? I find your version less likely. In the first place, a MFC representative has decided to take Morris' call. If they had no intention of making any comment why take the call ? Clearly, Melbourne knew of the incident. And just as clearly one of the first questions any reporter would ask is ''Will there be any club imposed sanctions ?"'. Reporting 101. It was likely that the leadership group would meet to discuss the situation and that that had not yet happened, so the club could not say with conviction whether there would or wouldn't be a penalty, because at that point they didn't know. And even if in the unlikely event your version is right, so what ? Morris reporting that the club wouldn't rule out a sanction is still on the mark. That's what ''no comment'' means. You know, we won't confirm or deny. You also state: And, if as noted in an earlier post, people in the media know that May is going thru a torrid personal time and not acknowledging that in the article is really low. He has dredged up all his recent past with us, made a big story out of it without regard for May's welfare. All in all, he gives 'gutter journalism' a new low. Firstly, May may not want any private information publicized in an article for the world to see. How do you know May wants his personal life splattered across the media ? Secondly, May having a few beers with friends isn't necessarily symptomatic of any personal trauma. Why do you immediately draw connections with a ''torrid personal time'' and link them with him having a beer with a few mates ? You're the one drawing conclusions here, not Morris. You also criticise Morris for dredging up previous stuff. That's good journalism. To tell this story without referencing his early condition and soft tissue injuries, which led to him being in rehab in the first place, would be inept. Once again, you seem offended by facts. Facts don't care about your feelings. And that's the end game here. Morris is doing nothing more than telling his audience the facts that are at hand. You're the one who's playing the guessing game, while at the same time stating it's ''gutter journalism''. You're guessing that May's personal life should have been included in the article. You're guessing what conversation Morris really had with a MFC representative. And you're guessing why May may have been out drinking, i.e. was it because of his ''torrid personal affair''. You're even guessing that it's torrid. Which it may or may not be. How would I know ? Or you ?

Obviously the first point isn't a concern re Morris. So that leaves the second point. Please quote the exact words, phrase, or sentence that particularly annoyed or offended you.

We've had our moments on here, but I know you're not stupid. Who Morris supports should have nothing (and I mean literally zero) to do with his work content or reporting of ''news''. If Morris was prepared to compromise his journalistic content based upon who he grew up supporting he should look for a new career. I'm staggered people think otherwise. Actually, no, I'm not.

People keep talking about rehab and recovery, but from what I understand he's recovered. He's running freely at training and looking very good. I suspect he's now just getting the k's in as he builds up the required fitness. People love being outraged, so I suppose this is good fodder for them. Btw, I fail to see what Morris has done wrong. He's a journalist trying to get a story ahead of everyone else, or at least be at the pointy end of a story. If May is going to apologise to the playing group then there is a story, however minor I may think it is. Maybe someone can explain to me what Morris has actually done wrong in this instance ?

Apparently it's not a club rule per se, but obviously discretion is advised. Roos carried on like a pork chop saying footy is ''clearly not his no.1 priority'', but for me that's way over the top. Surely a player who's now moving very well according to an interview with Lever can have a few jars on a Sunday afternoon. The carry on over nothing is extraordinary these days.

I'm outraged.

Hearsay. You're taking his word as absolute. I've seen enough of this peanut on various videos to not assume he's telling the truth.

No-one wants us to put the cue in the rack. But I also don't care about playing finals in 2019. I'm not interested in making up the numbers. I almost hope we don't play finals. We have zero chance of a flag in 2019.

Did you not read the bit where Moon says, ''I too hope he gets another game this week'' ?

I don't quite understand this reverence for Keilty's game. Is it because he was a first gamer ? Because his Brother posts here ? I'm scratching my head. He had 6 disposals, 2 marks, 3 hitouts and no goals. If Weideman puts up those numbers he's pilloried left, right and centre. Btw, I'm not knocking Keilty and I'm kind of hoping he gets a second game, but for the life of me I don't get the comments surrounding his first performance. Weideman's first 5 games of the year were all far better than Keilty's game on the weekend.

I don't know about being ''disabled''. He's sharper than plenty of Demonland posters.

Exactly. I don't mind the idea of Keilty having another game, because, like Ethan, I like first gamers getting a second opportunity. Unless they had a mare, which he didn't. But anyone thinking that Keilty's game was so good they'll retain him and drop Oscar only to put Keilty down back when he's trained all year as a defender isn't thinking clearly. That said, Keilty may have to make way for Preuss. He was a late call up for Tim Smith after-all. We're in the business of winning games of footy and picking our best team will dictate selection. They may want Preuss in or decide to recall Weideman, in which case Keilty may have to make way.

"'I'm outraged''. ''No, I'm outraged''. ''I'm more outraged than you''. ''No-one could be more outraged than me''. ''Yes I can, I win at outrage''. ''I'm outraged that you think you're more outraged than me''.

It was a very quiet game, but first games are never easy. Whatever happens he's lived a dream 99.9% of the population never achieve.

That's not possible. It's unphysical.

When I saw you'd quoted me I re-read my post before reading yours and instantly knew what you'd be questioning. I can't help you old man.

Dunn spent years at one of the biggest basket case clubs of all time. Who could blame him ? Although, he's also missing the fact that Collingwood under Buckley wasn't overly pleasant in his first few years, which is why Beams, Shaw and a host of others wanted out. He went to Collingwood at arguably the perfect time. The MFC of today and moving forward will be very different to the MFC of 5-10 years ago.

The Demonland ''go to'' line is to call a player slow. vandenBerg is supposedly slow, yet he's one of the fastest at the club. Petracca is supposedly slow, but his burst speed is better than most at the club. Either people guess, or they don't pay attention.

I would have persisted with Weideman, but it's easy to understand the logic. Win and no-one will be complaining.

While I don't share your sentiment on the quality of his commentary he was clearly a trail blazer, a very nice man, and he's left a lasting legacy. He was better than Peter Landy, who I thought was the pits, so we all see things differently. ?

So, was there an issue with Joel Smith in the JLT ?

Um, no.

It was straight out of this thread. He pointed at Caroline Wilson's June 2018 article regarding internal rumblings over the Pert appointment and asked Riewoldt whether it could be playing a part in the current on-field demise. Riewoldt said playing groups don't usually get caught up in those types of things and thought the issues were far more system based in our playing style. He gave the Pert reference very short shrift. As anyone with a modicum of sense would. Off-field issues can effect a club's culture over time, but Pert has been there 5 minutes and our footy department is well entrenched with strong stability and low turnover. The Board is also stable. The people who think Pert could be an issue probably also think we have 12 years to save the planet. Gullible morons. Btw, my censored word wasn't overly bad and sounded a bit like ''flag''.

Fess up. Who was the Demonland [censored] just on SEN ? Thankfully, Riewoldt hosed down your rubbish straight away.

You mean you can't work it out ?