Chris

The hours involved are far greater than you think, my eyes were certainly opened, that is how it stops you seeing your family, the same way many professions work massive hours and sacrifice family time. They also never complained about it, it was just the reality of the job, much like other peoples jobs. As for actors, I am told making coffee and waiting tables can be quite exhausting.

My folks lived next door to an ex senior AFL coach and even though the job may seem to be telling blokes how to kick a ball there is certainly a hell of a lot of work that goes into it, 7 day weeks, always late nights, review after review. Not to mention the man management skills required that would exceed most managers in various businesses around town. While the person in question was disapointed not be a senior coach anymore they certainly enjoyed seeing the family again.

Same one, it also involves the Labor Party, AFL, ASADA, WADA, CAS, the other 17 clubs, all news outlets, the UN, Greenpeace, the International Climate Commission, and the Iranian Government Nuclear program. There are suspicions Kim Jong Un is also involved although that can not be confirmed at this point.

What are your thoughts on Goodwin? Please say you think it is a mistake!

About time, certainly bought a smile to my face but I am not confident at all that the Essendon delusionals will actually see what this is, all they will see is another conspiracy!

As long as we train the house down and have really good training standards then that is all that matters!

Close!

Great post. Makes me think of the Aussie officer in Tobruk who was shirtless digging a trench with his men when a British officer appeared with all the pomp and ceremony and asked why he was not being saluted as a superior officer, only to have the Aussie put his shirt back on and point out that he in fact was the superior officer. The Brit was taken aback that that an officer was doing the digging with his men. It is a great part of our culture than no person is above another and every person in equal (or as close to that as anywhere). This was probably enshrined int eh culture due tot he frontier nature of the country in the early days, everyone had to pull their weight in equal measure or you didn't survive.

Thought another on our list was sure to go before list lodgement, namely Terlich, not so according to the report on the MFC website.

Spot on, what the AFL need to do is take a short term hit in the revenue coming in, by standing up to 7 and telling them how the fixture will be, and if they do that and get all clubs to a sustainable position then the comp will be healthier and the dollars from 7 will be even bigger. It will take some short term pain though, and as the pollies will tell you, Aussies don't like pain if they don't understand why, and most people don't understand economics in any sense.

In the short term it will work, and they did it in the short term to improve the bank balance, they need to switch to more long term planning or things will go south with clubs on the brink of collapse, and when it does go south it will go south fast.

Spot on, and they are doing it badly! Name one other business that would not try to make half of their franchises profitable to strengthen their overall position instead of just handing them cash year after year which only makes the comp weaker. Think they need to go to business school!

Thats true with the BS way the run the league, doesn't make it right or sustainable though. About time the put a business person in charge and not an ex sports player!

That is a pretty poor business case and short sighted at best. 18 fairly strong clubs is far more attractive, and healthy for the league, than 6 really strong clubs, 6 OK clubs, and 6 clubs on the teat. Just one of my gripes with teh AFL and the way they run things. Stop pandering to the TV stations and do what is right for the long term health of league would be the first good step!

The rules around the bans go something like this. You can provisionally suspend yourself while a matter is being dealt with, during this time you can train but can not compete, the reason you can train is because if you are not found guilty then there has been no loss of performance, it makes sense. If you are found guilty and suspended then you can not train until a few months before your suspension is over, this allows people to be back to fitness for when the suspension ends and means the suspended period is more like the actual suspension not the suspended time plus time to get fit. This doesn't sit so well with me. The period of provisional suspension comes off the time of any subsequent suspension so for arguments sake, if the players had been found guilty and the players banned for two years then the six months already served would have meant they only had eighteen months left to serve. Counting this time now when the periods are not continuous goes against logic to me as they had no loss, that was the point of the provisional suspension.

Out of today's HUN, the draw difficulty ladder according to Champion data. 2016 FIXTURE DIFFICULTY LADDER Points are calculated using the difference in each team’s FOR and AGAINST totals at the end of last season’s home-and-away rounds. For example, Hawthorn at +904 points is rated hardest to play against. Carlton at -829 is the easiest. 1 North Melbourne +1302 Play twice: Adelaide, Hawthorn, St Kilda, Sydney, Western Bulldogs 2 Adelaide +1038 Play twice: Fremantle, Geelong, North Melbourne, Port Adelaide, West Coast 3 Richmond +660 Play twice: Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn, Port Adelaide, Sydney 4 Melbourne +545 Play twice: Collingwood, Gold Coast, Hawthorn, Port Adelaide, St Kilda 5 Fremantle +401 Play twice: Adelaide, Gold Coast, GWS, West Coast, Western Bulldogs 6 Hawthorn +298 Play twice: Melbourne, North Melbourne, Richmond, Sydney, West Coast 7 GWS +281 Play twice: Fremantle, Geelong, Gold Coast, Port Adelaide, Sydney 8 Brisbane Lions +219 Play twice: Carlton, Geelong, Gold Coast, Port Adelaide, West Coast 9 Sydney +115 Play twice: Carlton, GWS, Hawthorn, North Melbourne, Richmond 10 West Coast +92 Play twice: Adelaide, Brisbane Lions, Collingwood, Fremantle, Hawthorn 11 Collingwood -20 Play twice: Carlton, Melbourne, Richmond, West Coast, Western Bulldogs 12 Western Bulldogs -189 Play twice: Collingwood, Fremantle, Geelong, North Melbourne, St Kilda 13 Carlton -397 Play twice: Brisbane Lions, Collingwood, Essendon, St Kilda, Sydney 14 Port Adelaide -719 Play twice: Adelaide, Brisbane Lions, GWS, Melbourne, Richmond 15 Geelong -780 Play twice: Adelaide, Brisbane Lions, Essendon, GWS, Western Bulldogs 16 Gold Coast -893 Play twice: Brisbane Lions, Essendon, Fremantle, GWS, Melbourne 17 Essendon -967 Play twice: Carlton, Geelong, Gold Coast, Richmond, St Kilda 18 St Kilda -986 Play twice: Carlton, Essendon, Melbourne, North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs Source: Champion Data Interesting that the measures put in place were supposed to give the lower teams an easier draw, we finish fifth last and get the fourth hardest draw! Get stuffed AFL, I am bloody close to walking away for good with the crap they go on with.

I agree but would add the late Sunday game against the Dogs, it is like the AFL set us up to have small crowds just to justify putting us bad time slots where no one draws a good crowd.

Thought it may be in the wording but it didn't sound good. Thanks for clarifying.

It is absolutely realistic to expect these players not to rape people, assault people, or be violent towards their partners. That is the standard set in society, it is never acceptable. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen but it is not acceptable in society full stop. To brush it off as unrealistic to expect this standard is abhorrent and part of the issue of violence against women and the attitudes of society towards women. You are basically excusing their behavior because others do it. The rest of your comment makes sense but this bit is wrong, it may be the way it is worded but it is the wrong message.

Just wondering, how many players should we have on our list and what quality should those players be? It seems you have no time for anyone that is not an out and out star.

The answer to the question of where to from here for JKH is simple. He stays on the list and works his butt of to improve and at best is in the best 22 and at worst is a good depth player. It always puzzles me that people don't seem to value people who are not best 22, you need them to fill in for the best 22 when injured or suspended so the better the players are who are not best 22 are the better off your team will be. I can't remember who said it but the success of a team is more determined by the strength of the worst 6 playing that the strength of the best 6. We have been really bad in the worst 6 department for ages, that is changing and JKH is part of that picture.

The club would fulfill it's part in the contract by paying him out. The clubs part is to pay, not to have you on the list or to give you games, the players part is to play when asked, it is hard for the players to do this if they walk and play for another club so the two things are different.

Also didn't rate our win against the dogs.

Maybe it was another year as a rookie or this deal. I know what I would chose. It also means if he has a blinder of a year he can go back to the negotiation table and ask for more coin straight away and not have to wait another year or two and risk his form going down or injury.

That was always the stated intention and why I am usually puzzled by the people who question the 3 years he is on for and the so called lack of improvement on the field, especially when we have clearly improved (we have gone from a second grade VFL side to a bottom to mid range AFL side in 2 years!)