Mazer Rackham

Someone from the club told him it was a special form from the AFL to get every match review panel finding reduced to a fine.

Plus free agency rules may be tinkered with as a kickback to players receiving more/less share of the pie. And who knows what else. Why guess when you can wait and find out for sure?

Goddamn. People are still jumping at shadows and studying the entrails to work out Jesse's intentions? It's pretty obvious that he's waiting to see (a) which way the wind blows on the CBA, and (b) if this is a false dawn for the MFC. He'd be crazy not to see what happens on these fronts, especially while he still has another year on his contract. Even if his heart says "stay". Why jump now when he can jump later for better $$$ ? Regardless of whether he stays or goes. The radio silence from he and his manager is perfectly sensible.

The AFL has decided, years ago. Are you saying you can't tell which if these it is? They're not conflicted. Everything's running to plan. ... except for a few hiccups like the EFC on drugs, and Coll & Carl crowds down, but have no fear. These will be stage managed as befits a giant of the entertainment industry, to maximise profits.

I'm no fan of the AFL and their make-it-up-as-you-go style of management, but where do you think we got PJ and Roos from? With our no 1 picks in the end of year management and coaches drafts ? The AFL manipulate and stage manage the competition to b*ggery, but without that, we'd be playing on Saturdays in the VAFA against our old rivals Fitzroy. We can't have it both ways. Meanwhile the AFL are putting up goal posts in schools and council grounds around NSW. They've even got some in one of the establishment rugby union private schools in Sydney. They've stolen a march on RL and RU and have the funds and the desire to expand our game into NSW. Imagine a future where NSW is a strong Aussie Rules state. It could happen!

I have no sympathy for the Dogs. I'm still burning about the '54 GF where those jumped up johnny come latelys from the VFA beat us, an establishment VFL club. In our own grand final! Ortn't to of been allowed. On the other hand, I'm enjoying the scenario wherein we are playing finals, and grand finals no less.

Actually I don't think Eddie was being sexist. It's not Caro the woman he hates, it's Caro the journo. But his timing was exquisitely bad, being on the heels of the "White Ribbon" anti-violence against women round, and CFC's announcement of a women's team! Big focus on women and he comes and and says he'll pay money to drown a journo who happens to be a woman. He's got his finger right on the pulse, this McGuire. (Not.)

I've listened to both ... and you really need to listen rather than read to get the full picture ... and the tenor of the two discussions was totally different. On 3AWful they had just been talking to Neil Daniher and they were all mushy from talking to the great man (and rightfully so) but then Tony Shaw chipped in with his comment about holding her under .... and from the groans and sudden intake of breaths, it was clear they all realised, every one of them, that they were very very close to a line, probably over it. And no-one wanted to go there. (Shaw was very contrite talking it over this morning on the radio.) Whereas on scuMMM, Eddie managed to turn the focus to someone who was not even present, but was obviously on his mind, and his motley gang clearly all thought it was magnificent idea, and piled on gleefully. It was nasty. I'm not here to defend Caro, Tony Shaw, Dwayne Russell (all of whom I have nitpicky issues with). (Disclosure: I am quite happy to attack McGuire!) But I do think people should be arguing from a position of strength, ie knowing the facts. Listen for yourselves. AW: https://audioboom.com/boos/4687565-3aw-monday-football-pre-game-coverage-june-13-2016 (from about the 37 min mark) MMM: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4ueYL3rpot0 TL;DNR: AW: Oops, shouldn't have said that; MMM: ha ha ha let's get stuck into Caro!!!

Verily, it is written ... let he who who is without conflict of interest drown the first AFL accredited journalist. (I think that's right. It's all in Deuteronomy 22)

Wilson is not popular with many ... it seems most clubs supporters feel she has singled them out over the years. Whether she has or hasn't doesn't matter. But she is a prominent AFL personality. And two club presidents have said they would pay money to have her drowned. (And one of their cronies said he would personally hold her under.) If that in itself does not ring alarm bells, then to cap it off, it's right on the heels of the "white ribbon" thing AND the announcement of a women's team playing for one of the two clubs. Imagine if the tables were slightly turned. If there had been a recent campaign to raise awareness of and prevent one-punch king hits. And then Eddie says on air "while we're on the subject of king hits, you know what, that Robbo, I would pay good money to see someone king-hit him from behind." (Or imagine the outrage if anyone had dared make a similar level of threat against McGuire himself.) The crassness and lack of awareness would be something to marvel at. If Eddie hadn't repeatedly shown it all before. Fact is, he has low impulse control and is a classic example of "engage brain before putting mouth in gear". But he is "too big to fail". I think the AFL *are* scared of him and his influence on his sizey radio audience. So of course Gil says Eddie's "apology" is enough. Hey Gil. He didn't apologist for making the comments. He didn't say he was wrong for making them. He said he was sorry if anyone took them the wrong way. Was there a *right* way to take them? "There was no malice involved" says Eddie. After suggesting he would pay to have a journalist drowned. Actually I think there was no malice. It's Eddie doing what he always does, which is belittle his perceived enemies in public. That's part one: tear strips off them in public in a jokey fashion. But part two, which is always to say "ah, but we're all mates here, no one's taking offence, it's all in good spirits" and deny his victims right of reply, has failed him again. As it did in the Goodes affair. When will he learn?

Welcome to the wonderful world of Gil the Deal Maker! 1. EFC were done over by some Swiss lawyers who at worst are likely corrupt and at best don't understand our local game. 2. They've been so brave! Gee it must take guts to front up week after week knowing you're going to get hammered. If that doesn't earn you some Friday night games then what does?!? 3. Think of all the lovely money they'll bring in when we've got them up and running hot. 4. 3. How would your pitiable club like to play 5 home games at Etihad and 3 in Darwin? Travel twice to WA and SA. No QB and no Anzac. No? Then shut up.

There's the small matter of booking stadiums, arranging staff for ticketing, security, catering, cleaning, etc etc. Businesses organising boxes for their favourite clients, getting in food & drink .... so many factors. One week is impossible. Even a month would be pushing it.

I hope our players are watching this and thinking the same thing. And getting fired up to take out their frustration on the pies.

To think the Dogs just had their first Friday night game in FOUR YEARS. Meanwhile certain favourite clubs get gifted them, purely on merit of course. EFC will get more Fri nite games next year as it's so important to Gil to get them back on top again. Good old Gil! Always working hard to ensure the integrity of the competition.

Jeffy needs a message that being a pacey goalsneak is not all beer and skittles.

I'd rather him play. Their forward line has worked much better with him out. Although that's also been with Moore in.

Just tell him to catch the ball and WHANGGGGG ... the ball will ricochet off his hands every time.

If we win, I hope they put him in the middle of the circle for the team song and dump soft drink all over him.

"You mean I'm not to defend? Jade, that's going to take some getting used to ..."

The olde legends foretell, that in our hour of greatest need, the once and future captain will return again. "After being dealt a football lesson by the Dogges, and further being easily dealt with by the Saintes and the port dwellers, ye shall wander lost for six days and one, and only then shall the former leader return to guide ye to a gutsy win against the Hawks, in spite of abundant plodding and numerous turnovers, by five points."

Never discount the possibility that someone somewhere is LYING to muddy the waters and gain some kind of advantage, and it may be in a deal that does not involve Hogan. It may be that they think it will help their manouvering with McCarthy, or that it will force up Hogan's price with us and screw up our player payments ... who knows. "Lying is the second language of the AFL" - Kevin Bartlett.

"... when I betray everyone by leaving for Freo! A ha ha ha ha! A ha ha ha ha ha ha ! A HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!"

Yes, we must accept them. It's old ground, but they and the Suns are where they precisely because they are not in footy heartland. That's why a team in Tassie will never get up. Unless it's a transplant which is also unlikely. Tassie is heartland and does not need to be conquered. The AFL are not squirting money up against a wall because they enjoy doing it. In a rare visionary moment, they looked ahead 50 years to forecast the sporting landscape in Australia. Some scenarios emerged. Aussie Rules still the biggest baddest most watched and (one of the) most participated in sports. Possibly expanding into other countries in a serious (non-boutique) way. Aussie Rules overtaken by soccer, or (less likely but still conceivable) rugby league. AFL where soccer is now: modest crowds, limited TV exposure, battling for sponsors in a crowded market. Aussie Rules a niche sport, swamped by soccer, RL, basketball and gridiron. Aussie Rules a quaint relic of the nation's barely remembered past. Like squash, billiards, pony racing, tug of war, or croquet. Aussie Rules and all other outdoor games barely played at all in favour of computer games. (Not so likely, but again, due to lack of space for one thing, feasible.) Which is it to be? The AFL have seized the moment with their bags of TV cash to make a pre-emptive strike at scenario #1. This is like nation building infrastructure. They have the money and the will to do it. And now is the time. Not to do it, to sit on their laurels, would be to concede the initiative and risk one of the less preferable scenarios to come into being. In the battle for the survival of this game, they have to go forward, or go backward. Life has a way of showing us that things don't stay the same. Which is it to be? We may quibble with many things about the formation of GWS and GC, and of course we do, but the whole point of their existence is something we should all be behind. We must accept them.

It doesn't matter what Barrett thinks. He can be right, wrong, somewhere in between, or sideways, and nothing changes. Hindsight and $4.50 will get you a medium skinny soy mocha latte with a tofu marshmallow. (But don't mention Barrett to the barista or he'll jump it to $5.50 and then short change you.)

So the AFL has no recourse but to have an unclear and confusing, unsatisfactory adjudication of their game? Take the throwing the ball. At worst, it's clear throwing of the ball. At best, it's so borderline that maybe it really is technically legal? Is it in the spirit of the game? Is it a good look for the game? No. A bit of tough love would go a long way. Anything that is not a clear cut handball gets pinged as throwing the ball. The players would adjust in a jiffy. The price you pay is that a few legal handballs get pinged. Better that than have a growing and continuous blight on the game because the AFL sits on their hands. Result: no more suspect throwing the ball. Same with the raising of the arm to draw high contact. Is it in the spirit of the game? Is it a good look for the game? No. Penalise it. Don't reward it. Especially borderline instances. The players will rapidly adjust and we'll have a better game and better spectacle. The AFL has done this very thing with deliberate out of bounds. What's stopping them with these more egregious and offensive incidents?