45HG

The worst part about this thread is that it isn't even specilating about Scully anymore, it's now speculating about other people's speculations (in some cases, 3rd hand other people's speculations).

That's my point though. Too many journalists use the latest match to propogate a generic theory. I don't believe the Gold Coast fight out harder than we do. I don't believe Richmond or North do either. I didn't see the interview but by reports here, he's saying that othery young(er) teams in our position fight harder. I disagree. Again, we've had 3 good wins, 4 bad losses, an average win, an average loss, a fought loss and a fought draw. I think, given the injuries we've sustained to key players we've fought at least as well as these other teams. If anyone disagrees on North, compare our stats against top 8 sides over the last two years to theirs, ouch!

Ha - would love it if that's true. I suppose he would ignore Gold Coast's 8 losses at an average of 77.5 points. They really gave it a crack when they had 15 goals kicked on them in a record breaking 1st quarter against the Bombers... The last two weeks we've had a younger team in terms of games played than GC. They fought back against West Coast and were pounded by the powerhouse North Melbourne at home. We beat Essendon and had a shocker against the reigning premiers. Richmond have been talked up no end. They've beaten North in a close one, Brisbane (who we beat), Freo after their bye and the Bombers. They were obliterated by the Pies and smashed by the Hawks (sounds familiar, hey). Richmond have also lost to Port Adelaide and a Bulldogs side seemingly in a world of pain. Obviously we haven't had an ideal season but I score it at 3 good wins, 4 bad losses, 1 average win, 1 average loss, 1 well fought draw and a fought out loss. In terms of our age and players lost through injuries, I think that's about to be expected - in terms of player output anyway.

In terms of Pickering's comments, who was he talking about in relation to "other young teams" having a go every week?

Marc Murphy re-signed didn't he?

Argh!!

Great, great call. Brilliant. Insightful, well-thought out, no-doubt backed up by a mirage of facts. Fantastic. Thank you. I suggest when he gets the ball, we all turn our backs from him. That way he can know for sure that he's made the right choice if indeed has has decided to leave, and if he hasn't he'll know for sure that he should because a few articles about his contract are damaging MFC's supporters...somehow.

Looks like a pretty nice day at the moment. I've definitely noticed the last few years that the Pies fans just don't rock up in their usual numbers. This probably won't be different. I'm hoping 75+ given their form, last week's win and last year's draw and 1 pointer. Probably mid-60s though.

Not sure where this myth began, well I do, but it's conpletely unfounded.

Good news. Did anyone see his face when Sam said he thought the Dees had no chance?

Looks worse in slow mo IMO, still not great.

Evans, Petterd, Bate emergencies?

Then you should probably care if he stays or goes. I stand by my post above.

Makes absolutely no sense. Basically all I get from this new 'rumour' is that the journos are pretty satisfied he hasn't signed so they're looking for a new angle to generate speculation.

71,645

Your carrying on with this issue is beyond a joke. Obviously the moderating team didn't approve of your post, as it was subsequently removed. The issue has been dealt with and I've long, long since moved on. Perhaps you should as well?

So you ARE from New Zealand's next Top Model.

Great call.

I'm with Rp. I usually try to keep my outbursts to mildly humourous jibes, often at the expense of myself. Those around me probably just wish I was swearing.

They had 14 (?) in the third for the return of 1 point. Thanks Riv et. al.

I'm clearly not the one in a muddle. Yes, because you're older than me, I must be fine with the prospect of a gun leaving

Posting multiple times ranting about what should happen if he has signed with someone else is, in my view, getting worked up. Why the arbitrary length of time? Why must the club say anything in 4 weeks? Why assume anything will change in the next 4 weeks to force the club to say anything other than what has already been said? It's a pivotal time in our history, and you'd be stupid to think we're not doing things to try and keep him. But that's not what you said before - you said the club needs to be "strong on this," to which you still haven't explained what it means. If the club makes finals this year we'll have 45,000 members next year, should the club come out in 4 weeks time and 'be strong" about making finals this year?

So you're getting worked up over a hypothetical. What if hypotheticals didn't exist?

Given the nature of the injury and our run after the Pies game, I'd save him until he's cherry ripe.

Maybe they just thought he'd be really good at sitting on the bench?