titan_uranus

Why would we wear that white one? We've got an alternate strip, it won't clash with anyone that our normal jumper clashes with, so everything's fine. We don't a third, white jumper at all. I think/hope that was only created for the intra club match.

Matt Burgan on SEN right now: -Rivers should be OK, Jared was disappointed not to play more -Spencer played 'a very good match', Bailey confirmed he will play NAB cup round 1, impressed in ruck -Jetta was good -Zomer kicked 3 as did Miller

Is that it? Is that confirmation? Let's hope so.

Well the point would be that if they didn't end up being the naming sponsor of the stadium, then the door opens for us. But it's not something we should be waiting around for obviously.

According to the AFL website, Rivers just rolled the ankle, didn't do any serious damage - RIVERS ROLLS ANKLE BUT BAILEY UPBEAT He'll put it on ice. From Bailey's words it doesn't sound too serious. Article also says that Wonaeamirri is much leaner and stronger. Good stuff.

I have to agree here. We don't need to lower ourselves further to the point of 'borrowing' another clubs' jumper design because we couldn't design our own. If there's going to be a similarity in the jumpers, it should be a MFC jumper design.

I just had a thought. Remember some weeks ago that there was a story in the papers about the AFL being angry at Ian Collins and Telstra Dome for getting sponsorship from Eithad because it clashes with Qantas' sponsorship of the AFL? The article's here: AFL clashes with Telstra Dome Well, it was meant to go to court, and the case was supposed to be heard on February 4th. I don't know what happened, but if the deal is to fall apart, surely we would approach Etihad. But if that never eventuated, I do like the idea of the City of Melbourne sponsorship.

I would say Valenti = Jones, which says more about Jones than Valenti.

Not yet in the best 22. Probably an emergency at best at the moment. Needs to work on his disposal.

Oh how lovely it is to see England get smashed by the Windies. And they can consider themselves fortunate to make 51, when they were at one stage 7/26. Luckily for them Flintoff showed a bit of backbone. Let's hope they keep that kind of form up going into the Ashes.

If Mission wanted to come to us, then they could have told us of the Bulldogs' deal and ask us to match it. I'm sure we would have. I think bigger factors were the naming rights to their gym (or whatever the sponsor gets the naming right to) and the Bulldogs director who works for Mission.

AFL Dream Team is up. I've made a Demonland league - code is 994246

That sentence is both clever and true. I too am sick of journalists over-hyping situations like ours. Mind you, I like Caro. But that sentence was a bit too much IMO.

No. The designs people on this site have made, such as the red with blue MFC insignia, are far better.

I can't decide whether I think it's horrendous or unique... I'll go with unique.

I'd like to see Primus come out and state whether or not they did talk with McNamee and whether or not what he has said about them is true. I would be quite surprised to hear them say that they were close to signing but bailed because McNamee was sacked.

This whole McNamee thing puzzles me. On the one hand, I can't believe that McNamee had those sposors lined up as he claims he did. If he did, why didn't he use that as a bargaining tool to keep his job? I also thought I read somewhere that Primus wasn't interested in renewing their sponsorship. On the other hand, what does McNamee have to gain by lying openly about sponsorship deals he never made? I can't see why McNamee would say this if it wasn't true. So I'm confused.

I wouldn't take the numbers on the MFC website as confirmation yet. All the new players except Watts have been slotted in at the end of the list (around Valenti, Jamar, Whelan and Spencer who are already up there). It would seem odd if all the lower vacant numbers were left alone and all the new players got numbers from 39 up.

Ha ha. Yes, obviously that plan depends wholly on us actually finding a sponsor.

The thing that stood out for me was that Davey and Wonaeamirri were beside him at the interview for support. That's the kind of thing I like to see at our club. Players sticking together. Also interesting to read that Jurrah's going to need another pre-season before he's ready for AFL football. Not that I expected him to be fit and ready for Round 1, but I wonder how much work needs to be done.

I thought I heard Sportsbet. But whatever. I'm pretty sure I also heard that we were chasing the same betting agency that Richmond got.

You're kidding, right? Bate is most definitely better than Newton. Yes, Bate's 2008 was poor, but Newton's couldn't have been better, and as far as I know, Bate's pre-2008 far exceeds Newton's. In fact, Newtons' career consists of nothing more than a couple of speccies and a couple of freakish goals. But yes, Morton will be far above these two by the end of next year (at least). Yes, but Jones can't dispose of the ball. His kicking is atrocious. I do like his grunt and toughness, but he absolutely has to improve his kicking. We cannot afford to persevere with players who cannot dispose of the ball. It's a waste of time.

I was thinking a bit about this the other day, and I decided that the club is probably waiting for a sponsor so that, when they unveil the new clash jumper, there will be a sponsor on it. But then again, I thought they'd hold off the naming of the captain until we had a sponsor.

I read about this for the first time in the HUN today: Stynes puts Dees future in young fans' hands Sounds like a good idea, except that it possibly suggests a lack of ideas at the Demon Summit last year. But I like the bit about Stynes reinforcing the fact that we need to encourage youth membership, and retain those members when they turn 18 and upgrade to a more expensive adult membership.

Second time he's been stranded on 99 not out this season! That number 11 of theirs... In regards to the Haddin incident, the ball was a no ball because Haddin's gloves were clearly in front of the stumps. Whether or not the ball hit the bail shouldn't matter because it should have been called a no ball. I wasn't watching, but I wonder why the umpires didn't refer it to the third umpire, and if they did, why he didn't recognise the no ball.