Lord Nev

I hear ya for sure, and it's an intriguing one if it's true we do want to go to the draft a bit more this year and next. I believe the Bowes figure is around 1.6mil over the next 2 years, so it's more than just that initial year we'd have to worry about. We've made some big re-signings the last couple of years, we'll have Grundy on the books (at least for 600K or so), May and Kozzy next year will both still get pretty decent deals IMO, Lever and Langdon the year after. Plus, there's always the chance we have to overpay JVR a little bit if he's tempted to head home (out of contract next year also). I reckon with Jackson gone, compo for Hunt (albeit not much), Tomlinson trade, possibly 1 or 2 others in the mix, then with some 'up-trading' - I could see us having 2x 1st rounders and 2x 2nd rounders this year which the club might be happy with as is.

It's being reported 850k next year is the asking price salary wise for Bowes. Tomlinson, Weid and ANB are all contracted, which makes it difficult, and none of Hunt, Bedford or Melksham off our books gives us huge relief salary wise I wouldn't have thought. Plus, it's not like you can ditch 3-4 players to accommodate 1, we'd still need to bring in other players. I'm under the impression we'll be looking to add more younger players this year and next given the contracts we've done and need to do so as tempting as that pick 7 is, I'm not sure that 850k for a player who would be iffy for our 22 is doable for us.

It does seem like Vic clubs so far, but he's from Cairns originally isn't he?

Would it make sense for Freo to go after Bowes and then use pick 7 as part of the Jackson trade?

Take out that top 10 pick and it's about right I reckon mate.

I think your account has been hacked.... right...?

Would have thought releasing the story in the same week where there's so many other stories about AFL relating to the Grand Final, the teams and players involved, the entertainment etc actually hinders the impact rather than helps it. Also; the fact the report was tabled about 2 weeks prior to the story says the timing was more related to that rather than any kind of delaying tactic to maximise the timing. That's just not how a 'breaking story' like this works IMO. I think to suggest Russel Jackson's work is there to 'generate clicks' greatly diminishes the many important stories he has told and is a pretty unfair comment.

Plenty has been mentioned on Demonland, and 'officially' so far (going by socials) both TMac and Brown have already had surgery.

It already is. In fact Gil has said he'll likely postpone his retirement so as to not depart while it's ongoing.

The names weren't made public, but clearly they won't be anonymous in the actual investigation. Already covered that. It's not a court at all. It's an independent investigation into an existing report. There have been no charges, no one has been fired, no one has been sued etc. Again, the names aren't public, but that has absolutely no effect on the investigation. They were all given the usual right of reply/comment by Russell Jackson and they chose not to take it. Are you sure? But the "accused" said it was "anti-inflammatories" and surely you have to consider both sides of the story?

Haha yep, but Demonland has a few weeks headstart!

To be fair, the Pies would have had more than that invested in their ruck position this year (plus a bunch invested in a Dogs midfielder) and had a ripper year, playing in a prelim.

Depends on definition of 'some time' I guess. Free agency starts Friday, trade period the Monday after.

Not 100% sure what point you're trying to make here tbh, but from what I understand this is (at least as yet) not a legal court case so there is no need for any kind of pressing charges or "I accuse" to begin the investigation into the report. This also applies to the notion of "innocent until proven guilty". I'm sure the people who prepared the report and those now investigating will have the names of all involved and speak to all of them, there's no need for those names to be public I wouldn't have thought.

Ah ok, I thought there wouldn't be lawyers involved in the first part as that is purely an independent investigation (which IMO is likely to just advise on what the next stage should be), rather than a tribunal/court case etc of some sort. But yeah, you're right, its absolutely a wait and see scenario.

Both the Lions and the Roos have put out fairly strong statements now about the matters, so definitely feels like it will be very much contested. You'd think the AFL panel they've commissioned would be tasked with getting their part of it wrapped up ASAP so the coaches can at least get back to their work, but yeah, a LOT to play out after that and could go on a long long time potentially.

For sure, will be interesting though as this kind of thing could be used on either 'side' you'd think.

Yes, but what I was trying to explain was that a testimony to corroborate an account can be used to cast doubt on the testimony of someone giving a conflicting account.