rpfc

Mitch Clark wanted to go home. Was he mentally fragile? He also was quite emotional about Jimmy passing. It seems that emotional fragility is either a bad thing or completely ignored when it doesn't help your point.

With all due respect - that is a beaten attitude. What would the more ruthless clubs do in our stead? We are trying to be more ruthless. Maybe we will see.

Supercoach? You can't even do deals across competitiors... These deals are pretty straightforward and hardly controversial - the two teams we are dealing with are just doing what is in their best interest by not stepping all over us. GWS want Pick 3 and GC want Tippett - if our picks can help them get those things, then they will be less inclined to screw us over. And stuie, do you remember The Veale Deal? Because you should - it involved our Backline Coach: The Bulldogs wanted the Hawk Rawlings, but so did the Kangas, and Rawlings wanted to go to the Kangas. The Bulldogs had first pick in the PSD and then this happened: Ess Got: Mark Alvey and ND6 Ess Gave: Danny Jacobs Haw Got: Danny Jacobs Haw Gave: Lochlan Veale WB Got: Lochlan Veale WB Gave: Pick 6 and Alvey All this to stop the Hawks from trading Jade Rawlings to the Kangas and force him into the draft and to a club he didn't want to go to. What we would do is far more innocent.

It ensures, assuming a conversation occurs over the likelihood of GC getting 13 in the event they go for Viney occurs, we get this: 3, 4, Caddy and Viney. And not this: Viney, 4, 13, and 30. So the deal would net: 3 and Caddy for 13 and 30. I would do that deal. (I think that makes sense - tell me if I am getting into 'olisik level logic fail'...)

Viney in the second round.

Not if it came with certain caveats...

Irrelevant to the point I was making.

Scott Thompson left the Dees for similar reasons and is fine upstairs. I am not saying Toy will become what Thompson has become, but let's not leap of a cliff into the Gorge of Specious Conclusions.

Yes, but they may want some bigger bodies...

- Mark Neeld Doesn't sound like we are going to go for a trade. It doesn't matter - he may get a few FA credits or points or whatever they are going to call it and we might get a decent pick regardless.

We have already made it known we will let Moloney go as a FA. So what you are saying used to be unlikely - now it is impossible.

I don't know if I want Caddy if we lose Pick 13. But who knows what the stakes are...

If you built a time machine you can save us from all this and go back to 2001 and become CAC's assistant recruiter...

He is from Qld as 1re1be posted. Bail and 13 for Caddy will tempt some but I know that the FD rate Bail so they may not like this. I am not that keen on it either but would do it if we could spin a pick back our way.

Oh.

A repeated one at that too. It's amazing how Carlton does this far more blatantly and the experience is used as a sort off hand 'joshing around' conversation piece in the media and when we do it is as if we are the third rising of the fallen angel Beezlebub. Fitting I suppose...

Essentially, yes. But we could say to Moloney that you have agreed this contract with Ess and we will match it with the intent to trade you so we can get something for you. BUT he has to agree to that, and Essendon have to be willing to trade. It's called a sign and trade in US sports.

Yeah, surely it's a forced outrage. We had as many touches, clearances, more Inside 50s but have no one to kick goals. But so many didn't see this coming apparently and are outraged at the blase disinterest that the Bailey...er, Neeld apologists are showing to these displays... Believe it or slash your wrists with it - sat night was an improvement.

And for those saying to themselves "why should I move on?" It's hard enough trying to keep this club heading in the direction of where we want to be without the continued desire to keep the club fractured from that time. People need to know that forgiveness is given not because people deserve it (whether they do or not) but because they need it. As I have forgiven those people that spurned someone close to me. Forgive and move on, or we will still be shackled by a past nobody wants to remember but no-one can forget.

Absolutley, OD.

What are we doing? Every year we have this thread and every year we have the same argument, and every year we don't get anywhere. You can sit and stew and rail at the dead if you want to, you can argue unverifiable truths like I was about to do, and you can have your determination to never get to that point again. But let's let the hate go? I have a family member who is still not forgiven by some for a role played. That is pathetic and toxic. Just let it go and realise that we are all Demons and the past is as useful now as it is unchangeable. We are all Demons.

Why don't you 'pin' it? No-one looks there and there are always around the 3 or 4 threads up there.

Not quite following BB, although if you are saying there is little to talk about - I am bitching about journalism again... That means it's quiet...

How have you not seen me do that before? You have been here in various forms for a decade. And I am never offended by perceptions from anonymous, yet attributal, posters on forums. But I don't see the harm in pointing out that those perceptions 'run the gamut' from obsequious sycophant of the MFC Administration to a vile upstart keen on maligning those in that Administration... My round-about point is that you cannot judge someone by whatver that person has just said. Reading a book by the last page you read, as it were. Anyway, what were we talking about?

If you don't find issue with it, that is fine. I take issue with the laziness that has crept into journalism and the faux pas of having unattributed, unverified quotes in the paper isn't a big thing in this instance (of course it isn't, it's an article on Cale Morton...) but in a larger sense of the standards of news articles today. Just one thing - if we are now comparing newspaper articles to talk back radio, is that not proof of declining standards?