rpfc

Not reading all that. Roos was brought in at a low ebb and I am frustrated - how can you not be? But to say that this coming game is important as the most important game a club can have is pretty rich... We have had some lows but unlike previous seasons - the highs have been much higher. The progress has stuttered but its there, unfortunately, we keep on taking steps backward after clawing forward. It's all about the Sunday to Monday culture for this club and Roos will help that immeasurably. The difference between finishing 7 and 15 and 9 and 13 will be irrelevant in a months time and we once again hope that we can get another Vince, another Brayshaw, another Vandenberg... ...and do it all again in 2016.

You close down Jones and Vince and you close down Melbourne. Hodge gets to have high standards and spray to odd mistake and inert player because they are odd. Can one imagine what Jones would look like if he baked all the mistakes and disinterest from that first half? He would have had a coronary.

Really thought we were past these days, but no... I want to get ND5, 25, 45, 65, 85 Upgrade Vanders, and Upgrade Harmes. That is 6 players to delist. If we trade then we will use a pick or get a player so we will still need to remove 6 from the PL. Jamar, McKenzie, Hunt, Bail, Riley, Michie, and Fitzpatrick are the 7 in the frame as they are all OOC. If you want to remove all of them - that will open ND85. If you wish to save one or two then Terlich and Matt Jones should be paid out of their final year. Terlich should be paid out - he has not been near selection for a bloke halfway through his career. It's logical list management. If it were up to rpfc: IN: ND5, 25, 45, 65, 85, Upgrade Vanders, Upgrade Harmes OUT: Jamar, McKenzie, Hunt, Bail, Fitzpatrick, Terlich, M Jones TRADE: Howe (Player or 'ND20 or better'), Grimes (Player or 'ND40 or better') RE-SIGN (1yr): Cross, Michie, Garland, Pedersen, Riley RE-SIGN (2yrs): Toumpas None of those re-signings are 'musts' but I don't want to be taking the chaff in the ND - we will back here in two years time if we do that as all 'first draftees' get an automatic 2-yr deal.

No it isn't. We are a 6 and 13 team playing the worst team in the league. Two bad teams playing each other is never a Grand Final. We have much work to do with this list to get a Final let alone a Grand Final. Utter embarrassment is what we would feel if we lose to Carlton this week, that's all.

You've been on Land for that long?

That's semantical crap...

Class.

Oh, I do think he is a good player. I just don't see the need to prop him up at the expense of Jamar. He may not have won a AA before 2010, but he did 'something' previous to that. He managed to back up a great ruckman in White and impressed enough to get us to pick him over Darren Jolly. Gawn might regress, he might do another knee (touch wood), he might be entering an era of smaller ruckmen dominating. But he is lucky enough that he is coming into some form when the competition at ruck at this club is the lowest it has been since...I can't even remember. Pre-Stynes? He has played 9 games this year and got a three year deal out of his form and the fact that we have no better options at the club or on the horizon.

You like to refer to people's posts as 'nonsense' - I don't really see the difference.

This is his 6th year on the list. And he may be AA in his 7th season, but until he does that, Jamar has him covered.

Already upgraded and 2 year contract given.

Updated for Gawn. Still 12 PL player unsigned and 3 players on the RL that decisions have to be made on. We don't HAVE to sign any of these players but I would keep (at the right price) Garland, Howe, Toumpas, Pedersen, Cross, and Riley. Considering that Howe will want more than 'the right price' - I think he will be traded. Toumpas might be shopped, and Michie might be given another go should we trade those two out, and/or Cross calls it quits. Harmes might get upgraded or given a third year on the RL - his last month of footy will determine that. I think it is hard to argue that Jamar, McKenzie, Fitzpatrick, Hunt, and Bail should be given another contract.

I would have Sidebottom and then Ziebell, and then Watts. None of the others really excite me. Rich maybe...

Some of you are acting like he had never played a good game prior to this year. He played a handful of 'Near Breakout' games a year which is why so many of us were still on the bandwagon that is much fuller now.

This will be his 8th year on the list and he is getting to the point where a decision has to be made. But if he is back up to Gawn, that's fine.

Gawn and Stef both need first ruck. Won't work.

Look, they make this stuff up as they go along but the AFL gives us no favours so I am not about to assume one was given when the best team took a bloke from us for 2.4m over 4 years...

He is at the club for the next 48 games guaranteed - there is no rush. The next deal can be the huge one.

You do not know that was the case, so don't say things like they are facts. It was reported that they gave him north of $600k - that is more believable as to why we had ND3.

He was nowhere at the start of this season, or even 9 rounds into this - his 6th season. Now he is setup to play good footy from his 7th onwards. I expected it to take this long - so don't complain about how long this has taken - this is about the time it takes for a 208cm ruckman to get going. #don'tdraftteenageruckmen And, well done, look forward to the next 5 years with an excellent tap ruckman who can mark and kick a goal.

There is no 'opportunity cost' when it comes the salary cap, so what we have paid this motley crew the last few years is not relevant to me - my tired phrase 'Gotta Pay Somebody' is a truism - clubs must pay their player 95% of the approx. $10m cap. You are going to get value out of very few when bad teams have to pay like good teams. The real 'opportunity cost' comes with the pick used or traded for a player and like the discussion on Watts - this can be nauseating. What I would say to those that wonder whether keeping ND20 for Dawes would be better is to look at the players taken after that pick in that draft (oddly enough I reckon we got the best two players after that pick in Viney and Kent...) and also whether we would still require a replacement for Dawes and whether Pedersen would be that. Because that hypothetical would require us to give something for that too.

I meant that the interconnected NY is ubiquitous with the Yankees and that 'luxury' of people identifying so readily with that simple icon has been built over time. The first club, the club that wrote the rules - not many know this - ironically the current emblem attempts to educate people of this. An interconnected MFC is certainly not going to.

Faultless? Wow. It's three interconnected letters. It doesn't even say the name of the club, the game we play, or indeed that we are a club. The Yankees are the Yankees - they own the interconnected NY. I don't really think we can have the luxury of a logo so simple and neat. Complex and busy is fine, especially with a club that has been very busy for the last 157 years.

I like the emblem. This is an argument that has been had since it came out and, according to Bartlett, there was a great deal more love for the emblem than the club thought - I hope they keep it and have other logos to target whomever they feel like. But really, this is Olympic Argument - back here every 4 years talking about the same nonsense and spending a lot of money of things we aren't that interested in...