rpfc

Did he give away a free? My team kicked 17.5...with Betts, Dixon, Tutt, and Cripps kicking 11 between them. Formidable forward line?

The 5th and 6th exclamation marks convinced me but then the three question marks really threw me. Now I don't know if this game has an 'Ariel' feel to it...

I would have said that 9 year contracts were from a bygone era that never existed (save for Lynch), but Buddy blew that up... If Dangerfield is earning a million when he is 28 in 2018, he will be well worth it. Wages are getting higher. The cap is increasing by $400k a year of late. The best players are going to get some coin. A million for Dangerfield will be his worth soon enough.

I like the sentiment but the reality is that Jones will ask for and get a very healthy wage, same with Tyson in a couple years. You get paid what you are worth and while you can't have too many Nik Nats running around taking 8% of the cap, Dangerfield is a difference maker. An excellent midfielder. He will command a wage that high soon enough.

A few weeks ago after they beat us, and more impressively, Sydney - we were all lamenting the free ride they got with their concessions and how they would be a power team. They get flogged and they are a debacle on the precipice of failing as a club? Pls. The got too many kids and wasted money on the $6m man. GC did not just get kids and spent their money on the best player I have ever seen. And 'the experiment' will continue. You can howl at the moon all you like - they are not going anywhere.

So the Northern Lights are because of Roosy? I knew it!

What is with the flute in the background of the review? He is talking about improving a footy team - not defeating Sauron down at Mordor. Although if we beat Geelong down there he can keep the flute...

A separation of players based on who plays in the seniors. If you play in the seniors you are treated differently. This is all about development of players (which I would argue is a list 45 deep but even if we just take those not yet established AFL players) - which is what Allison's job involves, and why we have these reviews made available. Roos (thankfully) has said that 'you can develop' in the seconds. Those players are to be critiqued by the Head of Development and released to the website. But if you are playing AFL and developing - the Head of Development's review is not released to the website. 'They are already playing AFL' is not a sufficient reason for me. But I have said my piece. I will let it go for now.

The Bump is dead! Long live the Brace!

Fair call. This is just one of my little bugbears of the last couple of years due to connections.

I had an argument with you last year about how Rookies were treated under Neeld but also in the AFL at large. As he has moved on - that Rookie that I was talking about last year was Nathan Stark. Some of the things told to a family member of mine directly from Nathan didn't just imply a hierarchy amongst the players - it confirmed it as institutionalised by the coaching, medical, and conditioning staff. I hope Roos tore down those walls - but I just see these VFL Reviews - without an AFL equivalent - as an archaic division that I see little need for.

Does he really need to exercise the option for 2016 now? The article on the website was all about allaying fears that some had that he would up and leave after 2015 or 2016 and that never was his intention. If we continued with our off-field, er, limitations, then he isn't wedded to anything but he will be around the club for many years - just the head coaching grind is not what he wants for much longer. That's what that article on the website was trying to tell us.

Where did you find the predictive ladder? If I wish to waste an afternoon soon...

Yeah sure! When you are asking it you can ask it in a less condescending manner!

Yeah, after that WCE game I am sure the reviews would have contained 22 'ticks' with players doing exactly as they should... All players get feedback. At the moment they are making the feedback for fringe players available to the public. I would like to know why the distinction.

I am joining the chorus on this - no-one attacked you. There is little need for 4 question marks and 4 exclamation marks interspersed in such a manner...

As I said after that line - I would prefer the informed appraisals of players be extended to AFL players. Some on here were posting like confused sheep dogs wondering why Byrnes was getting a game - a quick review of his game would identify why he is getting a game and may quieten the hordes wishing for his blood. It shouldn't just be for the 'underperforming Casey side' that 3 and 4 but for the 22 MFC players who are 3 and 6. And Lincoln said that about fooling people. Yes, when it comes to Jones, Dawes, Viney, Watts (too much for this guy), and every other 'banner' player we have - the public feedback is attainable through the traditional media. Even Burgan will be able to coax out a couple more appraisals. But that is hardly the systematic going over of the all MFC players from a member of the coaching staff released by the club on the website. Just do it for every player, or do it for none.

Ethan loves the private message. I am sure it was as lovely as the one I got. Demonland PSA #45: The PM service is not there so you can privately attack everyone who has 'slighted' you in the general forums.

What's it like in the house?

Keeping it in house is preferable to what it is now. I am fine with the comments I read about the fringe players - they have work to do. Great. Knew that. What is so hard about having some similar vague sentences about those 22 lucky enough to play AFL? Maybe it will help fans understand why players lose their spot, or how a few continue to keep their spot despite the desire for Land to see them dropped. Being critiqued in the paper is not the same as the head of development critiquing you and we all know that. To equate the two is disingenuous. My basic principle - if it good enough for a fringe player, it's good enough for every player.

Seriously? Those appraisals are simply comments on the workrate and decision making of the players - nothing to do with the tactics used. I think you are looking for reasons why we can't have an honest AFL equivalent reviews of players. Maybe the AFLPA forbid it? I don't know but I would love to know because it is an interesting vehicle to entrench the various standards we have for certain players; if you are good enough you escape a public appraisal of your performance from the coaching staff. If you happen to find yourself in the reserves - no such luck.

Are we going to go through this every time a player is injured for more than a couple of months? Depression isn't contagious. I think it is your 4th line - he's a kid who wants to play footy. He has a sore back. The rest is what we read into it.

No, he is not *taking* a spot on the primary or even the rookie list.

Fans can't see Brett Allison's honest assessment of the AFL players. That's what we are talking about here. And there is no 'maybe' about it - it would be insightful to read the coaches feedback - but unless they are going to release the honest feedback for all listed players it is unfair to publicly harangue fringe players in isolation.

There is a time limit on that scenario - it will run out in December (the last Delisted FA period), if he comes back next calendar year - he is going through the draft.