rpfc

Yes, he made me look foolish last year for thinking he could be a good second ruck option. There is a spot for him if he continues the way he is going - your second ruck needs to be able to play elsewhere - you can't hide on the bench anymore.

The reason why it is at the Tribunal, in my opinion, is because they couldn't agree on the first criteria - the conduct charge. Was it reckless or accidental/incidental? Because the first is the second highest charge for conduct and the latter means the charge is thrown out. I don't think the MRP could agree.

He reminds me of Brent Stanton, minus the clangers of course. Wins the footy, can link up, knows where to run.

^^That's it.

I got it in the mail IIRC. Or they emailed it. I'm really sorry I can't find the deal. The front page of the website has the New Balance deal - but it might be for the $90.

Referring it is better than applying the MRP's system - it would have meant fighting a 3 or 4 week charge. Now he can have a chance to get off as the contact was incidental to him going for the ball. I'm not holding my breath though - this stuff happens in footy but is a look they don't like to see. They would like Viney to not bother with the ball in that instance. Lynch braces himself and this is not something we talk about and he doesn't have a broken jaw. Players need to learn to protect themselves.

Sassy - If Frawley leaves and we bring in any FA, we will not get Pick 4 as compensation.

They are selling a thousand $60 3-game memberships right now with a $100 New Balance voucher... There are still 300 left. The details are on the website. They are trying to pad the numbers in the month before the cut off. If the Dogs and Tigers fall we will get 40k members.

Byrnes was never a good player? And how do you know he isn't performing his role very well? His career at the Dees is 7 games old in my eyes and while he may be moved past very soon, the reason of 'he is not the future' is diabolical. Of course he isn't the future - he is there so that those that may be ready to play AFL are confident, in form, and ready to play his role. We always bemoan playing our youngsters too soon, and that we have to make them earn a game - and here is that situation and we bemoan the bloke making the kids earn their spot. Matt Jones, Giorgiou, Pedersen, Bail, Cross, Jamar, Byrnes - they are all players that will most likely not be playing AFL footy past 2015. But are they important right now? They are important for the reasons stated above. 26, 25, 27, 25, 31, 30, and 30 years old. When we lose they are the first looking down the barrel (save for Cross) but who would be their replacements and who would play their role if they weren't there? Over-exposed youngsters asked to do more than they can and more than they should be asked to do.

Please, Billy, you are exposing yourself. The previous few years of Ablett and Scully have certainly been an affront to the game where we have players running around knowing they will leave their current club at the end of the year - they have already signed a contract. But that is not the vast majority or even the vast minority of how players are moving clubs. A more robust and expansive Free Agency system would have rules in place that banned players and their agents from talking to clubs outside of the FA Signing Month, and from their own club signing them outside of that month too. This would mean that the AFL enters the 21st century and has a set up more akin to the NBA and the NFL - two draft regulated sports where FA is a help to poor performing clubs - not a hindrance.

I doubt I ever posted that I think Scully would have re-signed - only that we shouldn't have cursed him for his dithering. This is where I was wrong - it was done a year in advance. There was no dithering. I really don't know what to think with Frawley - the new era of Free Agency will bring more players delaying their contract talks until the end of the year for whatever reason they care to proffer. I am still inclined to believe he has not signed a contract - call me naïve, but I think that it will be a more frequent occurrence as we move into FA.

A harder, bigger Dal Santo. Pendlebury is a very high shelf... Love his attitude and confidence - never rushed, short memory with mistakes, doesn't give the footy away in close.

What makes you think that? Dawes has a knee that he will be managing for the rest of his career. Dawes out, Fitz in. Future.

In the one post you say that players do leave contract discussions until the end of the season 'with no malice intended' (I am not entirely sure what that means) but that the reason he used to leave his contract discussions until the end of the season isn't believable? What is a good reason? Other than the vague, catch-all "Football is a business" reason that he gave? You can believe what you want, I am just curious to know what someone should say if they are genuine about their desire to not sign a contract for anyone until the season is over?

Nah, nah, nah. Cross is 31 yeah? Too old. Jamar to be dropped too. Too god-damn old. Potential future players - that's what it is all about. Why play players on merit when you can have many different standards for players based on their age?

Cross out for Riley. Riley is the future...possibly.

Well, actually, there is an agreement that clubs can't directly talk to players management outside of the 'off-season' - hence why Scully and Ablett were signed up a year in advance. And you couldn't see my point? That players will sign later and later and it doesn't mean collusion or conspiracy? You couldn't get there?

Yes, I didn't see the Crows game coming (mainly that 1st half). But this team is what they dish up in the next two weeks. Come out and beat the Dogs and the Tigers and we can discuss something more. At the moment we are fighting for form, consistency, and respect and that's enough for now.

I am most definitely aware that I have been fooled once and any future shame will be on me, but FA does bring into consideration the possibility that a decision has not been made and that he will weigh up the options in front of him as the year progresses and, possibly, into October.

Last I checked you didn't have to run on your ribs nor kick with them...

What we he know about whether Frawley is worth 800k or 500k? The cap will be just over $10m next year and we have to pay somebody. Spread $9.5m over the list and Frawley is going to get paid some coin (we have to pay the cap floor).

I thought you were above the above. Take his spot, that's all Roos is saying to the group of players you think should be there. If he is rubbish, what are they? I'm too tall to play Fwd Pocket but it, with CHF, is the toughest spot on the ground to play - get it the right spot, take the half second opportunity and you do your job. Do it three times, and you have had a good game. Miss the spot or the shot and your a waste of a spot. Play the position in a team that averages 35 inside 50s and you are on a hiding to nothing, and seeing nothing but hidings... I don't jibe with this 'he won't be around for much longer' stuff, neither will Cross, nor Jamar. But they are the best options for this team in the roles they play for us to win right now. Let's do that. Now, I am sure that Byrnes' position is under threat after a few apparently played well in the VFL, but whoever takes his spot won't be taking out the trash. They will win their position and be in form and play his role better than he has. That's it.

If you don't see it, what can possibly be said? Jack Grimes has played more good games than bad and can win you a match with a punch of the footy. As your post suggests - you are taken by clangers and mistakes. Good players make them, because they get the footy, that is the risk you take when you go and get the footy. It's the safe players that get easy kicks and let others do the hard things that you don't want too many of. You say he screwed up a mark in the back line, I say he screwed up a great reading of the play.

I think that's a paradox. Whoops, I will be ignored if I keep this up... Post-Neeld. Structures. Gerard Healy is bad. Paul Roos good. Phew. Saved it.

There is a rubicon between playing 6 games down there and being relocated down there entirely and you know it. Hawthorn play 4 games down there but still manage to have 13 games in Melbourne with 11 of those at the G. The scenario would be similar with NM - if they were to have 6 games in Tas. The AFL would 'fixture' them to have 11 Melbourne games, 6 Tas games and 5 travel games. That is not relocation, setting aside my tongue-in-cheek response surrounding Hawthorn's relocation...