rpfc

The latest thing I heard was that Gillon was not the person they wanted to see in as CEO. As for 'relocation' Billy - this is simply a consolidation of what we have now. Instead of two teams playing 6 games, it will be one team. Whether or not NM will agree to it is another question. But it is far more likely than moving a team down there permanently, or starting a new team there. Which, I was assuming, was your prediction/fear? Or was I mistaken?

With Mitch off the list, it is a ridiculous situation where we cannot sign anyone from outside the AFL to come onto the list... I hope to see some changes to this in the next few years.

When I saw him live against Gold Coast he was playing on Ablett and another one their very good mids and he was playing a very selfless role but he was doing it in a selfish way and I will explain: When the ball was in his vicinity, he was more concerned with stopping his player from getting it than he was getting it himself. Some may say that that is good, and proper, and welcome for a tagger but if you are playing in a stoppage with 6 GC players looking at the footy, and 5 Melb players looking at the footy - the upper hand is with GC. Not only that but when we got the footy, he was slow to move away from his man to be involved in the play. When the ball somehow got to him in close he was slow to move it backwards to our release player and seemed to struggle in that in-close environment. This may seem unintuitive but in a game that is moving away completely from a one-on-one style - you have to be less worried about 'your' bloke and more worried about your 'ball,' less involved in disrupting one players movement and more about protecting your teams movement. I fear for Jordie's longevity in the game if he can't put it together.

Well I thought the opposite and I can recall being criticised for thinking we would struggle again this season. But I never for a second felt victimised. Why does the desire for free speech extend to unchallenged free speech? If posters are being offensive, that is unacceptable but there is a disconnect when people say 'I have a right to say what I want' and implicitly state 'without others being able to do the same.'

I did acknowledge the 'single team' desire. But I don't think they envision Hawthorn there. I think they want to use the Tas Govt money as an equalisation measure for NM. It would be a boon for NM to play 6 games there and get the money that has made Hawthorn a powerhouse. As for the 'no Tassie team for 10 years' link: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-04-30/tassie-team-a-long-way-off I think 2016 will bring some decisions but I think it will be the AFL trying to pressure the Tas govt and NM to play 6 games a season there in both Hobart and Launceston. Time will tell.

Stoppage work is a science these days - it's like running a basketball play every time the ump throws it up. It is understandable, if unacceptable, that Jones and co. are struggling with it. The mids are new, young, NQR, or 1 person...

Yes, they are as ubiquitous as content-less, irrelevant posts...

You keep calling me ignorant, Billy - I think you are projecting. The new CEO of the AFL has just said that he doesn't think there will be a team in Tassie inside the next ten years and that he doesn't necessarily see a 'Tasmanian' team playing games there: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-04-15/afl-backs-one-team-in-tas The next option is a pseudo-relocation (which is what Hawthorn has done anyway) with one team playing games in both Hobart and Launceston. This would mean the consolidation of both the 4 games the Hawks play in Launceston and the 3 that NM wish to play, and will most likely be granted, from 2015 and 2016. How he goes about doing this will be interesting - he says that the arrangements for both clubs will continue but that is dividing the state - so 2016 will be a good time to see what is can be done. But 2016 will not see a new Tasmanian team, so he is looking at Haw or NM to play 3 games in both Launceston and Hobart? What club is going to agree with that? Will a club be forced? How would NM be forced to play more games there when they couldn't force them up to the Gold Coast 5 years ago? I think 2016 will roll around and the status quo will remain. Feel free to bump this if I am wrong. I think this issue is dormant for a while...

The only major black eye for retaining players was Junior McDonald. That was self-defeating list management and it was also poorly managed. As for the rest - these players get inflated because of the sorry state of our list. Frawley would be a huge loss but hardly insurmountable.

That thread makes baby Jesus cry...

It isn't working. And until there is a market to be moved to - we are safe. 10 years of grace time before Tasmania even becomes a protagonist in this created drama of relocation. You are jumping at the shadow of a kicked can... (I really like that line. Like me or loathe me - it's a good line!)

This was the headline for me. What the above entails is unknown at this stage. His desire to have a consolidation of support in Tasmania is admirable, and the only way they will get a team if their own in the medium to long term future. That cause will have to include not allowing NM to play any more games there and attempting to coax Hawthorn to play more games there in the short term and then leave in the medium to long term at some point. It makes it very hard to get the variables right but it may just be a case of kicking the can down the road on Tasmania once again. He said he didn't see a team there in the decade, but if he allows NM to continue to split the state with Hawthorn, then this will be confirmed in my eyes. As for what this means for our club, his words should be a comfort that we will be given time to get our house in order in an 18 team competition for a few years yet. *And it also completely takes the wind out of the sails of our resident concern troll Household Demon.

He does look good in the number 3...

So you would like the moderators to remove non-football related posts? Because there are times they do that and posters fell as though that is 'poor moderation.' I suggest you use the full functions of the new software that allow you to ignore users if you feel some on here are not worth reading.

...and doesn't want to play for your club.

There is massive improvement in contested possies, inside 50s, and uncontested possies, but relative to the league we are terrible, terrible, and middle of the road in those categories. lol All you can do is laugh... Sigh.

1 is a group?

He's not the only one not doing these things...

If this is heaven, I won't bother recanting my Atheism on my deathbed...

Beat the Dogs at the G on Sat Night and Tigers on Sat the week after and we will nudge 40k.

I always find it funny when 'experts' say someone was taken too early. History will judge that. Every year, in every draft regulated sport, there are experts saying that players were taken too early. You just can't tell who will slip through to a later pick, or who will represent value in a few years when the dust settles. Look at Fyfe - I don't recall much fanfare but if we took him many picks earlier would the 'experts' have said we are 'reaching' and that we should have gone for someone else? They wouldn't say it now...

You say 'forget priorities' and then describe a mid first round and before second round priority picks under the old system. So you don't want to forget the priorities? I am all for equalisation - and that includes a team's list when they are perennially bad - what annoys me is when Melbourne supporters fall into the trap set by other supporters that drone about it as a form a 'undeserved welfare.' Or that 'we had our chance' with these priority picks and 'screwed them up' but do they know that Sylvia, Scully and Strauss were the only PPs we have received? They are including all our early draft picks in that empty argument. And how does that hold up? We chose poorly at the draft so we shouldn't be able to draft anymore? Equalisation isn't a 'give it one shot' situation... So I would say 'don't forget the priorities' to the commission. It is a part of the rules (!) that they can be given out to teams that need them to compete. So how about 'remember the god-damn rules' as a declaration to get behind?

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/daniel-wells-vs-brendon-goddard.372047/ 2007 injury ended season.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/brendan-goddard.159835/ The above was more akin to what I was hearing... The above is a thread from 2005 - it reads very familiar...

I don't think it is news that he was moved on, rather than the other way around. It's tough to disengage yourself if you have been there long enough. I don't see him in a different light because of a 'slip' like that. I love him for sticking up for Jack by the way...