rpfc

FCS Lil Goffy, spoiler alert!

I don't think there will be change. Maybe they are just trying to get the non-colour right...(IWUAEHIIUE) And besides, that presser with AHG had a few of the boys in the new strip without the collar, and one was definitely the white heritage jumper. Lol End thread now if you don't want a debate.

Look, I am happy to see people trying to bring a SABR-like focus on AFL analysis, but Baseball has such defined roles that this is much easier to do. When it comes to Wins-Above-Replacement (player), the roles are comparable ie. a closer to another closer, slugger to another slugger... With the AFL the lines of demarcation for player roles are blurry, and to say that removing one player for another because they both play 'midfield' can bring a certain probability of wins increasing is a bit rich... Love data, but keeping it team based is probably best for its analysis in our game.

I know we are excitable but can we wait until the real stuff starts before we panic. That's how I do it, that's how my dad did it, that's how America does it, and it's worked well so far. [little Iron Man reference for levity] Roos would be calm, let's try and emulate.

We had a percentage of 54. We are starting in a different solar system to 'competitive.'

Tyson, Salem and Hunt vs Kelly/Aish/Scharenberg and Gardiner/Crouch/Hartung. Because there are more options for the negative (those we could have picked had the trade not happened) this may look like a worse trade than it is. But I am hopeful, and it is always good practice to trade down if you don't think there is a discernible difference in talent over a certain number of picks.

The bigger debate will be Tyson and Salem vs Kelly/Aish/Billings. If Tyson can get over his injuries of the last year, this trade will play a large role in moving us up the ladder.

Why does a 'collective accountability' require everyone to be removed/fired? Geelong held Mark Thompson to account in 2006 and the rest is history. As for that last line, you are being a tad specious don't you think? 'Don't know if they are better, they could be worse?' 'They could be agents of the devil? I don't know, but there is that possibility...' Perhaps Jackson believes they can contribute? Maybe Bartlett thinks they can help? Does anyone here think that the previous board hasn't been held to account?

Is that what I was saying was I? Telling Matt Burgan what a few choice [censored] on here think of his output is not the crux of the 'game, set and match.' You can patronise me or you can try to understand what I am saying. Hell, you can try both at the same time if you want to...

If the players get exposed to it 'everywhere' and it is pointless to shield them the 'adult world we live in' then why do they bother telling players to not read this site? Maybe you should tell Mahoney of this incongruity when you next see him at training?

Did you know the club intructs players not to visit this site? And yet, here you are defending the relaying of any "opinions, baggings, comments, snide remarks, player assessments" to the players?

He's a fully grown up person who can take some constructive criticism just like the rest of the human race. We all appreciate any poster who can give their time and report on training - but that is not a double edged sword - no supporter needs to go to training and report on Demonland to those at the club. This is a nerve center for the anxieties of a supporter base - it sometimes (more often of late) is brazenly caustic, facetious, and unfairly rude. Relaying any 'relevant' information to players and staff is not desirable. If you disagree, please explain why it is a good or benign thing.

Bring this up again in 2018. Until then, you are hoping it all works out. Except Hogan and Viney... They are going to be great.

Can you please stop forwarding the opinions of about 5 people on here to people you see at MFC training? I don't know why you do it.

That would be the guilt by association... Holding a body of individuals to account does not mean they all must make way. We have found that moving on a head coach, two line coaches, two assistant line coaches, a CEO, and 3 Board members is enough for a renewal of some substance. Why must we damn Rawlings, Nichol, Mahoney, Taylor, O'Donnell, Viney, Lamb, Howcroft, Trotter, and Spargo for having the temerity to want to, and be allowed to, stick around to help their club?

He isn't a bust just yet. And I can tell you are not happy, mjt.

You know, at some point the bloodshed has to end. At some point, people have to get over Gardner's perceived failures, Szondy's perceived ineptitude, Gutnick's perceived conspiratorial nature, Ridley's perceived treacherousness, and anything else people have issues with pre 1996... I liked the fact that three of Gardner's board hung around when Stynes took over, and I have no problem with keeping a few of the old Board around if they, and their compeers, believe they can contribute. Changes have been made, personnel has improved, relationships have been restored, and faith renewed - do we not agree? If we do, then any more desires of people to leave based on the guilt of presence or association, is a tad petty.

I really hope we can shove this back down your throat at the end of 2014 - but until then all I can do roll my eyes because you might be right. But, jeez, you say it like you actually know, and like the rest of us, you don't.

I didn't read anything in that specifically mentions what Clark is now struggling with. My better judgement as a Melbourne supporter is to panic, but I will hold off until the serious stuff gets near.

Especially when we are playing out of Croke Park in Ireland...

lol No it isn't. Unless by 'PR Disaster!' you mean about 20 Landers will complain on here...

No, I know it, I don't think whoever I replied to did. Because they asked a tongue in cheek question relating to Rogers remarks about Dawes.

Roger didn't do that training report. You can thank him but if you want to ask questions about the report - off to Big Footy you go to find Tasmanlvr...

Don't quite know what the point is to this, or the truth you are trying to uncover. An irrelevant piece about Mitch Duncan's views on his teams ruckmen on a slow news day is neither here nor there when it comes to how Geelong is seen off field. Analyse, without stats (even though I love them), how Robinson dealt with the Essendrug Scandal, how Wilson 'reported' on Dustin Martin's issues compared to here usual doggedness etc. Arbitrary numbers used as a relative comparison is useful to the point where your analysis begins.

They have 3 game memberships. It's under Red and Blue in the Package list. The issue with trying to boost this membership as a priority is that it mais just as likely to turn fringe members into $90 members than it is to turn fringe supporters into $90 members. It might cost us money until we start to attract neutrals. We can advertise them prominently when Hogan is doing his thing.