rpfc

You sure can. You sure can.

Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. You don't like the argument and all you have to answer it with is that the colour in question (or non-colour) was used by the cricketers that began the game. And? Cricketers started the club you barrack for, invented the rules of the game we play, and they happened to play at first in their cricket whites. And who did they play back then? Geelong. And do think that Geelong played in their whites too? They didn't. Ironically enough they wore an all blue jumper in 1859, red in 1860, and a red jumper and blue shorts in 1862. The MFC moved to navy blue in 1873 and toyed with the red V, stripe down and across, until we settled on the yolk in 1935. The MFC was born out of a cricket club, invented by cricketers, and they honoured that with their uniform for 12 of their first 14 years of existence (they wore an awful magenta jumper in 1861/62). http://australianfootball.com/ http://www.footyjumpers.com/

Who is suggesting he play in 2014?

That's their problem. And probably why they are making mistakes they shouldn't.

Yes, I apologise for my 'red herring' of stating a fact. Frankly, I have tread this path before. It's just as boring as ever, and even more moot. We're in white, deal with it.

Did you know that the MFC were called The Invincible Whites back in the 1860s? Did you also know that the MFC spent around 80 years of its existence NOT being called the Demons? Should we go back to the Fuschias? If we don't want to spoil our rich heritage than would be ruined by change how did we let that former Richmond jerk 'Checker' Hughes change our moniker? And our Traditional Jumper is a red yolk on navy blue. Switch it around - ruined. Have mainly red - ruined. Have a demon on it - ruined. There is no such thing as a good alternative strip, it's an oxymoron.

Ok, I like thinking ahead and I know that some posters don't like this so look away now: Players OOC at the end of 2014: With the avenues for new players ever increasing - we got trade ins, DFA, rookie upgrade, and draft just this year - there is a chance that we would have a similar level of movement at the end of 2014. Bolded players are those that I would look to re-sign as soon as possible (keep in mind that Clisby and Riley may have longer contracts, I have not seen confirmation of their years). Defining years ahead for Tapscott, Blease, Strauss, Bail, and Nicholson. I am no fan of Dunn but he may be looking at one year contracts until the club doesn't want him anymore, I can't imagine another club overly desiring his skillset. Byrnes and Cross may be moved on after one year, the former likely to be. rpfc's Best Guess: Nicholson, Strauss, Bail, Byrnes, and Tapscott will be delisted. Will that be enough? I don't know. Good thing Byrnes has another year on his contract.

I know we all hate Collingwood with a passion but one of their colours is white. And their away strip does a good job of maximising the white and becoming a white clash jumper. Essendon would look much better in white with a black and red sash than they do in that awful grey thing. As for your last line:

I thought Kent was lucky to be drafted last year as he didn't play for his state... But Hunt just played school footy. If he becomes anything, we are going to see the boundaries for recruitment fall away.

Nasher making a joke about Daniel Breese is hardly worth all this... Frankly, when I see someone write 'mute' instead of 'moot' I will correct them not because I am a patronising [censored], although I can be, but because I think it is nice to advise someone of a mistake they may make in a 'forum' more important than this. And I skim over boring posts, I don't get angry at them...

Well said, goodoil. But press enter once in awhile, please... List management for next year would see Bail, Byrnes, Strauss, Blease, and Dunn under the gun. If Byrnes is delisted today, then it is one more you have to find next year.

Isn't the current one imitating our own guernsey?

They are all babies RF.

You can make these points all you like - I, and OD, am just making the point that some see the white jumper as a Rorschach-like test of patheticness because of the performance that have been of the last few years. This is well-trodden argument on here. It really is a side-show to important issues. I can give you a quick rundown of a few years ago when I was defending the use of the white jumpers: - MFC used to play in cricket whites back when the game was invented. - The style is as important as the colours. Anything other than Red yoke with navy blue is a different style and all different styles are equally as abhorrent - for instance: the inverse colours, the awful light blue from the 70s, the red with the flamboyant flame M from a few years ago. - All teams have to have them - Even the Bombers have that awful grey thing, Coll is unlucky enough to have white as one its colours so it is easy for them. - White is better than that silver/grey thing from a few years ago. I think that was it...could be more. And, just out of interest, what deal do you think could be done with the AFL?

Updated - 'Tough Kent' is Nicho's player sponsor so that will have to be good enough for rpfc. He says 2014. This would mean it is extremely unlikely we will take part in the PSD. We are off to the RD.

That's quite a reference. Was he given a 2 year contract after being on the RL for two years? Funny how Evans was only given the one year.

No, OD (and I agree) that apart of the disdain for the white jumpers has been because of our performance in them.

And I thought that Evans and Nicholson had the same 1 year contract (that Evans extended this year) and that is why I have him as OOC in my Contracts Thread. I update with confirmation on the site or in the papers.

The Case For Byrnes in 2014 Are options for the specific Small Forward role in 2014 is Byrnes, Kent, Kennedy-Harris, or to forget about it entirely and rest a mid there. Byrnes provides an option if we do not wish to put that burden on a 20 or 19 year old but still want to have a specialised small forward. The Problem of Paying Out Contract and Retiring Players Aside from this, I do not like paying out contracts or 'retiring' players as it sends a terrible message to the group to see a colleague told he is done before his contract says he is. The Speculative Pick The PSD2 pick that would be opened up is akin to ND80 - the chances that this player will be something worthwhile is incredibly low, however it really is moot as... The Rookie Draft is Right There - why do we need to cut people? There will be only a handful of picks in the PSD, and only a couple of players taken in DFA. Whatever player the club wishes to get should be available with the second pick in the Rookie Draft. You Have To Delist Someone At The End Of 2014 Too... If we were to pay out players right now that had little chance of a future at the club - we would not reach the minimum delistees in 2014. Byrnes time will come, most likely next year when we will again have decent picks and list spots desired. Time to let it go, he was given a 2-year contract. And we will see it out. He was not useless last year and I hope he can contribute next year.

Yeah, I hope that is just a prototype or something.

He can be picked up in DFA by another team.

Er, Chris?

Remember, they are for those specific years. In 2000 it jumped to 39% and remained above 25% for a further three years before plummeting to 15% over 2004/05. In the same timeframe (1999 to 2005) - 59% of Top 20 picks played 100 games and 33% of ND21-49 picks played 100 games.

It's of little concern if he doesn't - a mere 20% of players taken after Pick 50 from 1999 to 2005 played 100 games.

Are you being ironical?