rpfc

Who is sweeping anything under the rug? What 36DD is referring to is your posts surrounding that post - the ones where you infer into one fact, a number of other 'facts.' You can infer all you like but at the end of the day, they are just assumptions.

The other story is the 'two' players story. And it's bloody confusing this mini-draft thing... And I haven't really thought through the 23-26 year old pool of players who can be pryed away form their clubs... Who knows who will be on the table.

The picks are based on Melbourne and where we finish, not GWS. It's like the Ablett compo. It's based on the club that has received them, not the team that trades for them.

Yes, whether it will get you two of those 17 year olds is another story. And whether we want more kids is another...

Joeboy - subjective limited analysis Other posters in his thread - limited overreactive corrections This practice - pointless Land tradition rpfc - needless reflective commentary

I'm glad it's a comfort to you... Kids have bad games.

If people want Gawn to play many games in the next three years it will be as a FP... And it won't work if we go out and get a big lumbering forward...

No, because they will not be eligible for FA, let alone unrestricted free agency (which is what this GWS-Free agency has been). It just pushes back our window once again. And as I said - how are people going to react to getting, let's just say one, 17 year old from GWS and Viney? Two great talents I am sure, but they cannot play in 2012. So is everyone happy with 2012 being another development year?

In this hypothetical (fun...) I would be more inclined to get a 23-26 year old established gun, than a 17 year old. We need leaders, and we need them now. And I am the most patient loser on here but how are the rest of you going to cope when we have two more 17 year olds that cannot play for a year (I don't know how we get two, but, anyway...)... We will be a younger team again - assuming Warnock, Bate and Dunn find themselves elsewhere. So 2012 is another development year?

Will we ever stop rebuilding?

Really interesting thread. Enjoyed the thinking it gave. I went positive with a CArlton win that led to the end of the Etihad hoodoo... I know... Anyway, if we are to do that, I believe that Moloney, Jamar, Rivers, and Sylvia will play some tough consistent footy over the month. The others will prattle on and do little, but play well in patches when we are dominating...(apologies to MacDonald who will find himself in the middle of that)

Pretty much where I am at.

Any new news? I mean, do I really have to post a rebuttal to a poster who has purely synthesized his own facts? I don't? Oh. Sweet. See you in the funny pages...

I thought that was why the rule was brought in...

Keep this nonsense off the footy board.

I'm the son of two former journos who maintain a number od relationships in their world. There are some very unimpressive people in this world. As in any profession. As BB59 would say - I wouldn't be putting all your eggs in the 'journo basket' - I would diversify your basket...

Jeez, your argument is simply all about what journalist infer from their 'inside words' isn't it? You trust them implicitly. Good for you. I don't trust them, because I know how journos operate and I know how sources can be nuclear. I am trusting the actual words of Tom Scully. You are trusting those that whisper quietly into the ears of hungry journalists that realise there are no repercussions to their stories being bullsh!t. Look at Hutchy people, the guy gets so much wrong, is constantly demeaned for being wrong, yet he owns his own media company, hosts a footy show, and is constantly 'making' the news. If Tom is lying, he will live a professional 'half-life' (to steal a quote from Harry Potter) and be maligned and quite toxic for some time. If Barrett/Schwarz are not right (if his sources are lying) they can hide behind those sources.

You can't call a kid a liar and then clap him 3 years later. I don't think he has lied, and, assuming he signs for us in September, I expect great things from him at the Dees. The end.

Coming back to rose tinted glasses?! Are you joking? lol You think the kid is lying. You won't even admit that is what you think. Your argument is as slippery as Gubby Allan's flesh. And who are you to accuse Tom Scully that his values are not of "truth, honesty, and integrity?"

A kid is being pilloried. And accused of being a liar. If I am to wish he stands up for my club in the future when we need him to, to win a flag, then I will stand up for him now. And, yes RR, you are digging... You constantly mention the Schwarz tweet and give nothing more than 'why would he tweet it/say it if he wasn't sure? I am trusting Tom Scully. You are trusting whoever is whispering into Schwarz's ear.

You are obsessed with Schwarz and Schwab... Why bother attacking? The ordeal will be over in a couple months and 'fighting back' as you say, will only make the situation worse, unless you mean he should 'sign' now. That will end the story but that isn't 'fighting back' that is acquiescence to the situation the attackers have caused.

I do. There is a chance he won't, I have always maintained that. I don't think he is liar and I am adamant that he has a decision to make in September. I am confident that not only will he sign for the Dees, but that the club will give him a good contract that allows us to still do what we want to do.

And libel. Doesn't mean that him not doing anything litigious is him tacitly saying he is lying. Going to court as the palntiff is a choice, a hard one, and one that a 19 year old who only has to put up with the crap for 2 more months obviously thinks isn't worth it.

I respect your position more than RR's because you are forthright in your opinion and are willing to take the rational step that your argument demands - that Tom Scully lied at his press conference. Well done. If you believe he is already gone, you believe he is a liar. There are no equivocations. I don't think Tom is a liar.

It's a very trite view to say that 'if you are not happy with something that is said about you, then take them to court.' Having watched someone take another party to court for something similar it is not a fun process - it is draining, and that person wouldn't do it again. Just because someone isn't litigious, doesn't mean they are tacitly saying they are liars.