rpfc

Here is the rub - if you think a trade is not fair, then you should provide a counteroffer, not have the rest of the league veto the trade. It may well be HOW the function is used, but it is not WHY the function is there. If you don't like a trade: counteroffer, don't veto.

Whatever the semantical definition - the rule is here to stop collusion. Not allow power hungry players from vetoing trades the 'think' 'might' be on the nose. I have given 45 Matt Rosa for effectively just Mark Blake. It's lopsided, don't know my reasoning? You shouldn't expect my tactics to be relayed here (talk about farce). Go ahead and veto the trade... Stick to your guns and tell me how to play his tracking game.

You talking about Grimes? A liability? You're just embarrassing yourselves...

Always funny to hear people rubbish a backline coach after the midfield coach is 'responsible' for allowing 75 Inside 50s...(for the idiots out there - the norm is around 50 for a game) I guess it's easier to rubbish Royal than it is to rubbish Scotty West? The backline will function much better when a THIRD of those Inside 50s disappear... You know, when we are a good side...

Gameplan or no gameplan - you don't let a side have 20 scoring shots in a quarter... I have far more faith in Bailey than I do in the leadership of Green, Davey, Moloney, Rivers, Jones, Sylvia, Dunn, and Jamar. Our senior players have 'grown up' in teams with dominant leaders where they haven't had to step up (Neitz and McDonald). They don't inspire confidence in me when we are down, and evidently they don't in themselves or each other, much less the team... If anyone needs a kick up the arse, it's everyone 23 and older in that side... But again, we come back to the old chestnut of mine - our talent is 22 and younger. Bailey knew we couldn't get it done with a team based around the aforementioned senior players and set about getting us the talent that you could rely on.

Updated and, ahem, holy frack... Smashed everywhere. Looks like the Hawks are up and about...

For those who don't remember details - the sub isn't named until 90 minutes before the start of the game.

You're slipping into bad habits again, DD. Wall... The rule is there to stop collusion. If it is a Sandilands for Hayes deal then that is when the rule applies. That was a trade that involved two players who were playing regular football. That's all the rest of us need to know.

A disgrace? Jeez, we're an excitable bunch of no-hopers aren't we? Rivers is the better third tall in the backline. JMac is value but his offensive work and kicking are not good enough to keep the much smarter defensively Rivers out of the team.

You should think back to 2008. We started the year with two 100 point losses.

The rule is there to stop tampering from people who collude with other players once one of them is bored of it or doesn't care about it anymore. It isn't to stop two willing participants trade players they think will benefit their side. I traded for Mark Blake with 45 and we also swapped pretty well matched first ruckmen aswell, and I also gave up Matt Rosa to get the deal done. Lopsided, yes. But the deal allows me to have three ruckmen which is advantageous for positioning purposes, and I had a sh!tload of centres. I do not think that trade should have been blocked.

Exactly. It's the kind of trade that actually deserves to be vetoed in an Ultimate Footy game...

Doubt it. They both played in their respective backlines last week.

Maybe Gilham. Or maybe Green will get Gilham.

Well then you are absolutley entitled to use the same procedures? Criticise then copy - it's the Australian way!

Thanks for throwing that flaming turd out there...

Once again, another one of our young posters has been called clueless. The reason - Melbourne's medical staff. Cause and effect.

Apparently... I think we should all talk tough, but at the end of the day give credit where credit is due.

Well, then it's a semantical argument... Coz one means the other...

I'm new to this game, but that refusal of trade was the stupidest thing I have ever seen on a fantasy sporting comp. I mean it is round 1 - we're not tired of the game. And we are all psoting on a footy forum - we are quite committed to the sport in question. There is little reason to veto trades when you have this dynamic. That trade should have gone through.

Facts? As opposed to conjecture?

Perfect Melbourne supporter rebuttal! You're having fun with me, aren't you?

I'm a tad uncomfortable with this - they chose their workplace (and the associated risks) argument. Playing football for a living shouldn't mean that you cannot seek compensation if your brain is so battered you are showing the effects of Alzheimers before your 30... And besides - it's in the CBA. Case closed, he should get compensation. But I would prefer the Dees just agree to pay for ongoing health checks and remedies relating to his brain in perpetuity.

I dunno.

Yes, it must be that... When good things happen we are lucky, and when bad things happen we are mismanaging...