rpfc

"You're a grand old flag, You're a high flying flag And forever in peace may you wave. You're the emblem of The land I love. The home of the free and the brave. Ev'ry heart beats true 'neath the Red, White and Blue, Where there's never a boast or brag. But should auld acquaintance be forgot, Keep your eye on the grand old flag." Now that is funny. Yanks, heh. They can write a song. I just wish we could have found a song from a country with just red and blue in their flag. I feel dirty now... Couldn't help myself, sorry.

Does anyone feel this is ironic? Cause that hurt... No offence to the art of mock trading but this worthless argument is more nourishment than wondering whether the stars will align to see Richard Tambling being traded for a half-cooked potato.

I must have it. It's an ego thing.

Last word.

He's probably comparing his old contract, which was significant, to the one in front of him now. And he shouldn't compare the two. But when your salary suddenly gets cut in (almost) half, which is where those figures are, you usually don't take it well.

You can stop waiting. I laughed to be honest.

I said only the last line was passive agreesive... Honestly, DC this isn't an argument worth having. I was just trying to make a point subtlely blunt and used your posts to make it just blunt. Apologies.

I'm glad you're always ready to jump in and decipher for posters... Let me decipher my 'lecture' for you: Some on this board are incredibly sensitive when there is a hint of personal comment, those same people then throw out personal jabs without a hint of self awareness of their hypocrisy. My 'lecture' is to point out the disengenuous response I got from one of these posters. Of course I sound anal; it's ridiculous to think that there is a difference between me calling someone an idiot and telling someone their view is idiotic. You may not have seen the thread that this originated from, but let me tell you and agent_orange that my tongue was firmly in my cheek with my 'anal post'. Now that you know this I guess you can speak for me whenever someone questions a similar post? (That last line is the only passive agressive portion, I swear.)

The guy is a worse person than he is a player. And that is saying something... Bailey wants a big lump to put in the square that can give 40 mins in the ruck.

I have no idea what having an 'anal in the mix (sic)' means. Maybe an anal person? Maybe he/she is being literal? I'm baffled, intrigued, and other adjectives...

I would give him two years and tell him it will be his last contract. If he has issues with that then he can go a get an extra 200k and 15 games from another club in 2013. The guy might have more than two years left, but to maximise our list Jamar should be placed on the VL in 2013 and Davey in 2014. Bruce has two years left and Green has three. I believe you can have up to 4 Vets but there is a money incentive to keep it at 2.

OK, I'm done. See you guys again in, say, 3 months? Can't wait...

But you didn't say that 'we shouldn't be wearing white on GF day' - you implied that what we are now (red and blue) is all we ever should be (GF or any other match) and all the identity we should identify with - that is being dismissive of the past.

I had to edit it because Mr Orange placed it in the quote box from my post, leaving his line unquotable. I thought it prudent to ask what 'there's always one anal in the mix (sic)' means...

Really... You love your hyperbole don't you. All top selections are very good footy players - the thing that differentiates them are their physical attributes - their body. You compared the two because they are the same age and you believe that fans should not be so dismissive of a player just as old as the raw Watts but I am here to tell you that Rich at 18 is as ready as Watts at 22 - because of the filled out frame, and the role they are expected to play.

Huh?

Embracing history isn't changing the present, it is about self-reflection and valuing the efforts of those that got us to where we are now. Rudd should never have said anything, Japanese students should never learn about WW2, etc. Why is embracing our past such an existential threat to our present and future?

Where is Lynda Carroll when you need her... Try a frustrating Google search.

Then you can celebrate the 100th anniversary of the club in 2033. The first 75 years we were d!cking around? You embrace it all, or you cut your ties.

Club officials went to britain and came back with red and green, then red socks and blue socks. Eventually, we settled on the red socks and apparently gave the blue socks to Carlton. My point about the 1858 is that there is a pride that we have about being around for so long but a rejection of what we were in those early years. Throwout your baby pictures because we all can't talk and look the same. Tell your mother that... Yeah we wore white because of ties to cricket, but not all clubs were called the 'invincible whites.' The simple fact is that we were not born the day some toff decided on red and blue, we weren't born the day they settled on the design, we weren't born when Hughes called us the Demons, they are moments in our history we cling to and that is great but throw out the bath water with care...

White is the defining colour of the origins of our game. You know, the one our club invented? Our club was called the invincible whites. Our club wasn't called the Demons until an ex-Tiger finally said that flowers are for gardens not football grounds. Our club was white, then red and green, then red and blue. And you obviously do know what I am getting at... We have been here before. I recognise that tree...

Another poster not adhering to the adverb rule. You can call my posts idiotic but not call me an idiot. Don't you know forum etiquette? We all have to sign the hypocritic oath...

It is less of an issue now that we have frontloaded to reach the minimum because there is no need to spend the money. But in your scenario there is still no need to spend the money - an extra $50k to 'shore up' a player where you don't think they are worth it, is risky from the point of view that they will base their next contract - when money is tighter - on their inflated wage.

This was more an issue during the 08/09 years, where we were paying 85% in real terms and having to frontload to reach the minimum. Bruce taking a large chunk of the money meant that there was a reduced need to inflate players salaries to reach the minimum. I agree it is less of an issue now. But I wonder where we are at in the cap in terms of real terms, if we were at 85% (source is Chris Connolly) only a year ago we wouldn't be far away from that now with retirements and delistings.

I would but feel Bennell will fill his role off a HBF and be better at it.