rpfc

I agree that the $50 MFC/MCC membership is too low to ensure the future of the club. But what it does do is get these people on the books so that they can be contacted in the future and coaxed into the $160 MFC/MCC membership or the full membership once their finances allow it.

And the board is training hard! We're crap, and thankfully for Bailey and the players, most of us our realists. 4-7 wins is where we will be i'm afraid. And the reason why most posters say 4 wins instead of 7 is because they would prefer 4 wins to 7 wins as it will get us 2 picks in the top two or three in the last uncompromised draft. The rules have made us negative...

Considering there is no direct quote, we don't know the context of the question that prompted Bailey to mention Jurrah and Bail. I still think Cheney and Spencer will debut.

I just wanted to mention that a thread over on 'Ology mentions that we have 25 000 members with 3 500 unsigned 2008 members. But that doesn't compute because we had over 29 000 members last year and those numbers would have everyone signed up from last year leaving us under the 2008 number. Maybe people bought multiple memberships last season after Jimmy took over, but I bloody hope not. I really hope someone is really awful at maths at membership services...

That is a fantastically done avatar, Jacey. I agree with the high Bate expectations. I think FF is his possie and I reckon he can average a couple goals a game in that spot. If he is kept there, Miller tends to push him toward the boundary when Bate is playing HFF. And he needs room to reverse lead, double lead, drop behind the pack etc. Because he doesn't have exceptional pace over 20-30m. What he does have is a quick 10 metres, a brain, and a good pair of hands. Anyway, looking forward to seeing his development this season.

If we lose badly against North I believe we will just get to 3 wins for the year. If we gallantly lose it could be touch and go with regard to our priority pick as we have home games against ADE, PORT, WCE, and Freo. We lose it with 5 wins (or 4 wins and a draw). If we manage a scrappy win over North, I believe we can say goodbye to that extra pick and look at 5 - 8 wins. And if we send a message and destroy them on Sunday... Look out! Right now I think the percentage is on the second scenario. But, sh!t, I'd love to see the 4th scenario.

35k would be decent. I can't be there because of cricket but I don't think junior footy will get in the way on a Sunday this early so we should get a decent crowd.

Cheney Martin Warnock Batram Garland Frawley Green Moloney Bruce Morton Miller Davey Newton Bate Sylvia Johnson, McDonald, McLean (Jones Spencer Dunn Petterd) Not exactly the team I would play, but the team I think will be picked. We all know Spencer will debut but I really think Cheney will be thrown in from the start which is great for the kid in second year. Sylvia might be preferred to Jetta, but I'm not inside Bailey's head. Buckley for Dunn also. Newton might make way too but who knows. Pretty sure about the other 19 though.

We are the worst team in the comp, and I say that as someone with a great deal of optimism about the near term future of the club. 3-6 wins is realistic, and I hope only 2 or 3 blowouts. If we do better than that I will have underestimated the value of McLean, Rivers, and Moloney. We are just so young, and our forward line so impotent.

Heard on the radio that the club is considering putting Jack on the LTI List. Shame for the kid, but does give Valenti an opportunity to step onto the senior list for a couple of months. Might be unfounded rumour though, it was SEN.

Yes, it is valuable to have critical thought. But, this is verging on blanket opposition. And that leads to the Libs giving a leg up to alcohol companies that target 15 - 17 year olds, and the US Republican Party which stands for nothing but the desire to make the sitting President and his policies a complete failure. Fan, I can understand your desire to respectful, and most of us are... But if all you do is criticise, you will be ostracised...

It's not an argument for delaying sponsorship deals, it's an argument for praising our dumb luck and securing a better deal now than we would have 5 months ago. If Hannabal is right about your motives I can understand your vehemence. But, really, criticism of the deal itself, just because it was sparked by a lowly supporter, is a bit rich. Not as rich as $3m over 3 years, but rich nevertheless. Companies don't just fork over cash because their regional sales rep advises them to. They obviously talked with JS and CS and liked their vision.

Is it just me, or is 'Cheers' become a throwaway end of a post/letter/email. I mean, 'Cheers' for what? Being called a d!ckhead? Anywho... Understand what you are saying HSOG, not entirely sure why you are going to such lengths to say it. As a fatalist, I would say that if we signed up a major sponsor in October we would have got far worse a deal than the magnificient deals we have now. I mean, the excitement of footy in March is 20 times that of October. We are an unattractive club at the moment, and we are much less attractive in October...

This is a great story. Jimmy is on fire. And HazyShade is right. It wasn't before time, the place was falling down... I mean, we haven't been close to winning one AFL match so far this year... We are well into March with no premiership points to show for our troubles. Things are looking good boys and girls...

No, it was $1m. Makes it all the more impressive, but with Essendon, Collingwood, and Carlton getting so much from their sponsors, it drives ours up aswell. So... I guess we should thank them... Maybe not.

If anyone is wondering why this deal is more than the Hankook deal it would have to do with the fact that the back sponsorship is larger and easier to see on TV, and also the reference to 'coaches' sponsorship' probably refers to advertising on the coaches' box with is constantly panned to by 7 and 10 during games. As an aside, (a rather large aside) given the extra finances we have secured - pointed out by Hannabal above - and our very managable salary lay-out, we might be out of debt in the next three years.

45k will be a stretch for a Sunday 1pm game. Hoping for more, but with our position and prospects for this year... Not getting to 45k isn't failing.

You still need a solid fwd structure to kick goals. You can do it with smaller players but the disposal from the midfield to them has to be immaculate. It remains to be seen wether our midfield, and the midfield of our near term future, has that immaculate disposal. I'm just happy to have Jack Watts in the stable for the future.

This must be so frustrating for the bloke. He seems like a tough kid though. Cheney would have to have a spot sewn up now, surely.

Yeah, they did. Jesus, we are doing well 24k at this stage?! For all that's been said, two things are for certain - Jimmy is popular and has inspired the masses.

Bate at FF, PJ beside him when he isn't in the ruck. Shouldn't spend much time on the bench. Wonna and Davey switching from flank to pocket. Miller at CHF and Morton and Green switching from flank to wing. Newton maybe off the bench. PJ, Bate, Wonaeamirri. Morton, Miller, Davey. With a 6 like that it is about precise disposal from the midfielders or kicking to advantage by allowing Bate to lead to space or kicking to a contest with PJ/Newton/Bate/Miller up and Davey/Wonna/Green down. It is difficult to tell how many a fwd line like this could kick, needless to say it is fortunate we have a very good backline.

After the debacle with Garland last year, I'm not going to judge anyone until we get into the thick of the season. Newton is half an inch taller than Bate. This 'he ain't big enough' to play KPF rap on Bate is unfounded. He hasn't had the chance to fail or excel at FF or CHF. Last year he spent all his time on a flank with Miller pushing him out and toward the boundary. He has been adequate at HFF but I think he is solid enough and smart enough to average 2.5 goals a game at FF in 2009.

I am reticient to split up our backline and with that in mind Garland, Martin, and Rivers - who have all had supporters claim they can play forward - must stay back. Garland and Frawley can play small. Warnock and Rivers are very smart, selfless workers, they play a similar role so it depends if there is a match up for Warnock as Rivers will always play the extra man if fit. Martin plays on the 'gorillas' and the resting ruckman, something the Kangas exploit very well with Petrie and Hale. They may go with ruckmen and quick smalls which makes it difficult for match-ups. Harding - Petrie - Thomas Grimes - Warnock - Garland Campbell - McIntosh/Hale - Jones Cheney - Martin - Rivers That was tougher than I thought, Frawley may miss because Jones and Edwards are both on the outer with Laidley. Can't see both playing.

Agree with that. Preferably Watts at CHF, but if he becomes FF then Morton/Bate at CHF. Garland is just so valuable in the backline. He was near faultless on Saturday.

Bennell, Petterd, and Jones were very pleasing to the eye. Bennell's disposal is silky and accurate. Rivers, Moloney, and Brock were always amongst it and that is good to see. Wasn't a day for Newton, Bate, and Miller so they get a reprieve. Newton did some awful things, but he also did some great things. One attempted mark on the wing in the 1st Qtr comes to mind when he ran back with the flight and went A over T. Don't know how we will go against the Kangas but I don't think we will be let down.