old55

Not sure if serious? Collingwood are well known to be in the race for May Double down: strengthen one's commitment to a particular strategy or course of action, typically one that is potentially risky. The West Coast marking forwards were a key reason they won the GF, therefore the appeal of a strong key defender to Collingwood will be even stronger and they are likely to increase their offer to May.

After today's GF Collingwood will be doubling down on their offer to May.

What are all these Essendon trading coups you are referring to?

There's a lot water to flow under the bridge before the final deal is washed through but 10 for May is not as unreasonable as many seem to be saying. If we genuinely rate him as the key tall back we need he's going to be worth something like that.

In your previous post you claimed we were smashed in the deal. It doesn't look like that to me.

Well the difference between the popular alternative of our 1st + our 2nd and what we did is: 2018 pick 14 & 68 Vs Spargo, Petty & 2018 pick 43 No points discussion there. It feels like a win to us right now with Spargo and Petty looking like very good AFL. Constant focus on just the 2018 1st ignores them and the 2018 3rd.

Why do posters continue to perpetuate the myth that the Lever trade was for 2 first rounders only? We got a 2nd back and late 4th to mid 3rd round upgrade. Do you always say keep the change when you hand over a $50? It was actually a better deal than the originally mooted 1st + 2nd. Particularly because we finished high in 2018 and this year's first was devalued. It was a good deal IMO.

A lot of discussion about perceived large list changes. Here's the numbers from last year: https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.triplem.com.au/sport/afl/news/2017-afl-retirements-and-delistings/amp Adelaide 8. Brisbane 12. Carlton 13. Collingwood 8. Essendon 8. Fremantle 12. Geelong 7. Gold Coast 12. GWS 8. Hawthorn 8. Melbourne 8. North 8. Port 11. Richmond 7. Saints 8. Sydney 8. West Coast 12. Dogs 9. 8 is the magic number, minimum is two 7s. Our projected number of around 10 is not an outlier. WC 12 and in the GF

Claimed unconvincingly it was the first he'd heard of the idea. Said Jesse has been through a lot personally, that it was an individual decision and he would support him in whatever decision he makes.

Nathan Jones on 7 game day had an opportunity to hose it down and didn't take it.

Thread jumps shark

Source please? I have seen this reported for Kent but not for VDB, I could easily have missed it. I would be surpised if we were only offering VDB one year, the FD obviously rate him and rushed him into the team in both 2017 and 2018 as soon as he was near ready.

We won’t take him at all if we think he's a bit soft. No discount on trade price will make up for that.

The perspective of time.

He 's also very hard TO tackle effectively. This is an under rated attribute.

IIt looks like Kade and Jake are fraternal twins not identical twins? Anyone confirm?

We introduced about 3 this year - Lever, Fritsch and Spargo. Wouldn't expect much more than that this year. Kent is outside my best 22 but he is definitely in the squad of about 30 who can play at AFL level as required by injiry and form. Hogan is the only core best 22 to be traded or retire. I could see some subset of Kent, Tyson, Frost, JKH, Hunt traded, Bernie retired, and they are all 23-30 for me. So there will be important spots to fill. As I posted before. We could run with a primary list of 38 instead of 40 particularly with T.Smith, Keilty and Maynard all on the Rookie list and mature enough to play in a pinch. Looks like we will have a lot of development spots to fill.

At Casey?

Pretty hard for him to say anything else.

We have been running the max 40 + 4. We could run the minimum 38 + 4 + 2 Cat B. Then we've got 2 less spots to fill

Yes and we have been running the max 40 on the main list and 4 on the rookie list. We could go to the minimum 38 on the main list and 4 on the rookie list (AFAIK there's no minimum number of rookies). Paticularly since we have 2 Cat B rookies in Bradtke and Walker. We'd still be running 44 players and realistically only about 30 will be ready to play anyway. Some may say more is always better but I think there's a limit to the amount of players the FD can effectively service and develop.

Telstra

That's not the deal Red. 9 + 10 = 2864 while 4 = 2034. The actual deal is 9 + 10 for 4 + 22 = 2879, the 4 + 22 coming from Brisbane for Neale. So it's not helpful. I think a fair deal for Hogan is 5 + 10, it's in between the partisan ambit claims. With Port, Brisbane and GC involved the fair net deals for MFC and Freo could be: Freo: Hogan + 9 for Neale + 5 MFC: 5 + May for Hogan I'd be even happier if it was Andrew Brayshaw instead of 5 in that equation. Other clubs net are: Port: 4 + 22 for 9 + 10 Brisbane: Neale for 4 + 22 GC: 10 for May

Not really a problem on desktop but I expect a lot of your traffic is mobile. I also expect you are not getting many clicks on that extra content. Just trying to help

IMPO you've added far too much content at the bottom of the pages which is affecting page load times. It causes latency on activation for clicking the buttons next to threads and on auto scrolling to latest post in threads when you get there. Seriously diminished UX especially on mobile.