old55

Exactly, at least be smart enough not to throw petrol on the fire.

Sometimes during a 2 hour match something funny will be said, that incident could even be mischieviously replayed out of context. Players will no doubt encounter opposition players that they have shared experiences with on international rules or U18 and it's reasonable to expect some exchange of pleasantries even after a thumping. But IMO these are the only acceptable circumstances. When a player is playing for or watching Melbourne or Casey he is on the job. I hope the club will identify players who don't understand this and re-educate or eliminate them.

Google search - I imagine you've heard of it? So amusing - they need to leave a door open for THE search engine and that search engine doesn't have any need to close the door behind it

And you're staying a virgin until Jessica Alba sees the light?

this isn't going to end well ...

I've wondered if Neeld's mates at Collingwood would be off-limits for poaching. Clearly they're the players he knows best, but also he's got a strong relationship and alliance to FD people still there and I think that's important - there are 16 other teams to hit - I wouldn't blame him if he said they're off-limits, but I hope he doesn't.

We do need another marking target forward. For various reasons Watts, Martin and Sellar aren't it. Howe and Jurrah are 3rd tall options not keys. We would be better off playing Clark mainly forward and relieving Jamar in the ruck. Jamar played 84% game time on Friday - he can ruck 75% of the game and Clark 25% if we have another genuine target. As posted earlier - if the offer drives Cloke's price up and Sidebottom or Beams fall out then - hey!!!

Yep, altho I was hoping for less pain - clearly because I voted for 4 wins I think - but I knew 0 was always a possibility as was 8. I was hoping we might simulate the Bombers Knights-Hird transition but it looks like we're going to do it a lot harder.

You didn't have to be Nostrodamus to foretell it was going to be a tough night at the office. The Hawks members compensation game and reserved seating in the Southern stand wing forced me to level 4 PRE - very good view from there - bloody freezing though.

Martin and Sellar are failures key forward (I harbour hopes for Marting key back), Fitz and Cook are a couple of years off. Clark has been great forward with limited opportunities, I think we should play him as 2nd ruck to relieve Jamar - he'll be more involved in the game and we can play another mid instead of Martin or Sellar. Jamar played 84% game time on Friday night. It does leave our forward line without a long target when Clark is rucking and Jamar is resting - we need another long target anyway and it's not Watts - we should forget that plan.

We do need another key forward but it won't be Watts. He will never make it as a key forward and his talent is wasted as a 3rd tall forward. Fantastic decision making anddisposal means we need him to get the ball a lot. I'd prefer he plays key back in an attacking role a la Ben Reid than midfield. He needs to raise his intensity whatever. .

Hope that's what the problem is.

Thanks - will do tonight also.

Admirable. Weak and inconsistent.

I think Dunn has had an under-rated year - he's good as a defensive forward on the opposition play-maker, he was excellent on Bob Murphy in the Dogs game in the second half. He appears to be disciplined and prepared to sacrifice his own game for the team and he certainly annoys the [censored] out of his opponent. He also has the ability to kick goals from limited opportunities. He's unfashionable but he can play a role. I don't think playing him as sub makes sense.

AFL matches: 1 2 3 4 VFL matches: 1 x x 2 Chinese proverb say "draw picture", I don't know why they didn't just draw a picture

a yellow line?

It slid by because everyone knows it's a token effort. I'm glad he said it because we're playing the game, but it means nothing. It helps set us to do the a deal with GWS and GC and get away with it because why would we need to tamper when we said weren't necessarily going to take him anayway.

FMD - Henny Penny! I could not disagree more - we are in a very beneficial position resulting from tanking with compo picks (maybe something like 4 and 13) in this year's draft directly flowing from it - how is that "[censored]"? This whole Viney discussion is about maximising our regular 1st and 2nd round picks.

maybe we can borrow Dermie's line in the sand

No it would be causing us to pay over fair value as far as the rule is written. The rule is deliberately skewed in favour of the F/S club where they have to use their next pick, not their pick in the same round. Fair value is our pick after the pick a club will genuinely use on the player. Take out shafting us and it may be that say the Lions who finish 14th with pick 7 would legitimately take hiim with that pick to succeed Simon Black - then we'd have to use our second rounder - which would be a win for us within the spirit of the rule. I could easily be persuaded that our compo picks should be in play too and that we should have to use our mid round compo at 13 in this scenario.

I don't agree - they would be bidding for Viney not because they want him at #1 but because we're committed to him - it may not be "tampering" but it's certainly not within the spirit of the rule which is to cause us to pay fair value.

The only way GWS or GC would be running to the AFL saying "those naughty Demons made us an offer on the Viney deal" is if we offered them an insulting deal.

Exactly. I don't think any one here who has proposed striking a deal with GWS and GC was suggesting we first go to the AFL for approval. If it's a win-win-win deal no-one tells. The trades with GWS and GC have to look reasonable. Something like olisik's U17 draft deal would be hard to definitively call draft ta,mpering - it could just be a good deal.

I think that's good - it's on the table. We can now start discussing a deal with them to do otherwise.