torpedo

He injured it in a 3-4 man marking contest in the Bombers F50, whether it was a result of the collission or lateral movement though is anyones guess. It looked bad at first but once he managed to find his feet a minute or two later and limp off, albiet gingerly, I was hopeful it was not too serious.

Cant believe nobody has mentioned Grimesy's 4 centre clearances to I50s in the first 10 minutes of the 3rd. Fruit. This kid has gotta play midfield permanently, one of the most dominant spurts of centre clearance work I've ever seen. If he was moving it into a functioning forwardline he would have been a clear matchwinner. Very, very excited about this kid. Finally someone who can step up & turn games at will. Now we just needs some players to finish off his hard work.

The new stand is finished now so there will be plenty of seating available. I'd expect a reasonable crowd though given its the Dons.

People destroy their own lives. That person getting the drugs for your son or daughter will probably be some curious friend of similar age with a good family background like yourself. Get a grip.

Yes. We should ensure kids develop a high alcohol tolerance from a young age. Aussie bogan drinking culture at its finest. None of these alcohol related problems have anything to do with that though

And I should add, I thought it was an ok read. I usually find the Yearbook a bit of a dribble fest and this was no different. I dont really care, its not aimed at diehards like us, its purpose is to generate memberships, sell merchandise and excite young supporters and it achieves that. The Preview I normally find a decent read though.

The are 2 major publications each year. There is the Yearbook, which reviews the season just gone. The 2009 edition has been released about 6 weeks after our B&F and just before Christmas when people need ideas for presents (membership or jumper anyone ?). Seems like fairly appropriate timing to me. Then there is the Season Preview (Almanac ?), which previews the upcoming season and is normally released not too long before the start of the season proper. This includes info on every player on our 2010 list plus a heap of articles on our new draftees. And just in time to serve as a reminder to renew memberships or buy jumpers before the action begins. Again, seems like fairly appropriate timing to me. What are you proposing, a combined Yearbook / Almanac released in the middle of summer? That would get forgotten about by most supporters rather quickly and be a marketing failure.

My understanding is that ALL GC17 & GWS 1st round picks from 2010 & 2011 are completely off-limits, they cannot be traded or used for compensation. I am intruiged to know how this will work. Some players would demand a very high pick, ie the only fair compensation for Ablett would pick 1 or 2 plus sweetners, a la the Judd deal. If future picks come into play then it seems as though the drafts are going to be compromised well beyond 2011. If anyone could clarify that would be great.

From my understanding, the main point of AoBs post was that the best tall forwards go top 5 and after that its a gamble. Your post refers to the top 10 and several players that were picks 6-10 and never tall forward prospects, so its hardly a decent counter-argument.

:D If ever there was an example of pick number pumping up a players worth Koshit is it.

I see him becoming a Goddard type, capable of kicking 4 goals in a half as a forward, dominating the midfield and being an AA backman. The thought of him as a permanent CHF makes me drool though.

I agree with the gist of your post but I think you've sugar coated the depth our KPP stocks to try and prove your point. Bate is not a key position player. When this was tried earlier in the year it did not work, that is the coaches assessment, not mine. I find it strange that when Bate's best football is played as a 3rd tall / flanker everyone wants to move him, generally people are reluctant to move players around if they are successful in their current role, whats different with Bate? I think you're also clutching at straws with the likes of McNamara and Jurrah. I agree that Morton & Martin may develop into KPP yet though. Strange that you've left out Miller, who has done 10x more as a key forward target than Bate has.

According to comments on this thread you can just sack a player for being crap... http://forums.demonland.com/index.php?show...mp;#entry287916 Although nobody was able to explain to me what changed or why it was all of a sudden an accepted view that you could even though the rules were the same as always. Personally I do not see why 're-rookieing' players should be an accepted practice but simply sacking them is not... it is grown adults they are dealing with and it appears inevitable what 're-rookieing' means.

Well he was hardly the sensitive type himself... When I see Carlton thats what I smell, a dead turd trying to buy a premiership

Same applies now both re normal contracts and demotions to rookie list?

Perhaps. Still doesn't assist with the main query, if the contracts allow players to get delisted for poor performance how come it has never been an accepted option until now?

There is still an unexplained divide between theory and practice... I highly doubt it is a recent inclusion given all the argy bargy re free agency going on at the moment.

Thought this myself and can't say I would be too happy with it. We've invested a pick, time & money into him, to lose him for nothing when I assume we have demoted him because of injury as much as form would sting. I wonder if clubs view all these players as fair game or if there is some expectation of co-operation.

Interesting. If this has always been a standard clause why is it suddenly an accepted practice to sack a player because they suck, whereas 12 months ago this was unacceptable?

Really? Are you basing that on one you have read yourself? It is my understanding that the AFLPA do not and never have accepted that under performing players can simply be sacked & paid out. We required their co-operation to get rid of serial drongo Nathan Carroll and MFC actually had grounds to sack him.

Agree. 2 things I struggle with here - a) how can it be legally sound? b ) why would the AFLPA accept it?

No, assuming we must pick a KPP with one of our top 20 picks goes completely against the 'best available' rule.

I think we just perceive him as a different player. I would consider Bate an ok contested mark, not necessarily strong and certainly not near a Riewoldt CHF level. I would consider his ball use his greatest strength.

Just noting that the Doggies recognise the importance of a big forward to structure. We have one or two of those as well. No doubt he can and does play as a marking half forward, not a KPF though. To suggest he plays 'tall', when he is 192cm & generally plays off a flank, drawing the 3rd tall defender, is just incorrect. At his size marking ability is a given.

If thats the case why is it done so rarely? Surely there is a distinction between a senior list contract and a rookie list contract?