Its Time for Another

Because the salesmen are Goody and the Great McCarthy. Because on the basis of their recommendation, we might all think he's a ute but they think he's a Monaro. Depends on how much you rate the salesmen. I rate them more highly than my opinion or anyone else on here. They both tinkered under the bonnet for a couple of years.

1. Club won't have to pay anything while he is suspended. 2. Do you mean money or permission to access extra players. See 1 above and I doubt they would take on an extra player who would deny another young long term Demon an early game if that space opens up. 3. Good question. I didn't rate Bernie V much more highly than Milkshake. Mainly because I didn't know him that well. Boy am I glad to be enlightened on that one. Goodwin & McCarthy seem to see something in Milkshake that a lot of the rest of us don't. I'm happy to bow to their knowledge. Only time will tell. Possibly more time than we would have hoped.

That's around 15% up on last year. If that keeps up we'll crack 40,000. It would be around 5,000 more than last year. Does anyone have any idea what that is worth in dollars to the Club? More money for the FD and more debt knocked off. Go PJ. LEGEND. Love how innovative and on the front foot they are this year with branding and memberships. Best I've ever seen from the Club.

I live in Sydney and it's my only way of getting an AFL fix on radio even if it is via the web. I really used to enjoy listening to the Drive Home as I'd catch up on a lot of footy news and Ox had good contacts at MFC etc. That was a long time ago. Now it is as H_T says above. It's a waste of time which is disappointing for me. Always found Harf and Maher to be pretty light weight. They're going to struggle with this line up.

I heard they were owned by Dr Turf and his family. Anyone know who owns them.

This jocker has completely missed the point of the appeal. You've really got to wonder about some of these people. The point of the appeal is that WADA claim the AFL Tribunal failed to apply the "comfortable satisfaction" burden of proof correctly. Why write the article if you are going to miss the whole point of the appeal. WADA believe the AFL Tribunal applied something much closer to the criminal "beyond reasonable doubt." For instance saying a chain of emails, invoices and payments showing the ordering of, supply and delivery of TB4 isn't enough to prove it was at Essendon because there aren't any actual tests of the substance delivered to prove it was TB4. That's something beyond the criminal burden of "beyond reasonable doubt". The WADA head has made it clear in the below quote why they are appealing and it is to do with the standard of proof applied. "Quite simply, if the BALCO cases had been decided under the principles followed by the AFL tribunal, none of the BALCO people would have been sanctioned. For us, the key issue [in appealing the AFL tribunal finding] was: can investigations be done in a way that BALCO and a whole lot of other previous cases were run? Or, is there going to be a significant change due to the way the AFL tribunal decided it? Because that would change the whole way that we put cases before courts. The standard of proof that was used in the cases that led to the first non-analytical sanctions [through BALCO] was quite different to the proof used in the AFL tribunal. So we are trying to find out what the correct standard is under the [WADA] Code.That puts it into perspective. It's a big principle."

Wish it was much more ancient history.

Who is this?

As I understand it the amount of the penalties is set by the legislation. The only discretion is whether to go to the maximum or less. The amount quoted is the maximum in the legislation. They may get less.

Same here. Playing in a game the day after the '87 Prelim. Split up with the gorgeous girlfriend the night before. She couldn't understand how I could get so upset about a stupid game of sport. That one was going no where. Not the best weekend I've ever had. Snapped my foot off in that game. Had 9 bolts put in to put the ankle back together. Not pretty. Newton won't be anything like that. Trenners had a foot problem not ankle and many have recovered from his injury. His problem was it wasn't diagnosed for too long. Lost a couple of years. Then had a set back last year. We'll know by the end of the preseason whether he's going to be ok or not. If there's a problem with the foot it won't take long to become evident.

It looks to have been a brilliant strategic trading and draft period. For me the missing piece of the puzzle on the overall structure of the list with the failure of Mitch Clark was another key forward. They brilliantly traded away next year's pick to fill the gap now. I have no idea of what KPF's will be there next year but assuming we start a decent climb up the ladder a Weideman type forward isn't likely to be there by whatever later pick we have. It's an awesome outcome. It looks to me like they decided to take a big gamble in taking Oliver first and hoping that Weideman would still be there at 9. They knew Oliver definitely wouldn't be. I bet there were some sweaty hands as the Dons picks were read out. It's a great result. In some ways they've gambled with the picks this year. Oliver is the first pick in the top 10 not to have been selected to play in the U18 Championships. I understand this can be explained because he was restricted early because of injury but still.... Weideman could be anything but injuries have restricted the past two years. We have to hope he's over them. The good news is, that as I understand it the injuries were stress fractures in his ankles. These could possibly be due to rapid growth in a large body. Unlike ACL's or other ligament etc damage there shouldn't be any long term concerns at all. Brenton Sanderson said last night he thought he could end up being the best player in this draft. Love it! Lateish pick ruckmen/forwards like King will always be a gamble. Hulet could end up being a smokey as he too has been restricted by injuries over the past few years. Lets hope the footy gods smile on us finally and we have a list of players who had their injuries before they came to us which helped them slide to us. It's starting to have the sniff of a competitive list with the addition of the 3 competitive trades as well.

Would dearly love a cap with the new logo. Don't understand why they don't do this every few years. A lot of other clubs do.

It's about 10 weeks since we last saw them. I used to start to change shape after two solid weeks in the gym. They are also generally pretty lean during the season because of all the running whereas in the off season period they can bulk up a lot more. They quite often start to drop back a bit with the preseason running.

Display name the go.

Amazing how much silence there has been around the hearing. Virtually nothing. Didn't even see this in the HUN.

Taylor and Mahoney have both said they did the upgrade deal because it delivered two picks inside the top 10 which was the strategy over the past couple of years and this year for the last time. I'm prepared to accept that at face value. So maybe pick 3 is open to the later more intense drafting meetings they talked about. I've only seen highlight clips which I don't rate other than the fact that they do show body types. From what I've seen and read it sounds like Parish is the more skilled of the two players whereas Oliver has a better AFL suited body but may not be as elite skilled. Parish's body type reminds me of Scully, Toumpas and Aish. Also Murphy & Cotchin who have done well but you wouldn't say are match winners. So would it be fair to say that there is an element of risk picking Parish in that his future depends on him developing an AFL midfielders body whereas, Oliver is less of a risk because he is already well on the way to having that type of body but the downside is that he may never have as elite skills as Parish. If that was the scenario, I'd probably lean towards Oliver after having been so recently burned by Toumpas and Scully has never developed into the player I thought we were getting when he was drafted.

Hadn't thought of the possibility if we take the Weed at 3 they might take both of them. That would be a very bad result for us. I doubt we'd take him at 3.

Surely that's all in keeping with being a Dr Gonzo. Not relevant.

WADA can't compel them to attend. That was already established in the Supreme Court earlier in the year when ASADA tried to subpoena Charters. So fact they aren't there means nothing.

This is it. No further avenues of appeal.

Very close. My only knock on Jonesy is that he's not really a player who can turn a game back our way when the opposition get a momentum run on. That's the definition for me. Robbie & Wellsie could do that. Think J Selwood Mitchell Hodge Kennedy or Dangerfield nowadays. Someone mentioned the Brownlow medallists. Let's face it Woeys was one of the most unlikely of all time. He had a couple of great years mainly as a half back. Wilson was most effective as a forward pocket. Could be brilliant but wouldn't say he was a long term A class mid.

Turner compares him most directly with Joel Selwood who is 182cm. 181cm would be even more effective at doing that Joel Selwood arm raise to get the highest high tackle count in the league. Mind you Parish is 13kg's lighter.

This is a question worthy of it's own subject. Who was the last elite mid we had. I'm thinking Robbie. Has there been an elite midfielder since then. Before that probably Greg Wells, Stan Alves. Love to hear some suggestions.

If he gets picked at 3 it's because they believe he'll be able to produce his best consistently enough to be worth it. Frankly who has a clue this year other than professionals who have watched them over a number of years. I trust in Taylor & Co. The more I read the less clear I am. Our picks are a lottery this year. Any of a number of players could end up being the best in this draft and others could be dudds. We won't know for about 3-4 years. Big bodies like Oliver and Curnow might impact early while we might have to wait a few years for Parish. Actually that sounds a hell of a lot like Toumpas. Aaahhh! I rest my case. Who knows.

Any idea how accurate he has been in the past couple of drafts. His choices are interesting. Not sure I agree with them but frankly who knows in this draft. You'd have to have watched them personally to have an idea. I trust in our recruiters. Seems nearly all of them have question marks. Gotta trust in Taylor & Co to work out who to gamble on. Seems to me Parish, other than being small, is the least gamble in the 3-10 range of the non Academy boys.