Redleg

That is $100k more a year. After tax $50k and you have to move across the country, fly every second week. His good mate Rivers plays at Geelong. His family is not far from Geelong. I think this is about driving his price up with the Cats a bit closer to the Freo bid. then he looks a good bloke for taking a bit less. Then again I could be wrong. I thought MC was going to play with us again.

Nothing new there.

One from left field. Offer pick 3 if we get it for Chip compo, to Swans, plus another player/pick for Mitchell and Reid. Then get into Ben Reid, who is injury prone, but with ability like MC. Tell Reid we will give him a fair contract and take a risk, which Pies might not be prepared to do and give him the opportunity to play with his brother. Then swap MC and player/pick for Reid and maybe Lumumba. Use pick 2 for Petracca or Brayshaw. Stretch at 2nd or 3rd round and add Frost and then with remaining picks, draft or trade for outside mids. That is a real change to the side. It is a dream.

Makes sense.

I am sure he would be happy to shout a downtrodden Dees fan a diet coke.

Agree, they will all be retained.

Either do I, but I think the relevant point was, it was the number, not a press conference. The press conference comes and goes, but the number is there all the time.

Look under L for Lumumba.

Or even moot.

I hate to answer this way, but yes and no. Cases can be decided in a way, that one party is found to have done the wrong thing, but they still win the case. For example, in this case the Judge could decide that the investigation was not done strictly according to the Act, Code or Rules, but in the pragmatic sense, allow it to stand, as to to repeat it, would lead to the same evidence, but only after causing much more expense, inconvenience and stress to the participants. Also, he could also find that even if not strictly legal, it achieved the result set out under the relevant Act, Rules or Code and that doing it again would not change the result of what was obtained. To say that it was not illegal clearly decides the issue one way. The other is more complex.

But when we front loaded his contract, FA did not exist. However you are right though, we should have foreseen that the AFL would create a new rule, where we would be the hardest hit in terms of numbers of players leaving any club. I believe the number will be 5 when Chip goes, the GWS bloke, Rivers, Moloney, Sylvia and Chip. It could actually be 6 if you include MC and the fact that he will dictate his departure.. And of course MC leaving is all our fault as well.

Nathan Jones seems to have thrived.

Thanks. I thought we traded the compo pick and used the organic. Not much difference. We used one and traded the other.

I don't think so. Costs usually do follow the event, but they are always at the Court's discretion. This pronouncement leads me to two conclusions: First, that the Judge hasn't got the time or just doesn't want to have a costs argument, Second and more importantly, that the decision will be an absolute one. It won't be something each way. One side will win and the other lose. You of course can get cases where you win some orders but not others and then a costs argument is open, as to who should get their costs paid by the other side. This suggests that he will find for one side and against the other, making a costs argument pretty redundant, as the loser usually pays the other side's costs, subject of course to the overriding discretion of the Court. This discretion would need exceptional circumstances to deviate from the norm, loser pays.

If the Pies are the only club he wants to go to, then you can be pretty sure they have been into him for some time. Their behaviour is reprehensible if that is the case. No wonder Eddie is remaining totally silent on the issue.

The Ralph article will help. He clearly reads Demonland. Factually wrong on one point, when he said the Toumpas pick was part of compensation, for that bloke going to GWS under a new rule and funded by the AFL itself. I thought the Toumpas pick, 4, was just our actual pick in that year's draft.

71 Wednesday. 7 & 1 = 8 Oh dear, he's gone.

Good article the week before the AFL meet to decide if we get special assistance. That article would help our cause.

That little bit about costs is intriguing.

I have heard that Brisbane BBQ's are great.

From your experience in the area, do you think if we asked the Saints who they will take at 1 they would tell us? I know that the recruiters are not enemies.

It will be. Someone will bid for Billy.

I have a feeling that Jimmy will turn out to be a good player for us. I remember a few years ago when plenty on Demonland wanted Nathan Jones traded. Wonder what those posters think now?

Can't see where it is repugnant. What is repugnant is their behaviour with MC.

I can actually see a PP not being awarded to us, but rather special assistance in the form of a draft pick being given on the basis of the Mitch Clark situation. A club has bent over backwards for a player, who became ill, after it invested pick 12 and about $1.5m-$2m in him, for a 15 game return. Said player will now return to the game, after being allowed out of his contract on the basis of his illness and will probably go to another club, forcing his club to clear him for a player not wanted by others, who has a value probably somewhere in the 3rd-4th round of the draft. The club has acted honourably and been commended by many in the wider community for its actions. The club will now suffer for acting honourably and in the best interests of the player.