daisycutter

don't be so touchy chook. just a little off-topic flippant repartee on a very slow demonland afternoon. . . . ah well back to clock watching

always good to have a lot of cannon fodder though, don't you think? or maybe cattle for the filth?

not exactly darwinian is it?

nothing a little gene transplanting and eugenics couldn't fix bit late for fev I fear

Idiocracy - flogs in the future

hmmm, starting to sound like HH and useless eaters

rather depends on your definition of "bad" doesn't it certainly no argument re dumb

I understand he is having the pin(s) taken out of his ankle today Maybe this plus a proper pre-season will make a difference Lets be positive and hope so

Unfortunately it gives no explanation as to how they arrived at a end-of-round-1 selection decision Specifically, whether they took into account his likely 2010 B&F ranking I don't see why they couldn't have waited a few days to find out

It's good to see there are still men of principles

Don't you just hate it when you get eleated?

I thought mono was saying that the final draft picks could be quite different from where they stand now because GC17 have picks 1,2,3.5,7,9,11,13,15,26,43 and they could trade any number of these before the draft to get a better mix of experience (separate from the out-of-contract player rules) Forget Warnock for a moment, this could open up all sorts of possibilities and complexities

What are you talking about? I didn't give any opinion on whether recreational (or other) drug use should or should not be legal/illegal, I said that was for a different forum. I didn't talk about any drug dealer's housemate or any other hypothetical rubbish you can come up with. Go back and read all my posts from the beginning and understand the context I responded to If you want to discuss changing the law then yes, you are off-topic, and no, I'm not saying the law is always correct.

I don't think mono was talking about the GC out-of-contract player trading I think he was saying that they have so many draft picks for draftees that they will be prepared to trade some of those directly for some experienced contracted players from other clubs. They already have a heap of last year 17YO's and they don't want a team of too many last year 17 YO's & this year 18 YO's. hence they might do a lot of direct horse trading to get a better mix of experience/youth.

Like Johnson and Brock? I don't think players (esp of that standard) get guaranteed spots But I agree Warnock will have his ear to the ground and would probably take a better offer

How about Warnock for Warnock? I'd sign off on that

now thats what I call a good rumour . . . if I only could guess who was involved, hmmmm

I can only find 4 I'd rate as "good" - DAVEY, GREEN, JURRAH and SYLVIA Its a major problem if we want to be a contender

For me, this is not a debate about whether it (whatever it is) should be legal I was getting sick of people making excuses for other people who make bad choices and illegal choices (and not just once) Arguing it should be illegal or not is avoiding the issue of personal choice and responsibily and consequences This situation IMHO is not the appropriate place for this argument Just my opinion

Thats silly. If it is illegal then it is illegal, you can't think beyond that! Regardless of whether you (or me) think it should be illegal or not it is, and until people are prepared to face the consequences of their actions and accept some responsibility, we will keep seeing people potentially wreck their careers or lives. Standing on your soap-box is not going to help anyone

Yeah, just done some research (apologies to those who know this) Firstly Jack Viney's birthday is 13.4.94 (incidentally at June 2009 he was 164cm and 69Kg, obviously already bigger by now) So, he is 16 this year 17 in 2011 year (and before April 30) and 18 in 2012 OLD DRAFT TILL 2008 Players had to be at least 17 by April 30 in year of draft (e.g. hence Watts) DRAFT SINCE 2009 4 months added to min age, so that now must 18 by Dec 31 in year of draft This is a permanent change and nothing to do with new franchises SPECIAL TEMPORARY RULES for GC17 and GWS Starting from 2009 Draft players who reach 17 in the 4 months of Jan thru April of the draft year can be selected There are varopus separate rules for GWS and GC17 but I won't go into the details here PROPOSED SPECIAL RULE for GWS (NOT APPROVED YET BY AFL) Allow GWS to select 4 17 year olds (turning 17 in Jan thru April) to be selected in 2011 Draft. They must then be traded the next year to the highest bidders. So, 1. Jack not eligible for Drafting (normally) till 2012 when he turns 18 2. His status unclear re Proposed Special GWS Rule. He does fit into the age 17 by April 30 bracket in 2011 Can't see it happening as it would bypass the Father Son rules, but lets wait for AFL clarification

Good response Blistering There is no "proof" that such a consideration has ever been acted on by the MFC. I wonder where this opinion has come from. Has any official said such - not that I've heard. Also some posters are saying that Miller and Bell have signed a waiver re injury/compensation. Again I haven't seen any proof of this so therefore I will assume that as they are still contracted till October the terms of their contracts still apply Players such as Miller etc also have future income prospects which may be influenced by playing well in the VFL final series. If they were prevented from playing purely for injury risk reasons this might be construed as a "restriction of trade" as after all they still have a contract to play football (with either the MFC seniors or its designated affliate "seconds") - food for thought??

Jack, I might be wrong, but I seem to remember a thread recently on this subject which implied he would be available in the 2011 Draft by his birthday just falling into the range. He would be in the "younger age" category which is not compromised in 2011. May have got this wrong but someone here probably knows the correct rules, date cutoffs, birthdays etc

I understand what you are saying, but being a bit nitpicky I don't fully agree that statement is accurate. They are employed to play for the MFC or its affiliate (being CSFC currently) Maybe more accurate if you had said "they are employed to play for the mfc and csfc by the mfc not csfc" Whilst I understand it, I can't say I'm fully happy with that attitude re the alignment (if in fact it is acted upon), it just doesn't sit quite right with me in a partnership of mutual benefit. Leaves a bit of a sour taste and smacks of big brother. Anyway in the case of Newton and PJ it seems the reasons are injury based not financial Didn't mean to be critical of your post, just feel a bit frustrated if that consideration were to be acted on

Thanks for explanation Yokozuna