daisycutter

What a strange response to AW's post rpfc Did you get out of bed on the wrong side this morning? Not even worth debating

Wasn't referring to you Jack. Like I said "If you mark in the square there is NO good reason to play on now EVER" No excuse for Riewoldt, he just had a brain fade. Why he did is irrelevant (the over analysing bit)

I presume that'd be E26, rather than E24? B)

just curious, what sort of salary range would an assistant coach be on?

If you want to believe that, then lets agree to disagree

We are over analysing this A. If you mark in the square there is NO good reason to play on now EVER B. What happened with Riewoldt was just one of those things you see in a blue-moon

that sounds like clutching at straws that would be a very high risk strategy if you had targetted a particular player

depends on bruce too, otherwise agree edit: and Warnock is still a wildcard

5 positions is 5 positions. its simple its 41.666666% worse

IIRC 50 combined Edit: initially, then it drops back to normal over 4-5 years (I think)

exactly - offer max 2 years

Yes, sorry, Hun quotes $350k. I got it wrong, unless there was another ref I now can't find. Who knows what it really is

FYI Hun quotes Hales contract at $375k. So far I've heard $375k, $400k and $425k

haha, beware the back-hander WYL and keep your tent in good order B)

What about that Port Melbourne player JCB - can't remember his name, was discussed recently? Is he too raw?

Anyway, this would be better on the "David Hale" thread

Bails, WHO are you talking to?? We all get that, why are you so painfully repeating it? Plus you haven't even explained who pays his existing high contract price.

I was reasonably happy with Hale as a relatively cheap experimental pickup But decidedly uncomfortable with what is proposed. Assuming, that what is proposed has any truth to it If true, I hope the FD has a plan B (for tall fwd/relief ruck) that we have all missed

So, in that scenario Jurrah's goal still wouldn't stand, because the ump didn't give the initial play-on???

OTOH why would NM forego a draft pick and play a guy $400+ to play VFL? They don't intend to play/keep him.

I don't believe it - esp coming from Hutchy

Now we are getting to one of my pet hates - the all or nothing 50m penalty I reckon there should be a 25m and a 50m penalty, with the 50m penalty reserved for more serious offences but . . . . we're getting off topic

Granted, but I don't recall him saying anything about anything. Reminds me of the Ball situation last year. He didn't dispel all the false rumours of things he was supposed to have said So far we have Bruce allegedly saying: Not happy how McDonald was treated Its not the money, its the contract length Its not the contract length, its the money The fact he has not gone on record to dispel these reports means nothing (I think)

Don't mind the substitute/interchange new rule Don't mind the new head-high interpretation I'm unsure about the player-decides play-on rule Does that mean the player with the ball yells out "play-on" and blows a whistle (take note property stewards)? Seriously though, surely only the ump can decide play-on. Players don't even know who the free is for. Will this result in more confusion and 50m penalties? I would have thought a better solution would have been to allow more discretion to the umpire to allow play-on esp in those decisions close to goal (e.g. the Jurrah play-on goal). Thoughts?

what about during 2011? Or did you mean to say ". . . . for 2011 . . . . after 2011"?