daisycutter

sure, getting receiving club to pay the equivalent compo pick is better than now.....i just think in most cases (top players) it would still be too cheap definitely match bids as a strategy.......but not always possible daniher situation last year was not a fa situation. but in his case you are right that they won't get as good an offer this year

definitely 75% done deal

that (matching) won't be true for all restricted free agents who are big fish where the club currently with the player cannot match the offer....e.g. buddy. so this leaves the receiving club who may get a top player paying no player or pick penalty at all, and the afl offering a compo pick which is really paid by all the clubs dropping down the draft list the receiving club is not paying any price (players/picks) and in most cases the relinquishing club is being short changed with a compo pick. Furthermore if the receiving club is a top club equalisation just gets further skewed in favor of top clubs.

just picking the frawley case is cherry picking. it is the exception and i did say the club doing the pillaging should have to pay the realistic trade value....e.g. in jezza's situation 2 first round picks as was the case for kelly and dangermouse.

but the current compensation pick is set deliberately below the realistic trade value. the realistic trade value in points value is what should be paid by receiving club. even the afl has said it is not meant to be a full compensation. secondly the current compensation pick is not necessarily even a specific pick because it can depend on the ladder position of the giving club (e.g. next pick after current first pick etc). no, it has to be based on a real value as in tradeable value. how this is determined is not so easy.......and by who? the current non publicised herbs and spices is too open to manipulation. a tradeable value would have to pass the pub test.

with a bit of luck dangermouse will do a hammy at training this week then i won't care too much who wins

well that sounds reasonable but it is only one side of the coin personally i'm in favour of a bit of introspection.....but it all depends how independent and inclusive it is

too true ethan......btw did you think petracca has stacked on the weight?

bears definitely got stage fright they had no idea, no system, no teamwork and continuously made bad decisions

port might have done better if they played the match in dry brissy home ground turned into a disadvantage?

[censored] game as far the football went suppose richmond deserved win with 60% more scoring shots

yes, very high. not the best of odds even though an improvement

lot of snowflakes on this thread......jumping at shadows htfu fellas......covid19 got to too many of you?

roos would need to sign on for 3 years to make any tangible difference i can't see him committing to that he could come in on a 1 year special consultancy though, not as the coach

i think either game could go either way however i'll tip port and bears probably a subconscious choice based on want

75% chance

like removing most of the rule changes made in the last 20 years would be a good start

not lost mazer, i believe the plot is on a truck as we speak somewhere between the mcg and the gabba a small 3m x 1m of turf in a huge refrigerated truck big enough to carry 100 times that amount of turf! very monty pythonesque will be funny when it detaches and rolls up during the game

the only thing we THINK we know about clarrie is he is a bit unsatisfied with 2020 well whoopee doo, he should feel dis-satisfied with 2020 and that in itself should be a good incentive to improve things next year. so, what's to be dis-satisfied in 2020 his own form was down a little rather than improving as expected (that's on him) team performance was very inconsistent and team just missed finals the whole covid, hub, travel, uncertainty thing was very much a major disruption so, who wouldn't be a bit miffed with 2020, hardly a year to celebrate on many grounds. doesn't necessarily mean he blames others or the club or has a big fallout with anyone. Hopefully it just acts as motivation o be part of a better mfc next year so, if all this bs is just based on clarrie being a bit miffed about 2020 then it's not much to go on. I would expect nearly all afl players this year would have much to complain about re 2020....a very unusual year!

it's not just the journos, clint player managers have a lot to answer for, planting fake suggestions to journos and other clubs to raise a player's profile. sometimes for this year or setting the ground for next year in clarrie's case i think it is just a ruse to raise his contract extension value with mfc next year (probably early next year}

good luck for the future, dunny brush but ffs get rid of that god-awful mullet

i'd say any combination of the last 4 would be even money to make the grand final very hard to pick hard to gauge the effect of the week off with short quarters. thinking it might be easier for bears/port to maintain full intensity for whole game

wasn't gus the one who ran 100x100m for fun over xmas in his early days? seems he was pretty self motivated on fitness/endurance back then. so what changed?

some sauces would be nice

if that were the case you could safely bet they would have found a reason to not fine him