daisycutter

stinking bloody richmond! better than stinking bloody dangermouse, but

and more important CURRENT football knowledge no doubt other board members have some football background but a modern football department and players are so different from football in their time

certainly doesn't look like a way to cut costs

the sprint race might be the highlight of the day as long as not won by cats or tigers

revamped? looks more like devamped to me

only if smiling :)

maybe they could race the length of the transplanted mcg turf would add more context

you never heard of ethnicity, af?

and the winner of cliche-of-the-day goes to.......................㊗️

you should go to the other thread discussing your question but part of the answer is top clubs getting fa's without having to give up any players or picks at all

heart says go for it head says red flags everywhere last year i let heart win for hb, this years it's the head's turn to win

very impressive prose ethan......"gaining traction".......you could become the tony sheahan of wa

let me check with tony sheahan and i'll get back to you

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