daisycutter

when you run out of strawmen bring up the tu quoque arguments. the next one will be to invoke godwin's law.

yeah, they were only half pregnant.....lol

as opposed to a "damaged" individual

not exact, but it was reported suspended till november, but can rejoin training in september

it's not worth arguing it c&b at the agm the question was asked about milkshake and the answer was "at worst case we expect it would only be a few games" (paraphrasing) end of discussion. we miscalculated and got burnt.

i'd be more than surprised, i'd be gobsmacked. no chance at all

no no no not sure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

fmd. do us all a favour and read prodee's post again. is english a second language for you?

thanks. i try.

yep

bs. they thought worst-case would be a handful of games which would be tolerable, because they drank the koolaid being passed around by the usual suspects

seems all those posters who said that the afl must have given sureties, support, guarantees or other forms of insurance, compensation to clubs who might trade for essendon players, got it completely wrong. it was all caveat emptor and we jumped in

total no-no

they should get it of course, regardless of whether they may claim to be "embarrassed" or "don't want it" fact is they deserved it. watson was found guilty of using peds that year regardless of whether he intended to or not he still got the unfair advantage should be a lay-down misere. i can't understand the delay

i believe he is well endowed, bitters.......................................with money

don't misrepresent me nasher. i always thought he was guilty and i always thought there was a good chance (not guaranteed) that cas would find so. Given that i also thought the price paid (pick number plus salary quoted) and the risk of suspension hanging over him (plus my doubts on his playing ability) made the decision too risky, given our change in list management and our need to make each post a winner in trade/draft period. As it has turned out i think today's decision by cas has only reinforced my initial thoughts during trade/draft period it's just my opinion and i don't take any gratification over the way it has turned out. as to what may happen in the future i'm not that interested at the moment in speculative guesswork and self rationalisation

seems the bombers will be paying their players during the suspension so what is the case with milkshake? i presume he too will now be payed, but by who? if by us then that is $400k straight down the drain. or if you want to average it out he will effectively cost $533k pa for 3 years. he'd better be better than good

no if you can be bothered trawling through the trade period threads you will see i was one of the first posters to suggest this trade was too risky. ask yourself this. if you could make the choice now in retrospect would you still make the trade? if your answer is no, then the trade was a mistake. whether we can now salvage something out of this is an entirely different proposition (and is also something very subjective)

nasher, it's is very easy to rationalise almost anything (go on bomberblitz) and easy to find a siver-lining in every dark cloud. we now have to live with the mistake and i hope we can salvage some good out of it but none of that should distract from the fact that the decision to trade for milkshake with a low 2nd rounder and a good salary, was, in the conditions of a pending wada appeal, a bad decision. a snafu

that would be quite an expensive exercise, nasher - 3 x $400k potentially, down the drain

sorry nasher, didn't pass the sniff test. never did. throwback to the bad old days of list management

and coming from someone renowned for his rigid black and white moral preaching

we are able to upgrade 2 rookies now the rookie rules for 2016 allowed all clubs to nominate 1 rookie upgrade at the start of the season

i'm sure it would all be in the best brotherhood tradition, ernest