daisycutter

i want, and expect, a damn good thrashing. dees by 59 points

and lacked the most important ingredient - a soundtrack

saw this thread and thought it was another boj sponsor thread and got aroused oh well........

and don't forget the bald headed player is "player number two"

39,915 you can just smell 40,000 by sunday

good to see they use google translate, uncle. far better than the original hindi

depends what you call high. we payed 400k for melksham who definitely wasn't a star, so paying $500 or a little more wouldn't be high. now, if you then factor in the new incoming pay deal for all players and consequent increased salary cap, 600k may not be a "high" price. 750k i think would be too high but i can't see reid getting offered that elsewhere, but i could be wrong

thank you wrecker, good job,and i'm sorry you spent a whole hour searching. i have pasted below the relevant sections. The section in green seems to support your claim, however (at least to me) the wording in its entirety (including the wording for final list on friday) is a bit ambiguous and poorly written (what's new for afl). Additionally it seems out of date as it includes reference to substitute players. Finally the Sanctions section makes no reference to a fine for omitting a player from the thursday 18 "player position list" on friday (as long as the replacement is part of the thursday named 25 players full list. If I was a coach i reckon i could drive a truck through those loosely worded "regulations" if i wanted to play funny buggers with the opposition P.S. i've never doubted that standard practice has been (in last few years) to cull the thursday list on friday from the original named 7 "emergencies" (aka "extended bench")

may not be as high as you think. he wouldn't be on much coin at swans and his injury record/games played keeps a lid on it

yes but lever fills a different need.

seriously doubt we have those type of contract clauses any more. moreso after a player suffers a self imposed long suspension

show me the afl rule that a non-extended bench player can't be omitted for someone else on the extended bench

it's not a hanging offence, steve

stoppit biffo, you'll start me mincing my words again

not true, there are precedents and it is not to my knowledge a mandatory afl rule. anyway, i agree it is most unlikely, though there are plenty of coaches who would like to play games. will be interested to see casey team and whether any non-extended bench players are named. if not listed for vfl team then can't play, so if someone were dropped they could only be an emergency or rested..

one wonders if they can even steer anyone to a meating

possibly, but any omissions don't necessarily have to come from the extended bench. he could still be dropped but probably unlikely now

how do i find out when my annual membership expires? and why can't i just extend it for a year even if not expired?

don't think it will affect the reporting and commentary on demonland, bub

really, i keep linking ethan to 'metho man' in my mind. there again my mind is a bit unusual

give it a rest steve. we know your pov re tyson. restating it continually does not make it stronger. we don't want you turning into another pro dee, do we

reckon sam reid, if on the market, would get 500-550k. little bit harder now to estimate with the new player/cap deal

crows offer already on the table exceeded that of geelong. i'd call that "matching the offer" sure, adelaide and geelong didn't bother going through the afl formalities, they just got together and worked out the trades, but the fact that adelaide did easily match geelong's offer was the trump card to force geelong to the negotiating/trading table. and whatever, danger was worth it anyway

wouldn't give vickery a second thought

will make 40k this weekend win or lose of course winning will help us get past 42k