daisycutter

or maybe he meant the holy roman empire?

not a bad effort since the time of the crusaders was centuries after the fall of rome

seems jobe disagrees with you

first 6 games - 3 at etihad - 3 at mcg - we need to conquer etihad to get off to a good start (and boost membership)

could mr leg be the riddler? he is certainly good at pulling our legs

do we need another thread?

where on earth did you get that idea from. I've seen plenty of posters who support asada/wada but are still prepared to criticise them when apt

It seems that hawthorn traded their original 2nd rounder and not the acquired gws 2nd rounder originally it was reported that they had on-traded their acquired gws 2nd rounder (and what i had thought) this puts a different complexion on the trade wrt the rule wording which badly needs a re-write

i presume mr leg is busy watching the bruce wiilis movie tonight about his previous life titled just "red"

well if you agree with the intent. then it's not such a big problem then....eh? ok.....lets add "original" then

i think you have to go to the intent of the rule, chris yes it could have been worded better. all they have to do is add two words e.g. "it may not trade any of their other future selection from that same draft."

as long as hawthorn still have their 2nd round pick for next year then (begrudgingly) this time i agree with the afl can't believe i'm defending hq - lol

loved that quote in the link " cavalier treatment of respected senior personnel is reportedly one reason why the Magpies' people and culture boss Belinda Leaver wanted to leave, feeling her role had been usurped." well what do you expect when you hire someone called leaver - lol

as long as he knows how to brew coffee he'll be alright

december which year, jack?

and the joke is that the gf he was hiding from was actually overseas at the time - lol

don't forget "someone" partially burnt down the pub shortly before the demolition (still being investigated but seemingly deliberate). definitely determined and certainly contemptuous reminds me of lindsay fox's view-obstructing trees at portsea. well worth the fine.

he's 29 in december, i would have thought he was easily in freo's best 22. would have thought freo would keep him for another year or two maybe his medical is not too encouraging?

they will probably wait till the turn of the century to make a decision and hope everyone will have forgotten

wish there was an unlike button note to self: don't engage with muppets in future

so you are not interested in discussing the seemingly rubbery figures quoted in the article? fair enough, your choice personally i retain my doubts. I suspect they have fudged it somewhere to come up with the nice rounded figure of 300k. no doubt part of the usual obfuscation of the afl to paint the figures better than they are as they negotiate with the aflpa for big increases due to the new tv rights bonanza they just got. Due to the afl's recent record i don't just take afl statements automatically at face-value. ymmv

ok, i'll keep my doubts on the 300k figure simple for you total salary payments for everyone = 200.2M lets just look at senior list players = 40 x 18 = 720 and not worry about rookie upgrades 200.2m / 720 = 278k average payment per senior list player (2015) now lets look at your original statement " Average AFL salary is 380k ", no qualifications. You then conceded that was wrong and the figure should be $330 basing that on a published article for 2015 figures claiming the average was $300k. Presumably you then added 10% guesstimate for 2016 to arrive at $330? the article says the 300k figure is derived from "that senior listed players and rookies nominated for senior elevation before round one earned an average wage of $302,104". now 720 x 302 = 217.446M. Maybe you can explain to a simpleton like me where the extra 17M+ comes from (and its actually more because the 200.2m total payments quoted is for all players, not just senior listed).

btw i didn't originally query the 300 figure, just your revised figure of 330 which somehow you thought 300 justified your 330

first you quoted 380 then 330 then gave a reference to 300! lets look at the reference, which doesn't seem too add up either it quotes a total salary paid by all clubs off $200.2M. This figure includes items above the cap, presumably is for all players on any list (e.g rookies, b-rookies), sydney's cola, gws and suns temporary excess allowances and older veterans discounts, etc) the number of players would be 44 x 18 = 792. Let's make it 800 to include b-rookies and gws, suns extra lists. now $200.2M / 800 = 250k average, so I still can't see where they came up with 300 without being selective of some figures somewhere.

330 is still too high to be a true average 44 x 330 = $14.52M leave out rookies 40 x 330 = $13.2M 2016 cap is $10.6M with a min of $10.07M (i.e. 95%) except for gws which is slightly higher