daisycutter

wasn't aware we had any female assistant coaches................

the afl had no staff in june 2009???

really? whatever gave you that odd idea?

he would have to take his chances in the nd or dfa. but, yes it is possible

12,900 last year at etihad box hill hawks vs williamstown

and just to clarify it is the clothing coy (not the other coy)

Before any trading of picks gcs and gws have 11 picks in the first 2 rounds (6 gcs, 5 gws). This will probably increase by draft time esp for gcs (o'meara, prestia). Freo have picks 3, -, 39, 57 (and have to pay hawks for hill) WC have picks 11, 29, 47, 65 Melb have picks -, 27, 45, 63 (with 27 locked in for hibbert?) Haw have picks 18, 36, 54, 72 (plus what they get for hill) Pretty hard to see a lot of the talked of trades happening without a lot of other good player trades + future picks

yes, will be on fta

they are just like real estate agents or financial advisors. working for both sides. perpetually conflicted the more they complicate things the more they justify their existence

only time will tell. but he hasn't had a good preseason for 3 years, so expect some improvement at least

i think the thread is getting ot and not spefically about milkshake. much of what is being discussed should be in the other essendrug thread

why give essendrug an upgraded 2nd rounder?

or next year or the year after. they must use 2 first round picks by 2018

maybe technically correct, but that would turn next year into a huge circus and a major distraction, neither of which would be desirable

the view that tb4 had no benefit (debatable) on essendon players' performance, and the other view that tb4 should not be a banned substance (also debatable) are complete red herring arguments and have no impact on guilt or otherwise.. the fact is that tb4 was a known wada banned ped at the time essendon injected it to their players in a secretive and undeclared (to wada) fashion, and that the essendon players were contractually obliged to follow the wada drug protocol under threat of banning conditions. it is as simple as that. the rest is obfuscation. the proportionality of guilt between the club officials and the players is an interesting discussion but does not reduce any guilt to zero. the players were ultimately treated leniently in wada punishment terms to effectively 1 playing season. it is also worth noting they rejected the much earlier reported opportunity that would have meant only missing 4 matches. i'm sure cronulla players now feel vindicated they took the deal offered initially for cooperation. added: oh, and incidentally this type of discussion should really be in the other thread

yes we could just consider it on-going royalty fees.....and cheap at that

well we hit 100 pages at last

lol - if i was seeking the truth then social media would be the last place i would look of course truth depends on whether it's your truth, his truth or the real truth just joshing, gnf

i think they are out of the cap

rules were different back then. i seem to remember that last year's premier had the right to challenge this year's premier to a grand final-final. maybe, without researching this one specifically it was under this rule?

quite

do we know if the insurer is footing 100% of the money? i'd suggest not as this is not a court case but a settlement arrangement to avoid a court case. as such i'd expect the settlements to be confidential. it is possible that the insurers will not cover 100% of all settlements (for various reasons) the afl have made a statement a few months ago stating they will be overseeing the settlements to ensure there is no flow-on effect to the salary cap or any other afl regulated spending. so the afl at least sees there is some scope for circumventing. i also presume that the afl has ensured it will have access to any settlement details in order to audit it. beyond all that we are just guessing

i saw it on tv. didn't think the tackler did anything illegal, salem's head hit the turf and he didn't move from that point on. i thought it was just more accidental. it was a forceful tackle but no sling involved and not a push in the back type tackle, both salem and tackler moving forward in same direction. a second tackler came in but more tackled the first tackler than salem. certainly didn't connect with salem's head. looked to me like an unlucky accident. anyway that's how it seemed to me. i haven't watched a replay other than what they showed at the time

i don't think i'd enjoy imagining purple "flogging his point". i'll leave that sort of imagination up to uncle bitters

norm, you do realise that for freo to do that they would have to trade in a 1st round pick from another club in 2016,2017 or 2018 in order to satisfy the afl's 2 first round drafts in 4 years rule. it's doable but very risky (and costly)