Blistering

Yes. Probably the most pleasing thing about this week compared to last is that we really didn't slack off. Probably part of the reason was that Carlton didn't have the same intensity.

This. It never ceases to amaze me how often people bring up the tired old story about Mark Neeld destroying Gysberts' career. Gysberts' problem from early on being that he lacked a tank and that was when Dean Bailey was coach. Anyone who watched Gysberts lagging behind the field at pre season training would know what he needed to do to get to AFL standard. Unfortunately, we live in an age where people look to blame others for their failures - rarely do they look in the mirror to find the true answers.

Hanlon wrote the article - the other ruckman you're thinking of is Nyuon.

Don't worry. Nobody noticed.

After seeing what Rory Lobb could do at GWS, I would like to see someone of his ilk in the side as a back up ruck/forward. Could he fit the bill?

Club house leader until Round 22.

If you've been around football clubs you would realise that players do have an interest in the jumper numbers they wear (not all though). I think Christian Salem might consider that a new jumper might bring him some luck given the injuries/illness he's had over the past two years. Why not switch him to 6 and given Jordan Lewis 3?

Two different kettles of fish BBB. I was discussing being shafted over the issue of draft assistance but now that you bring it up it should be stated that despite its largesse in the installation of PJ and supposedly giving us the money to pay Roosy (something that's never been established or shown on the books), a number of other clubs including the Brisbane Lions, the Western Bulldogs and North Melbourne (not to mention the two new love child franchises) receive more money than we do. Moreover, the AFL might have installed PJ but he happened to be the man who applied twice for special assistance for the club that was twice denied by the AFL. We were shafted.

Jack Steele who has been burning it up in the NEAFL for the GWS Giants has asked for a trade to St Kilda.

You might have convinced me of the deviousness of the AFL but you haven't made out a case that we weren't stiffed. While the AFL has never outlined the precise criteria for "special assistance" it has been clear that remuneration was not the only criteria. Even if you accept the figures being bandied about, you also have to take into account other circumstances including age, player's past achievements, injury history etc. Frawley had just turned 26 when taken by the Hawks, Mayne is 2 years older and Wells 5 years older. Moreover, the whole world accepted that Melbourne was entitled to Band 1 compensation at the time. We therefore received proper compensation under the rules at the time for Frawley. We received no special assistance from the AFL when we had a worse record than Brisbane. There's no doubt in my mind, we were stiffed by the AFL.

There have been a few this year blitzing it out at Casey but I'm not sure all that many of them will be back for us in 2017.

Well at least Selwood's out. The bad news is that it's the wrong Selwood - Scott.

Best and most concise description of that game that I've read.

I made a number of statements and you didn't specify as to which you requested the source. The subject has been covered in detail over the years and, given the volume of the material, I'm not really prepared to go back to locate every piece of information that's been broadcast (any more than I think you would be prepared to do with respect to the things you claimed). However ... (i) the story about Scully's connections negotiating with GWS as early as in October, 2010 (at the end of his debut season) was reported in the media a couple of months after the defection was announced and, as far as I'm aware, was not commented upon and therefore not disputed by the Scully camp, GWS or the AFL. The timing of the above agreement coincides roughly with Scully's ill-fated China trip which was the subject of a substantial amount of untrue scuttlebutt. (ii) my uncle is a builder who used the services of Scully's father's roof tiling business for about 10 years until Scully Senior sold out his share in the company in 2011 (several months before Tom announced he was leaving). Phil Scully told my uncle at the time Tom left the China trip why he had done so. The reason was personal and related to a serious family illness and had absolutely nothing to do with the scuttlebutt mentioned above and which were spread about a long time after the event. Yes, so lies were told and I wonder why?

Just for the record, the items highlighted were all part of the lie. The offer of huge money was made to Scully's connections a year before he left the club and there were lots of stories bandied about to justify his leaving by various people with various agendas. The start and end of the matter was that he was made an offer in October 2010 which he couldn't refuse which had the full backing of the AFL which was eager to get a marquee player for its fledgling club. The AFL made it impossible for Melbourne to match that offer. Scully and his connections could have handled the Melbourne end of things a lot better but we as a club cannot be blamed for not matching the ridiculous sum that he was offered - we could never have done so and to his credit Jimmy handled the situation perfectly.

Not exactly a rat but there might be an element of the application of discipline because he didn't follow the rules during his recovery. If so, I don't have a problem with that.

I was doing a fun run across the West Gate bridge when the news came filtering through. I don't know whether it's a coincidence or what but the race ended at Goschs Paddock.

More popular than reruns of M*A*S*H, the rugby, Fox and Friends, old movies, the History Channel and Judge Judy. I would never have guessed.

I think the other clubs who have players suspended should have the right to nominate an additional rookie from the remainder of the draft pool. I would not be averse to us then picking Jake Lovett - he must not have been that far away anyway.

Happy to show generosity to EFC after their 34 get found out and proven guilty of cheating but what about action against the Bombers for their role in this? We were always led to believe that the previous sanctions were related to governance and that of players were found guilty there would be further ramifications. What happened?

I think history might one day prove you to be wrong.

What's that they say about statistics and damn lies?

It occurs to me that the fact this conversation is taking place suggests that Bailey was in strife before his gig even started.

So you are absolutely certain that no potential candidate for a coaching role at the time was put off from applying for the job by the club's poor financial position or lack of facilities?