whatwhat say what

welcome aboard @MaccaR, great post

so one best 23 player for another? sounds like a line ball call...

this 'replaced them with nothing' is a fallacy grundy - cost us a 2nd rounder BUT we received two 2nd rounders for him; most importantly all $$s off our books jj - free agent who walked out on us, received end of second round compensation (about what he'd have been worth in a trade imo) harmes - we got a 2024 third round pick for him, but billings (who cost us a 2024 3rd round pick) effectively replaced him as a fringe best 25 player dog - jefferson + winsdsor + jed adams (effectively)

that's melbourne at the docklands carpark numbers!

have you watched them lately? pretty brutally physical at the top level! i see nothing wrong with moore's spoil fwiw

sounds like picks under 40 are going to have no value ascribed to them

thanks follow up to that response would be along the lines of why such a a wholesale change instead of tinkering with it because, as you say, it isn't working; how is it going to improve, as i don't think you can go back to the well with the changes that have been made to the side's make-up imo losing dog into losing gus in consecutive years was a hammer blow on the side and agreed, hunter has had a shocking 2024 but was better than jj or sparrow in first two seasons with us because he played a role that actually benefited our side

i think it'll be brought in for 2025 - carlton will make enough noise for it to be rolled out next season, not this which of course means that we will be the first club 'penalised' with kalani white coming through

except your 'my way or the highway' is the antithesis of 'team first' yr posts are baffling, and that's me being polite

six surely ol mate tgr would hold the record?

the board's role is not managing the day to day of the football department when boards do that it's generally disastrous

yep if i was a board member wanting to question the football dept - and really i wouldn't want to be, as 'football' would not be my area of expertise - then the questions would be going to richardson as the head of football game plan; why has the coaching staff changed from something that was working - three top four finishes in a row - to something that now clearly isn't medical staff; why the apparent lack of ability to run games out after years of being one of the fittest teams in the competition recruiting staff; have we brought the right players in to execute the game plan as required by the coaching staff?

it's never one simple factor; there's a variety of reasons at play

that sounds like the sort of leadership style espoused by mark neeld

yeah that could be right but who knows - the wording of the press release is...vague

tipping: baggers? bears? bloods? them? peptides flagmantle? i think north might be too quick and too skilled for us best for us: neither (draw?) neither (draw?) bloods us meth coke neither (draw?)

too busy jumping at shadows

pretty sure the 'character' of a draftee was something that was important at the time - curnow was originally slated to come to us at pick 4 and then slid and slid ironically we went for oliver who was exemplary in his professionalism...until he wasn't

bluster and blarney achieves nothing every club is is the same boat with this ruling; you get what you get and you don't get upset! well, actually, you do get upset, but you seethe inwardly - or on message boards like demonland! - because making public statements criticising head office achieves sweet fanny adams and is more likely to get your club put in the naughty corner, aka sundays at 4.40pm vs interstate sides

the noise of affirmation is real just ask the pear, the crom, flagmantle, and meth coke

as if they have any say on this the afl is making it up as they go along to try and minimise future litigation as usual the clubs wouldn't be consulted what do people actually expect roffey or pert to do? throw the toys out of the cot screaming 'it's not fair?!??' until they've tired themselves out?

langdon came in after may, i think? we got grundy, and it failed, and as everyone knows, we threw everything at cerra...except for dog jackson our trade focus since the lever and may acquisitions has been getting up the order in the draft, which has worked out well - pickett, tholstrup, etc. since hibberd, melksham, lever, may, langdon where we have added experienced players coming in it seems to have been about adding depth to the list (with the exception of grundy, who was expected - and failed - to be a part of our best 23) how successful adding the likes of hunter, billings, and mcadam has been is up for debate; it hasn't worked out well as, with the exception of hunter, they've not offered much and aren't part of our best current side due to form and / or injury

he is clearly looking for a big, big pay packet back for a team based in the city of melbourne peptides should be throwing significant coin at him; they need a small forward

this bit: In the year immediately following the year of the retirement (Year 1) will be interesting to understand whether or not that's 2024 for gus, or 2025 for gus - the wording is so opaque that it's completely unclear from my reading of it, if we were able to put all of gus' salary for the length of his contract, the MOST we could absorb in one year is 90% so, for instance, if the remaining four years of deal was worth $2.8m (an average of $700k per annum) the most we could absorb in the arbitrary year 1 (2024? 2025?) would be $2.52m now, of course, that's completely unrealistic in short, yr incentivised to absorb as much as possible of it in year 1 post the forced retirement but...to be honest, you'd need a financial lawyer to poke the holes in this - it's clear as mud for joe public all i can say is STUFF THE AFL imo that the ENTIRE contract isn't voided from salary cap considerations is a complete farce they've retired him ffs - perhaps he wanted to play on, risk or no risk? this bit is so mealy-mouthed and filled with legalise: The Guidelines do not provide a guarantee of TPP relief being provided with regards to any specific concussion-related retirement event. The provision of TPP relief is at the complete discretion of the Concussion TPP Committee with consideration given to the terms of the relevant contract and the circumstances of each eligible retirement, and subject to the maximum thresholds approved. is as confusing as all get out so...the 90% etc. is dependent on the concussion tpp committee? and who sits on that? and when do they make judgement? clear as MUD