whatwhat say what

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

parker yes

they extended his deal by several years at the start of this year, but not more than three further seasons

i think 3 then a followed by ii

no, worse - by the final year of his remaining contract, ALL of whatever he was owed will contribute to our total salary cap payment i hope we hadn't back-ended his deal...

the first year after forced retirement 90% of his salary is covered in the cap and each year after the amount covered is reduced - so by the time brayshaw's contract with us finishes 100% of whatever he was owed will be part of our salary cap total we just got ROGERED

got fined for drunk driving in the months leading into the draft, from memory

so now that the cover for salary cap for forced medical retirements due to concussion have been announced at least we know the salary cap parameters we'll be working with... according to the sun... 1st year of contract post concussion forced medical retirement: up to 90% covered 2nd year of contract post concussion forced medical retirement: up to 75% covered 3rd year of contract post concussion forced medical retirement: up to 50% covered 4th year of contract and beyond post concussion forced medical retirement: no cover gus had four years to run

according to the sun... 1st year of contract post concussion forced medical retirement: up to 90% covered 2nd year of contract post concussion forced medical retirement: up to 75% covered 3rd year of contract post concussion forced medical retirement: up to 50% covered 4th year of contract and beyond post concussion forced medical retirement: no cover gus had four years to run

@Fritta and Turner's barber is more reliable

you wouldn't want to give up much for ash johnson and quite frankly i wouldn't expect to get much from him he doesn't do any of the non-negotiables that are required

he had a crack last week on afl's pravda.com.au last week

great post the only caveat i would is that if we continue to allow teams to 'walk' goals in to within 20m as we did in the flagmantle and filth combo, they more than likely will maintain that accuracy

in truth, what's really cost us is dog leaving at the end of 2022 - the knock on effect for the way we play was enormous we had adapted a game plan built around gawn + jackson and dogga's defection was a clear factor in trying 'grawndy' when there was opportunity to get grundy on the cheap, we took it - it was a risk worth taking, and it clearly didn't come off

well there we go, if razor - who i consider a very good decision maker - considers it a block, then it's a block now i wait for it to be paid... and i wait...and wait...and...

fify this is my take on it too - when you have a superstar like gawn, you don't waste his capabilities playing him as a forward it would mean the role he was playing was more akin to mason than dean