beelzebub

Please explain WHy you're paying them more ? It allows lattitude of the when ... Doesn't mean you have to pay more

Have to disagree with notion it necessarily inflates their price . It simply allows more lattitude as to how and when they are paid . This benefits the club. The players won't see any discernable dif as I u derstand sporting persons are allowed to portray their earnings over a different period for tax as opposed the man in street ( happy to be coorected there )

Firstly I'm unsure if this scenario... has occured before I.e player suspended from a final winning the season after ( and in which penalty to be served) Just becUse it surfaces now ought not detract from it's legitimacy. Should it ? Secondly the farcial attempted history revisions have no input to my view of Judds win. Iwould be questioning it whomever won if under this circumstance ... Even your Scully scenario. There is still no escaping the fact thT there are games that carry no Brownlow penalty and I'm sure thTs not really the spirit of the accolade.

Just a question if we say Melb might give the finals a seriou nudge in 2013 and as some suggest Bruce to get 2 years at best then could not an argument be made that what would have been his remuneration might be better used to shore up salary obligTions that ensure some talented kids remain inboard whilst also getting more games into those that WILL play off for a flag? All a case of priorities just a question

The bit you're missing Billy is in my opinion those rules are flawed.. Simple as that as all games incuuring a penalty of suspension don't all carry Brownlow inelligibilty. Argue what you like but that's the reality.

No change. AFL ... Done expand finals just because of more teams, it borders on farce with 7 and 8 but we can live with that. There's a logical and not too contrived path to the GF currently. Surely there has to be an understandable standard and reward for finishing in the 8 and more reward the higher. It ain't broke, requires no fixing.

I was commenting that Wjs post is a truer version of the events leading to Judds choice of Carlton . you're just a bit challenged obviously Dog+Bone> you give it a rest Billy .. Or are you working on vol 3

Given how much effort has gone into the reinforcing of our brand, our heritage our identity and place in this towns history I just couldn't see the club having us run out on the G in GF in anything but our Red and Blue ..... That song just doesn't talk about any other colours does it !!!

One might say Jones isn't in the Ball-park !!!!

Dunno...they had the Wood on us all year...... by a whole Point !!! Still bet Lyon ( R) could do worse than watch those replays.....and learn

jcb...do you see Bruce playing as part of a Melbourne GF team ?

Thanks WJ for re-establishing a truer perspective.

Nathan is ( for him ) I suppose in that category that is neither essential to the club nor so standout that he stamps his own passport. He is distinctly motr. That will mean hes movable. Handy to keep...but not a priority.

werent we shopping for a forward? Seems to have been the message from Prendergast etc Rich pickings for sure...but we arent going to be looking there.

Yes ..now feel very much part of an inclusive entity....not just a member sitting in the stands.. The club has come a long way. Now part of a family.

I must take the Dr Turf position here.... have to pick the Sainters... by a point...from a kick after the siren. A beautifully wondrous result !!!

They effectively already do. white on black...black on white.... visual semantics !!

Jonathan wouldnt be related to Russel by any chance ?? All just proactive spin...keeping things in check I suspect

you blind...others already noted them!!

Strange no one cares to justify Judd escaping elligibty exemption . Simply suggesting as it occurred in an 09 final makes it ok despite actuallly having a penalty. Does the inconsistency not matter... Are finals fair go ? I don't buy his ( CJ) sanctimonious justification of his heroic altruism for his once beloved club. He went to Carlton for his own benefit and have no problem with that ... Until he spins to suit. Each to their own

Fact ? Served suspension in 2010

Ah yes but had Saints finished higher they'd be in normal gurnseys , filth still in black and white and apparently no clash as deemed ok !! Idont necesarily see no reason for clash kit only some logicality needs to enter the array

His suspension if needed to be seved this year ought to carry with it inelligibty this year also . He escaped inelligibty last yeR as obviuosly after the 22. H & A games but he carries no similar penalty this year .. He effectively ( as would any similar ) dodges the bullet . Is that fAir to those who either incurred inelligibilty this year or those who simply keep nose clean ? Look forward to your answer

Billy please feel free to write another book regarding your Judd-crush . Excuse us who don't have your one sided view. Yes .. Pal. ... That's the whole point . His misdemeanor' timing let him slip through a crack. He ought to have incurred a similar inelligibity had it been a home and away match or do you agree with the situations hypocrisy ? I agree a very gifted and able player but he's not so squeaky. He's gotten away with much. He winning the Charlie is just a joke

Other: yep am also a loss to the filth from a kick after the siren !!! Seems poetic and fitting go Sainters !!! )