mauriesy

Not many high-rises in Echuca though. "In his role of Managing Director CBRE Residential, Andrew is currently managing a number of Melbourne's highest profile off the plan residential projects with a number of large listed domestic developer clients as well as some of Asia's largest residential developers from Singapore, Malaysia and mainland China. Andrew's specialty is his ability to project market a diverse range of residential projects from 40 apartments in Brunswick, 150 in Prahran, 300 in Richmond to 555 in the CBD and 1105 in Southbank - the tallest residential development ever undertaken in Melbourne and the Southern Hemisphere. His clients include: World Class Land, Ho Bee Land, Lend Lease, SP Setia, Hengyi, Hiap Hoe, and many leading private developers."

It's an open market. The fact that we let him go for pick 31 indicates what the competition for him was.

Agree, trusting the club to make the right decision about Watts, even if you don't like it, or love Jack, is better than the alternative of division, hate and anger. Otherwise we're back where we were a decade or two ago.

Time to draw the discussion back from "Jack haters" vs "fanboys". It's leading nowhere.

If I haven't looked at this thread for 24 hours, I just go to the last page and find I haven't missed anything!

In relation to the thread title, how can you tell until well into 2018?

Long-term it's better to do a deal. It's possible we may want something Adelaide has in the future and we don't want to make d*cks of ourselves. It's not swap cards or some gambling game at the casino. We get a proven 21-year-old defender with a 10-year career projection for a couple of draft picks that may be hit and miss. And the better we get next year, the less valuable next year's first rounder becomes. And as soon as Watts was mentioned anywhere as a trade, even within the confines of the trading period, other clubs would know we didn't really want him.

I think talk of "superdrafts" is rubbish, but if it were a "superdraft", surely you'd get good talent well into second-round picks. Otherwise it's not a "superdraft".

Plus I don't know what school teachers have got to do with it

Indeed. But some here will make sure we know about it forever.

So on the one hand Goodwin is a some sort of autocrat who is "making it plain to the rest of the list" what won't be tolerated, and on the other hand it's "so many managers" who are complicating the process with codes of conduct and corporate blueprints? How do we know it's not the "rest of the list" that has decided Watts doesn't put in enough and will not help them get to a flag? Leading Teams and the ethos it tries to deliver is all about players taking control, not being treated like schoolboys.

The length of a goal post would do.

How many teams now have a big-bodied gorilla? Richmond don't, they have Jack Reiwoldt and a whole squad of smalls. They didn't need a lurching gorilla minder to keep Taylor Walker or Josh Jenkins quiet. Sydney don't, they rely on a very mobile Lance Franklin roaming far and wide. The days of needing someone to push and shove with Tony Lockett in the goal square are long gone. Mobility, spoiling and pressure are far more important than a wrestler.

The traditional saying was a "10-foot barge pole" (corresponding to 3 metres). It's still long enough not to touch him.

When you constantly think with an organ a metre below your brain, it doesn't matter what club you play for. Wouldn't touch him with a 3-metre pole.

Robert Walls in the Age: Lever 5: Unable to breakaway from Jacob Townsend who hit him hard to cause fumbles. Talia 2: Looked slow, gave no attack, just three disposals, probably his worst game of the season. Brown 4: Good on Rioli early on but confidence shattered when outmarked by Dustin Martin in the second term. Kelly 5: Solid in defence but no flow in second half as all Crow defenders lost their nerve to attack. Laird 6: Great start but faded as game wore on. Hartigan 4: Solid but no attack, lost the dare to move the ball on quickly as game progressed.

Corey should go into professional fundraising. He's good at that.

I want Tony Abbott to keep opening his mouth until the very end of the postal survey.

Yep, wouldn't want those gays to become active in support of their rights, would we? As long as they're nice, compliant citizens we can tolerate them ... sort of.

Ireland had a referendum, but they had to as it required constitutional change. The result was 62-38%. (They also voted on another referendum question at the same time where they rejected reducing the age of eligibility for President.) Other countries have changed their law by a parliamentary vote without any public referendum, plebiscite or survey. We're the only stupid ones in the world.

Trouble with your argument on "religious rites", is that 1. marriage is a Commonwealth law and has no necessary link to religion, and 2. people are voting with their feet. Last year the majority of marriages in Australia were performed outside religious environments. For example, in 2016 in WA there were 15,500 marriages, and 79% were performed by celebrants, not ministers. I got married, under a tree, by a celebrant, in 1977. I'm tired of religions claiming ownership of marriage.

The definition of "abnormal" is "deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying". Obviously in your quest for meaningless simplicity, you just prefer to ignore the last bit. You can't say any genetic variation is "abnormal" just because there's a small number of them. Some are just that ... variations. Like left-handedness or blue eyes.

I claim the right to stone to death those people who wear cotton-polyester shirts. Or to take into slavery the first New Zealander I can find. On a personal level, I have very close friends in four different same-sex relationships (2 x FF, 2 x MM) and the descriptions here of "abnormality" and an "abomination" are to me deeply hurtful. It's straight from the 18th century, or before. And if you are going to (disgracefully) define homosexuality as "abnormal", then do the same for left-handedness, blue eyes, dimples and red hair and see how ridiculous it sounds. All my friends are over 50 and have been in continual relationships with their partners for well over 20 years. They want to marry to confirm their relationships to their family and friends, and gain the legal rights that every MF marriage has. I thought society would want to promote love and enduring relationships. Their position also has nothing to do with children, procreation or safe school programs (or any other concocted diversion from the main issue). They (and I) again find those absurd connections with their desire to get marriage deeply offensive. And if marriage has "consequences" and is solely about procreation and bringing up "good" kids, 1. why on the one hand do we allow childless couples to remain married, and 2. on the other hand why don't we allow same-sex couples who already have children (it's not iilegal for them to have kids and plenty do) to cement their relationship through marriage for the benefit of their kids?

Beats tilting at windmills and boxing at shadows.

Abbott just needs to keep talking. Like Roger Corbett, he's the best advert for the "Yes" case going