mauriesy

Six pages in response to a tired old Coodabeens cliche that's been around for two decades. Snore.

If/when a club nominates Viney, we have to use our next available pick to theirs (excluding compensation picks). If a club nominates Viney and they finished below us, our next available pick would be our first-round pick. If a club nominates Viney and they finished above us (and the teams below us haven't nominated him), our next available pick would be our second-round pick. If no club nominates Viney at all, only then can we use our last pick.

Yep, 74 idiots missed James Hird. Darling would have been a good pick. It's just a pity that the counterpoint is to prematurely dismiss Cook, who it might be added is 5cm taller, has only recently turned 20 and had a severe hip injury for much of 2011.

After all the hype dies down, that seems to be the reconciled opinion for every draft since 1986 (with the exception of 2003 which wasn't even good at the 'pointy end' when we had two of the first five picks).

That's disingenuous. Past pick 13s have also included Jack Reiwoldt. You can get a Lance Franklin with #5 and a Joel Selwood with #7.

Culture is diverse. It's not all about satisfying 20-year-olds with rock music. Some of us are more advanced in years you know. And trumpets have been used in a huge variety of musical genres. Satchmo, Dizzy Gillespie, James Morrison et al would be horrified to think their instrument was a symbol of "old-fashioned traditions derived from an upper-class private school culture".

I think there's a difficulty in trying to ascribe serious journalism to what was basically a fluff piece about a footballer, even if it was in the Age.

It's still a form of media that is publicly consumed ... by anyone. Get real!

Then we'll have to agree to disagree then. It's not the forum that's news, it's the views posted on it, even if they are anonymous or hidden behind user names. They're still valid and diverse views of Demon supporters, or are you denying that too? A major theme of Hanlon's Morton article was the divided opinion on Morton after five years, and Hanlon was quoting a valid source i.e. Demons supporters here. We can get insulated and forget there's a forumless world beyond. The fact that you identified the quoted post as #75 is neither here nor there if you are a reader of the Age who doesn't ever visit Demonland.

It's further down the article and there's no actual reference that it did in fact come from Demonland. To a reader of The Age, it could have come from any supporter anywhere. It's just an illustration of supporter's divided loyalties to Morton. I'm still not sure why quoting Demonland is bad journalism. Are we that disapproving of our own site? It's probably the best and most intelligent supporter site going.

So if I'm a journalist writing a piece on a player who is regarded in a very divided way by supporters, is it not legitimate to go to a 'quality' supporter site like Demonland to see what those divided opinions are? If not, where else should I go? He didn't quote any 'anonymous blowhards' as far as I can see. Here's the total text from the article that relates to Demonland: "Mark Neeld's spray on Morton'' became the hot-button topic on the Demonland online forum yesterday, after the coach delivered an immediate verbal assessment of the mistake as Morton passed him moments later, having come straight to the bench ... Yesterday, fans in roughly equal measure either backed the 22-year-old to come good, or made it clear that their patience had run out. I don't see how that's a great journalistic travesty.

So it's not reasonable for a paper to look at a supporter site to see what supporters are thinking?

At the moment I'd have Magner over Moloney.

Having the problem more clearly identified can lead to improvement and be better for him in the long run because he can manage it far better. It's not a death sentence for 'poor' Jack. Type 1 diabetes didn't stop Dale Weightman, and it didn't stop Joe Frazier, Steven Redgrave, Arthur Ashe, Wasim Akram and Billie Jean King.

All you critics need to get a life. They were kids from Scotch College. Don't blame them if the wide expanses of the MCG meant they couldn't be heard.

Oh well, it's one club on from when he was at his first club.

I'm just glad that this time the thread title's got a hyphen.

Nothing goes on forever. A run of losses just puts you closer to your next win.

Collingwood for Monday $1.08 Melbourne $8.00 I reckon they're about the same odds as Cloke staying as opposed to Cloke going.

To be fair though, beyond the base those payments were for a range of things, including ground buyout agreements, distribution of signage rights, prizemoney, travel subsidies and promotional funding to help clubs develop the game. You can't tell from the total why they got them. Collingwood didn't get any special distribution funds (we did, Carlton did) and their figure includes the $500,000 they got for winning the premiership (the players shared another $500,000).

Not to mention $cully for 6.

Cloke has just turned 25, 7 months older than Clark, to whom we gave 4 years.

If they can have 'stump cam', surely they can have 'post cam'? Not like it has to be HD Broadcast quality or anything.

Is the "every club can nominate one rookie after Round 11" rule additional to that? We could maybe nominate Sheahan.

They're up to that perennial favourite now ... the umpires!