Nasher

I'm not blind but I do believe we genuinely clash with Essendon. If I'm staring closely I can tell them apart clearly, but if my eyes are darting about all over the place following the play or I'm relying on peripheral vision to see, for a split second they look the same. I can't be the only one with this problem. It would be worse for people new to the game who don't know what they're looking for. I don't think we clash with the other nominal clashes (Carlton, St Kilda, Adelaide etc) but given that I can see the clash with Essendon, I will take the AFL at their word that some do see a clash. Unfortunately it's impossible to see through others eyes. I thought the AFL were taking the piss last year though when they let us wear that jumper that was traditional at the front and red at the back. I wasn't complaining because I love our traditional jumper, but it definitely muddied the waters regarding eliminating clashes - can't see how wearing that jumper clashed any less than the traditional one. Either that jumper should have been deemed unacceptable, or there was no clash to start with. Both can't be simultaneously true.

Intentionally omitted, ala the first paragraph. I took it as a cue not to bother reading any further.

12? By this age we already had a Billy Stretch thread, and Jack Viney was already 2 years in to his first contract. Lift your game, MFC!

How many players have been seriously injured in the IR before? The mode of play means the contact aspect is nowhere near as heavy or frequent as in our game. It's the most spurious argument against the IR I reckon. Players are far more likely to get injured in pre-season training. I've no interest in the IR but I think for the players it's definitely something they should do when given the chance. It's not their sport of choice, but it's probably the only way they'll get to represent Australia on a sporting stage in their career. Congratulations and good luck to them.

Did you just open a post containing your opinion by first telling us all you have a very astute eye?

I'm not sure being the best of the worst is setting the bar high enough though Ralph.

Failure to establish at two clubs suggest to me it's an upside that is unattainable. Would rather we focused on new players than waste our time, resources and a space on the list on this type.

How funny though - we get told on here about how the players were spewing and we'd see the fallout - nekminnut Watts' best mate at the club extends forever, when the old contract still had a year to run. Lol! It's one of those things though that probably originates from a partial truth. Most likely some of the players were upset and disappointed but understood why it happened, but in the great game of Chinese Whispers, it became "the players are upset".

Love these kind of posts. "(Completely irrelevant detail). 'nuff said."

Macdonald.

You wait til he gets picked in the ones and kicks his first shank or drops a mark. The thickness of @Drunkn167's skin will really be put to the test!

Yes, the one year contract is a clear indicator that the FD think there's a chance he'll flop, for whatever reason (be it off field or on). Again though, my response would be 'who cares?' - he clearly has the talent for AFL footy and we cost ourselves nothing to get him.

Oh, I thought Max was disgruntled because the club traded Watts. Guess not.

The poll is still open! I vote Yes.

^

Even if he ends up another Michie etc - so what? We're just as likely, or more, to get that player with the pick we used in the draft. There is literally only upside in this trade.

Probably my favourite part was the Exorcist story (the "kiss" game). Exactly the kind of embellishment you want to hear in the footy half of the story, but in the car ride home, they weren't a freak forward and an elite CHB, they were just two sons in the car with their mother, going through the range of emotions a bittersweet moment like that can bring up. Brought a tear to my eye.

That was the best thing ever. Nothing at all like what I expected - articulate, intelligent, passionate. Awesome work guys.

I don't think it's official until he's been on the Demonland podcast.

Now you are just showing off. How the heck did you pull this off? So awesome.

I have a huge soft spot for Col personally, so I'm glad the club has found him a suitable role. His journey from kid in Tassie who nearly had to give up footy because he couldn't get a lift to training, to the handy, gutsy defender he was during the Bailey era, to almost the posterboy for the down trodden during the Neeld era - it's been quite the ride. At his best he was quick, desperate, always put his body on the line and could play on tall or small. All the best Col, hopefully this is the start of great things.

Not a rumour, but I'm intrigued by the West Coast - Gold Coast trade. West Coast essentially gave up their first rounder next year for a pile of second rounders this year. They obviously have a need to load up on 18 year olds this year. Would love to know what was said in their end of year "where our list is at and where it needs to go" conversation in order for that type of trade to come to fruition.

What, don't tell the truth?

I'm neither angry, nor happy. I make no judgement on the price paid. I don't assume to know more than the club about the worth of player, nor do I assume they are infallible oracles who don't/won't make mistakes. I'm just sad he had to go.

I think if I were at the ass end of the ladder, I'd probably actually prefer to end up with (say) 4, 5 and 6 (per 55's example) than just no. 1. It allows for spreading the risk out a lot further, putting your eggs in different baskets as it were. Even in the professional era, there's a huge risk that the first player taken in the draft becoming good but not star quality. Interesting concept.