Nasher

I've often wondered what kind of plonker updates a Wikipedia article with stuff that isn't true. It isn't funny and just wastes people's time. They're the wall taggers of the internet.

I trust you're not in the "don't trade Trengove, he's way too loyal" camp, CBF.

I would just like to say at this point that Jack has been demonstrably loyal to the club over the years.

Thanks all! Hard to believe I've been a member of Demonland for over a third of my life. This site means as much to me as it does all of you, that's why I continue to help, though the amount of time that has taken up lately has been negligible. It pales in comparison to the amount of time I've spent refreshing the Dangerfield thread LDvC - yup, four kids, they're 8, 6, 4 and 2 and have never seen the MFC be anything other than rubbish. My 4 year old is the only one I've successfully brainwashed to date.

I'm due.

I do believe it's Paul "I'll never coach again, I'm happy where I am" Roos. The dream isn't dead until it's dead. Until then I'll stay asleep, if it's all the same to you.

Another one getting his information off forums, then. Hi Jay.

2, 23 and Trengove is very similar to what Carlton paid for Judd (and Kennedy is a better player than Trengove). It's a high price, but that's the price. Do we want a star player in the red and blue or not?

Could do a lot better too. He's the same borderline player now as he was when he was here.

He used to play for us.

Somebody else (may have been your biggest fan jabberwocky) made the excellent point about McKenzie earlier. His act of signing on for a second year on the rookie list when offered a senior contract at Adelaide was probably the greatest act of loyalty I've seen, but nobody would say boo if he was on the table. Jack Watts also showed great loyalty in signing in the face of tough times at the MFC and good offers elsewhere. You're right in that the loyalty argument seems to only be selectively relevant, that's why I dismiss it.

Because a lack of information doesn't prohibit people from discussing it. How many threads do you see around here that are actually locked?

Ummm, doubtful.

Macca, nobody knows for sure whether he had the foot injury for two weeks or two years, neither Jack nor the club have ever really said. Your post is based entirely on the premise that it's been the foot all along and he'll be cured; whereas others such as Baghdad Bob are based on the premise that how he's looked for the last two years is how he just is. At the end of the day, nobody really knows so we all just default to the position that suits our argument the best.

It's always funny when people clearly haven't read the thread. At the very least, people, skim over the last page before posting. It really doesn't take long.

This thread is such a disappointment after the other ones we've got going at the moment.

Minor quibble, but I hate comments like this. For every person flying off the handle, there are three reasonable posts stating their case, on both sides. Notwithstanding the fact that it's okay to get emotional and upset if an idea strikes a nerve. It would be a pretty boring forum if everyone had the same reaction to news

I reckon we've gone too far down this path to turn back now. He'll be heavily tied up in all these trades we appear to have on the boil.

I don't think that is more likely. Trading players out for draft picks in return is not something Roos has ever done before, and he's point blank said he does not want to load up on young players. If that is what he is doing this time, then it is going against everything he's ever done or said. It doesn't add up for me unless it's part of something bigger.

This is like a great game of Chinese Whispers. At no stage did I interpret any of the articles linked to indicate that he was told he is going to be traded.

I just came back to read something in JJH's post and discovered it's 11 pages back, 276 posts ago. Jesus, you people post a lot.

The press (for what it's worth) seems to be indicating the Collingwood won't deal with Brisbane and their deal is dead in the water. Beams apparently said he doesn't want to go to GC - how badly does he really want to be in Queensland?

Can't see why Beams is Clark 2.0. Different person, different brain, different personal circumstances. I'm all for learning from the past, but the only thing to learn from that particular past is that Clark is a douche. The rest is irrelevant.

He's not going there "no matter what" - Collingwood have said the deal with Brisbane is dead in the water because the Lions won't make an offer that is satisfactory.

Mate, there's no connection between Beams and Clark. The circumstances in which the trades are conducted is similar, but that's it. There's nothing to suggest this will turn out the same way because they're not the same person - unless you know something about Beams that you're not sharing.